I couldn't comment on everything or this post would never be finished: I don't think it's a bug in the DLL. You can't build Levees in coastal cities but you can build Dikes. That leads me to believe the change was intentional. Compared to the Inuit and Haida, The Anasazi and the Mississippians seem equally worthy of inclusion. The Inuit are still my first choice; they are a truly unique civilization. I might prefer the Mississippians to the Anasazi, not only for the reasons Simon cites, but also because they expanded farther and endured longer, so far as I can tell. (The Hopi, who claim the Anasazi as their ancestors, survive to the present day; but so do a number of American Indian nations that participate in broader Mississippian culture.) At the very least, it should be easier to compile a full list of Mississippian settlements. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss colonial civilizations. For one thing, some players prefer games that begin in the Renaissance or Industrial Eras. With the advanced starting era option, they don't need to construct what-if scenarios for America in the ancient age. More to the point, many "traditional" civilizations also trace their origins to settlers or conquerors; the difference being that their migration or annexation was complete by the sixteenth century. The way I see it, the Byzantines were basically Romans who conquered the eastern Mediterranean and eventually split from Western Rome. Rome is to Byzantium what England is to America and France is to Quebec; am I right? I'm not sure I follow. How can you argue that French colonies should be included under France - and that America should be the first to be struck off the list of civilizations - yet make an exception for Brazil? The indigenous people of Brazil did not build cities or keep written records. They remained migrant hunter-gatherers; even today there are isolated tribes living in the Amazon. Any Brazilian civilization would be based exclusively on Portuguese colonial history, with Sao Paulo and Sao Vincente among its earliest cities. Without a doubt, Brazil is much much better represented as an extension of the Portuguese civilization. Unlike any other European colonial possession, Brazil actually became the seat of the Portuguese empire when the Portuguese royal family fled to Rio de Janiero; it was declared a sovereign kingdom, united with Portugal shortly thereafter. What more is there to say? I urge you to reconsider your decision on Brazil. A Caribbean civilization, with a focus on the Taino people, might better represent mixed indigenous-colonial Latin America. The Tamils and Kushans are fine additions to HR but South Asia still lags behind other regions, including Southeast Asia and its four civilizations: Thai, Viet, Khmer, and Indonesian. On this point, I completely agree with Simon Jester. It is worth reusing art to improve diversity. Is it possible for a single leader to be linked to multiple civilizations? (I know at least one mod for Windows allows it.) If so, you could make Timur a leader of the Mongols, Turks, and Persians; that would be the best way to handle the Timurids, I think. While you're at it, you could make Karolus/Charlemagne available as a French or Roman leader, too. (Edit: No, not a Roman leader, I don't know what I was thinking.) I just can't seem to get these things right: yes, I meant Australasian. (As a Canadian, I know exactly how it feels to be identified with that big annoying neighbour next door.) Civ Gold actually includes Hone Heke of the Maori among its 100+ leaders but the leaderhead is hardly top quality; Heke looks like a generic East Asian leader with some tattoos and a palette swap. I agree that a little variation can do no harm. There are plenty of other food sources in the tropics: Pigs, Bananas, Sugar, floodplains, scattered Cows and Corn. The only food resources you won't find there are Sheep and Deer. I see no cause for concern. The city lists annoy you too? And here I thought I was the only one. I was about to suggest this myself. If you are eager to spread a particular religion, you'll adopt Organized Religion. Otherwise, you'll wait for monasteries and hope for the best. If anything, I think monasteries come too early in BtS: the whole world turns Buddhist or Hindu before any of the later religions are founded.