How diverse is civ6?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well the other side of this is that Civ isn't really a good simulator for pre-historical stuff. Like it has the pretense of doing so, with development of agriculture and so on (in some versions, in others you start with it). But a city of 20,000 people, which is usually the approximated population of a pop 1 city, has already developed a lot of those things. Maybe if civ had basically an entire pre-historical era, then you could fit in some of these groups and ponder what could have happened.

I'd honestly love a pre-historic era similar to Humankind either as a game mode or implement it for Civ 7 where you would essentially have to discover agriculture, in order to build your first city.
I don't know if that's the best way to implement civs such as the Harappans, Olmecs, or Norte Chico being playable though. I think it would make playing nomadic steppe civs like Scythia or the Huns more realistic instead.

I do however agree with the above poster that having the leaders is essential - and that civs with no known historical leaders just can't fit. Language...well, I'm not so fond of it, but it seems to be here to stay also. So yes, people for whom we have no documented language or no documented leaders are....pretty much just not possible. Fortunately, we do have surprisingly extensive documentation and a surprising number of fairly recognizable figures.

Having a known language does matter as long as you continue to implement voice actors for the various leaders.

 

[nzcamel]

I agree with the importance of fun designs - which is why the Maori were an inspired choice for inclusion in this game. But a fun design, as someone indicated above, required narrative work. Not just an artificial 'noble savage' projection. So we need some real substance. That's why the Inca/Aztec capture our imagination. We have real accounts of the amazing things they did, from the Garland wars to cranial surgery.

Unfortunately the Maori in Civ 6 do have a Noble Savage component that is completely at odds with who they were and are as a people.

I think it's a given that major polities will make up the core civs in Civ6, but I also like it when more obscure options get their chance to shine. It's why we get interesting designs like the Maori...

And in response to both of you, I agree the Maori are fun to play as, and I like Firaxis pushing the boundaries of how Civs work, as they did with the Maori...but 95% of the time I've seen Maori in game it has made for a poor AI opponent sadly.

 

[iammaxhailme]

While we're on the topic, I wonder how many leaders in Civ 6 are voiced in a substitute language becuase the original one is not really available. I remember, for example, Harald Bluetooth in Civ 5 spoke basically modern Danish instead of old Norse, and Ramsses of Egypt spoke Arabic. Are there such cases in civ 6? Of course, I'm not counting examples like Gandhi occaisonally switching to English or Catherine de Medici occaisonally switching to Italian, because those are historically justifiable.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

While we're on the topic, I wonder how many leaders in Civ 6 are voiced in a substitute language becuase the original one is not really available. I remember, for example, Harald Bluetooth in Civ 5 spoke basically modern Danish instead of old Norse, and Ramsses of Egypt spoke Arabic. Are there such cases in civ 6?

I'd say, Trajan. Just look at his subtitles. He says Alea Iacta Est, but in the subtitles, he does a whole Henry V battle speech.
I actually think that Cleopatra was a good choice in terms of language. We can choose to have her speak Greek instead of Ancient Egypt, which we have no clue about.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

While we're on the topic, I wonder how many leaders in Civ 6 are voiced in a substitute language becuase the original one is not really available. I remember, for example, Harald Bluetooth in Civ 5 spoke basically modern Danish instead of old Norse, and Ramsses of Egypt spoke Arabic. Are there such cases in civ 6? Of course, I'm not counting examples like Gandhi occaisonally switching to English or Catherine de Medici occaisonally switching to Italian, because those are historically justifiable.

Off the top of my head I think Gilgamesh speaks Old Akkadian instead of Sumerian.

I'd say, Trajan. Just look at his subtitles. He says Alea Iacta Est, but in the subtitles, he does a whole Henry V battle speech.
I actually think that Cleopatra was a good choice in terms of language. We can choose to have her speak Greek instead of Ancient Egypt, which we have no clue about.

The subtitles usually aren't word for word on everybody anyways. Either way he still speaks Latin which would be correct.

 

[Leucarum]

95% of the time I've seen Maori in game it has made for a poor AI opponent sadly.

To be honest you could replace the Maori with any other civ and it'd still be true...

Sorry, I've had the 'bad AI' argument thrown around so many times on this forum it felt good to use it for a change

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be honest you could replace the Maori with any other civ and it'd still be true...

Sorry, I've had the 'bad AI' argument thrown around so many times on this forum it felt good to use it for a change

I'd like to see every other civ start in the ocean and see how it turns out.

