A couple quotes from the other thread, this deserves a separate conversation: It's always bad when a civ appears on the roster for the wrong reasons, pushing back way too many better candidates, and eventually resulting in some of those great civs being left out. But it's even worse in this case (and that's the primary point of the thread): The inclusion of Georgia most likely means that Armenia is out for good. Comparing the 2, Armenia is definitely a better choice, in every possible way. Much longer and very interesting history, a huge ancient empire, a great number of awesome rulers, (one of the) earliest bastion(s) of Christianity, later separate unique Oriental Orthodox church, armenians being one of the powerbases of the Byzantine Empire, etc. Armenia is one of the top few civs which should have been added to a Civ game by this point, along with Hungary and Phoenicia... I was really hoping it will happen to these civs this time. And what annoys me the most, is that all this happens because of 2 of the worst reasons: - A silly meme, which was never funny. The origin of which was a mistake, Georgia didn't even fit alphabetically in the civ bingo in the first place. - Firaxis' annoying habit of gender equality in historic leaders, as in adding a huge boost to a leader's chances if it had boobs. (and as a side effect: now including a worse option only because it has a popular female leader, albeit the leader is a good choice this time for the civ itself) I mean, how many of the leaders were female during the course of history? 1%? Maybe 2? Then why are they trying this hard to have 30-40% in the leader roster?? Sure, get in the best female leaders they can find, but only if they were really among the best rulers for the given country. Looking at you, Egypt, France, Greece/Sparta, and now the Netherlands... EDIT: Just to make my point clear, I have nothing against female leaders. I prefer them actually. But only if they are great choices for their nation, if they have been significant enough historically. I wouldn't bat an eye if there were only female leaders in the game, if all of them were great choices. The problem is with Firaxis' tendency of choosing questionable female leaders over way more significant historic icons. And the biggest reason in all those cases is gender. I would go as far as to say that in some cases it is the only reason... There are plenty of examples for this in both Civ V (Theodora, Maria, Wu to a lesser extent) and Civ VI (Cleopatra, Cathrine de Medici, Gorgo, Jadwiga to a lesser extent, maybe Seondeok and Wilhelmina too). And for VI they took the next step with Tomyris and Tamar: while they are good choices for the civs themselves, I feel that one of the primary reasons for choosing an otherwise questionable civ is because they had a good female leader. And it really needs to stop now. I understand the need for diversity in the game, but they do not have to push it this hard. Right now we have 33 known leaders, from which 11 is female. That's 33%. Even with taking the selectiveness of choices into account, it's just way too much. History just didn't work that way. Once again, I don't care about the numbers themselves. But this means, that it would have been perfectly fine if we only had the best female leaders from those 11 at this point. Would have resulted in a better leader and civ roster.