Eurocentrism to the Max!!! What we gonna do?

[Nixalo]

I don't understand how you could call those European civs "generic". Unique production district of Germany makes their gameplay truly unique if you think about it. England is the only civ so fat with heavy naval focus, France is the only civ with espionage focus, Spain's Conquistadors are one of the most interesting UU, etc.

The European civs feel like vanilla cis with a tweak.

England is generic civ with a naval bonus.
Fance is generic civ with a spy bonus.
Spain is generic civ with a religion bonus.
German is generic civ with a city state attack bonus.

The worth part is they all get most of their stuff Medieval or Renaissance or later. So for the early game, they are all virtually identical.

I hope Rome and Norway aren't just generic civs with infantry bonus.

 

[GermanSettler]

My fears are coming true

The European Cis are generic vanillaish civs (England, France, German, Spain)

All the "interesting" civs are outside of Europe: China's worker, Pedro's rainforest bonus, Scythia's double cavalry, India's and Kongos' religion copying.

It feels a bit random how you label the European bonusses "generic" and these others "interesting".

 

[stealth_nsk]

The European civs feel like vanilla cis with a tweak.

England is generic civ with a naval bonus.
Fance is generic civ with a spy bonus.
Spain is generic civ with a religion bonus.
German is generic civ with a city state attack bonus.

The worth part is they all get most of their stuff Medieval or Renaissance or later. So for the early game, they are all virtually identical.

I hope Rome and Norway aren't just generic civs with infantry bonus.

First of all - look at district cost thread. There's huge strategic impact of unique districts. So, both England and Germany will have very specific strategies. For Germany it's also affected with the fact what industrial district (and thus Hansa) have area effect.

Second, as I said, France is the only civ with espionage bonus. Plus it has interesting variation of Wonder bonus and related Chateu unique improvement. Comparing to other wonder civs, I'd say China has more unique gameplay due to Great Wall, but Egypt has less unique gameplay than France.

Spain so far is the only civ focused on religion spread and it does it in quite interesting way.

Comparing this to some non-european civs... Kongo has no active gamplay. It's just civ which gets passive bonuses in exchange for not founding a religion. Scythia has some passive combat bonuses, passive bonus to building cavalry and some average unique improvement. Both Kongo and Scythia look much less interesting thean European civs to me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The European civs feel like vanilla cis with a tweak.

England is generic civ with a naval bonus.
Fance is generic civ with a spy bonus.
Spain is generic civ with a religion bonus.
German is generic civ with a city state attack bonus.

The worth part is they all get most of their stuff Medieval or Renaissance or later. So for the early game, they are all virtually identical.

I hope Rome and Norway aren't just generic civs with infantry bonus.

Brazil is generic civ with jungle bonus
China is generic civ with wonder bonus
Japan is generic civ with culture bonus
Scythia is generic civ with horse bonus
India is generic civ with religion bonus
Egypt is generic civ with river bonus

Kongo is the only really unique one so far by your standard

 

[stealth_nsk]

Brazil is generic civ with jungle bonus
China is generic civ with wonder bonus
Japan is generic civ with culture bonus
Scythia is generic civ with horse bonus
India is generic civ with religion bonus

Kongo is the only really unique one so far by your standard

Kongo is generic civ with religion penalty

 

[Nixalo]

It feels a bit random how you label the European bonusses "generic" and these others "interesting".

Most of the European civs have uniques that do not encourage you to pull you off the standard strategy. Their bonuses go you doing things you should be doing already. And mostly of their features don't kick in Medieval or Renaissance.

China's leader uinques nudges you to early wonders.
Brazil's UA (and possibly Kongo's UI) give incentives on how you place cities.
Kongo and India drastically change how you approach religion.
Japan and Atecs adjust how you place districts.
Atzecs ad Scythia promote early warfare.

Germany is the only one that nudges toward a strategy and it really depends on if rushing for extra districts is viable.

Meaning if you neighbors are England, Spain, and France, for the beginning of the game they are nearly identical except for agenda.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Most of the European civs have uniques that do not encourage you to pull you off the standard strategy. Their bonuses go you doing things you should be doing already. And mostly of their features don't kick in Medieval or Renaissance.

China's leader uinques nudges you to early wonders.
Brazil's UA (and possibly Kongo's UI) give incentives on how you place cities.
Kongo and India drastically change how you approach religion.
Japan and Atecs adjust how you place districts.
Atzecs ad Scythia promote early warfare.

Germany is the only one that nudges toward a strategy and it really depends on if rushing for extra districts is viable.

Meaning if you neighbors are England, Spain, and France, for the beginning of the game they are nearly identical except for agenda.

Spain and England nudge settling/conquest to multi continental empires
France and America nudge settling/conquest to consolidated cores
France nudges more midgame wonders
England, France and America nudge toward cultural wins

 

[stealth_nsk]

Most of the European civs have uniques that do not encourage you to pull you off the standard strategy. Their bonuses go you doing things you should be doing already. And mostly of their features don't kick in Medieval or Renaissance.

I'm sorry, but it sounds very subjective to me. Not sure if we can have real discussion here - strategical planning at this point is barely more than pure speculation.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Meaning if you neighbors are England, Spain, and France, for the beginning of the game they are nearly identical except for agenda.

Your argument seems to be:
At the beginning on the game (1) currently released European civs (2) seem nearly identical, except from their agendas (3).
Therefore = European Civs are Vanillaish Civs, all the "interesting" civs are outside of Europe.

To which I can only answer:
"The fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

(1) At the beginning on the game: Sure, Civs that reached their high point in later eras don't have most of their uniques available until later in the game. This doesn't mean, in any way, they are not interesting during the whole game.

(2) Currently released European Civs: Rome and Greece are European Civs which reach their high point in earlier eras. You currently ignoring them to make your point.

(3) Seem nearly identical, except from their agendas.: Agreed, if we ignore the all-important agendas and why not, also their leader UA's (bonus to attacking city-states, to settling on a new continent, higher diplomatic visibility, bonus against other religion), all Civs "seem nearly identical" for a few turns.

 

[Janskey]

Languages:
There is a Scandi civ but no Scandi languages the game will be released in. Why is this? Probably because there is a big market in Scandi, and most of those people are fluent in English.

Jees vii aar veri fluent in inglish

This kind of pronunciation is what we Finns are mostly known for (it's called rallienglanti (rally english)):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBitEX-8IcM

 

[lindsay40k]

Firaxis: we're shipping Civ 6 with eighteen factions, of which one is led by an indigenous African and one by an indigenous American. You will only see a face from one of these continents in half of the standard eight Civ games you play, and you will only see faces from both of these continents in 20%.

Civ fans: actually Europe is really diverse and you're just complaining because you hate Europe. If there were more indigenous leaders you'd just be complaining about stereotyping and nudie anime ladies on their shirts or something, so actually it's your fault that devs are inclined to play it safe with European colonial governors rather than people of colour. Anyway you'll probably be able to buy-in to increased diversity at some point in the future, which is a perfectly acceptable substitute to having it out the box. There are no barriers to creating 3D art assets that will fit in with the game, but if there are, you can always make a mod with screenshots of previous incarnations of Mansa Musa and Shaka and Hiawatha and Huayna Capac and play it on your own or with a small circle of committed friends. I think you'll find the word 'CIVILIZATION' is from a European language, checkmate SJWs

 

[Siptah]

I don't agree at all.
Let's take Germany:
The uniques starts in the very beginning with the bonus against city state units and the extra military policy card. That allows some different strategies than usual to get the most out of it. Especially in the first two eras, at least to me.
All civvi civs seem less generic than any civ in any iteration before (except Venice).

 

[Nixalo]

I'm sorry, but it sounds very subjective to me. Not sure if we can have real discussion here - strategical planning at this point is barely more than pure speculation.

It can only be subjective as I am talking about gameplay in an unreleased game.
A discussion at this point can only be based on opinion and past experience.

Your argument seems to be:
At the beginning on the game (1) currently released European civs (2) seem nearly identical, except from their agendas (3).
Therefore = European Civs are Vanillaish Civs, all the "interesting" civs are outside of Europe.

To which I can only answer:
"The fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

(1) At the beginning on the game: Sure, Civs that reached their high point in later eras don't have most of their uniques available until later in the game. This doesn't mean, in any way, they are not interesting during the whole game.

(2) Currently released European Civs: Rome and Greece are European Civs which reach their high point in earlier eras. You currently ignoring them to make your point.

(3) Seem nearly identical, except from their agendas.: Agreed, if we ignore the all-important agendas and why not, also their leader UA's (bonus to attacking city-states, to settling on a new continent, higher diplomatic visibility, bonus against other religion), all Civs "seem nearly identical" for a few turns.

I must admit that I am early game bias. To me the Ancient-Medieval is the most excited parts of the game.

So when Firaxis to delay all of the ancient-classical European civs, Renaissance and later info, previews kinda skip or don't care about the uniques of previewed civs, and hard difficulty gameplay, I get worried.

If it were America, Canada, Mexico previewed and Atzec and Iroquois delayed, I'd still be worried.

My fears might be unwarranted. But I like crazy mechanics civs and early civs.

 

[Scaramanga]

Baby steps. Not everyone is born into a diverse community and I don't think one should be forced onto them. So if you're used to European (Western) neighbours and family then introducing them slowly to similar but slightly exotic people reduces culture shock. The Kongo is a good example of that as they had strong connections to Europe and have a distinctly African feel.

 

[Thormodr]

Sounds a bit patronizing, to be honest

For example, the Congregation/Church I attend has people from literally dozens of countries.

I would argue that people from Western countries are in fact exposed to people from many different cultures and from an early age like I was. We don't need to be lead around by the hand and taught about diversity.

 

[Staler87]

Baby steps. Not everyone is born into a diverse community and I don't think one should be forced onto them. So if you're used to European (Western) neighbours and family then introducing them slowly to similar but slightly exotic people reduces culture shock. The Kongo is a good example of that as they had strong connections to Europe and have a distinctly African feel.

Do you really think that we should be choosing civ based on diversity rather than impact on world history?

 

[lindsay40k]

Do you really think that we should be choosing civ based on diversity rather than impact on world history?

Yes. Definitely. Take away the colonised realms of the British Empire and Victoria is a nobody.

Aside from the historic argument for including the conquered as well as the conquerors, there's the fact that many people like to play on a real life map. Civ 6 Earth maps are going to be an absolute joke, with a barely populated Africa and Montezuma's only only North American rival will be Stone Age Roosevelt.

 

[Krajzen]

Yes. Definitely. Take away the colonised realms of the British Empire and Victoria is a nobody.

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read on this forum, it is not even wrong as it defies logic on several separate levels and I have no idea where to begin with.

"You see this super powerful great thing? Well if you take 90% of it away then it really is weak, thereby it is weak"

"Look at this man, he has wonderful family, great house, great job, great human relationships and great life overall. But if you take those things away from him and he becomes alone - he has nothing. Thereby he has nothing"

 

[MAHRana]

"Look at this man, he has wonderful family, great house, great job, great human relationships and great life overall. But if you take those things away from him and he becomes alone - he has nothing. Thereby he has nothing"

Sounds like some philosophical idea lol

 

[Ryika]

Baby steps. Not everyone is born into a diverse community and I don't think one should be forced onto them. So if you're used to European (Western) neighbours and family then introducing them slowly to similar but slightly exotic people reduces culture shock. The Kongo is a good example of that as they had strong connections to Europe and have a distinctly African feel.

Or maybe they just don't care about the issues you care about. But it's always easy to assume things about the people who disagree with you to get a sense of being "right" and "superior" to those people who just haven't reached your level yet, eh?

Being from Germany, living in a (low-income) neighborhood with people literally from all over the world (A multicultural paradise - of course the crime rates are as high as one would expect them to be.) I can ensure you I do not need to be "eased into" other Cultures. I've gotten to know other cultures all my life - hell, two of my best friends in kindergarden(!) were turks, that's how early I started getting into contact with other cultures.

Here's the truth: I'm just not interested in "equal representation for everybody" in Civ. I'm not interested in Civ introducing me to other Civilizations, because if I want to have a look at other Civilizations I watch a documentary, read a book or just google some articles about them. For Civ I'm interested in seeing individuals I'm familiar with, who lead countries that mattered in semi-recent history and/or had great influence on the world as it is today, battling it out against each other.