 

[nzcamel]

To be honest you could replace the Maori with any other civ and it'd still be true...

Sorry, I've had the 'bad AI' argument thrown around so many times on this forum it felt good to use it for a change

No where near to the degree that the Maori are bad. Their ability to cross all water from the get go, while very cool and unique, lets them down big time as they scatter.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I've seen (Ancient) Israel talked about some. I don't know if many people bring it up due to modern day politics and if they would even consider doing a civ called Israel for that reason.

I would like an Israel with both charecteristic. Some Units as David replacing slinger and some Airship from modern era as Unique Unit. Also may able to set Tel Aviv, would be fun. At least they have a city state to they.

While we're on the topic, I wonder how many leaders in Civ 6 are voiced in a substitute language becuase the original one is not really available. I remember, for example, Harald Bluetooth in Civ 5 spoke basically modern Danish instead of old Norse, and Ramsses of Egypt spoke Arabic. Are there such cases in civ 6? Of course, I'm not counting examples like Gandhi occaisonally switching to English or Catherine de Medici occaisonally switching to Italian, because those are historically justifiable.

In this way is possible Olmecs just speak some Mayan language to be able to be add in this game

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In this way is possible Olmecs just speak some Mayan language to be able to be add in this game

Sure if you want to be historically inaccurate.

 

[Evie]

If the Olmecs speak Maya, and have a mostly Mayan leader who is entirely unrelated to everything the actual Olmecs are known for (eg, the Colossal Heads, the BCE Mesoamerican civilization...), what's the point?

We already have a civilization led by a Mayan leader who speaks Maya. It's the Mayans. We don't need another.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I guess I already sasid that, but I will say it again.
We can do Olmec-Xicalanca 3 Deer, he is half Olmec, Half Xicalanca (a Maya nation) and like to paint himself with black dye.

to search about, just google about Cacaxtla.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If the Olmecs speak Maya, and have a mostly Mayan leader who is entirely unrelated to everything the actual Olmecs are known for (eg, the Colossal Heads, the BCE Mesoamerican civilization...), what's the point?

We already have a civilization led by a Mayan leader who speaks Maya. It's the Mayans. We don't need another.

Not to mention that their UU would most likely be another unit who would throw spears. At least both the units do in Humankind.

I guess I already sasid that, but I will say it again.
We can do Olmec-Xicalanca 3 Deer, he is half Olmec, Half Xicalanca (a Maya nation) and like to paint himself with black dye.

to search about, just google about Cacaxtla.

They are probably of only Maya descent according to actual scholars. The Olmec culture already died out long before before they emerged.

 

[Leucarum]

No where near to the degree that the Maori are bad. Their ability to cross all water from the get go, while very cool and unique, lets them down big time as they scatter.

I know, I was being facetious. The AI is especially bad as Maori... I still like them though

 

[Henri Christophe]

They are probably of only Maya descent according to actual scholars. The Olmec culture already died out long before before they emerged.

Maybe he can add in Civ 7 in Maya spot. But with the name Olmec-Xicalanca (I don't know why archeologist called they Olmec, but is cool to mix up the historical sometimes).

 

[The Civs 6]

We have real account of what many African and American people did. They just don't strike the imagination as much because they are outside our culturally defined expectation of "advancement" - we look in popular culture for civilizations that resemble what we're familiar with and hold those similarities (eg, big stone cities) as proof of their advancement, while ignoring advancement and achievements along different axes.

I do however agree with the above poster that having the leaders is essential - and that civs with no known historical leaders just can't fit. Language...well, I'm not so fond of it, but it seems to be here to stay also. So yes, people for whom we have no documented language or no documented leaders are....pretty much just not possible. Fortunately, we do have surprisingly extensive documentation and a surprising number of fairly recognizable figures.

What other axes? What's your evidence?

I guess I already sasid that, but I will say it again.
We can do Olmec-Xicalanca 3 Deer, he is half Olmec, Half Xicalanca (a Maya nation) and like to paint himself with black dye.

to search about, just google about Cacaxtla.

This is exactly the problem I was talking about earlier. You can't just name some random non-European leader/polity and say "that deserves inclusion". Wikipedia says that this polity consisted of no more than 10,000 people. There are about 80,000 people living in my city. Should my city be a civ? My county? The reality is there are thousands of polities out there. Thousands are adjacent to civilizations that actually developed writing, which means they have been well developed. If we are going to include trade enclaves with 10,000 inhabitants, we should just include Walmart (which employs literally millions of people) as a civilization. Just because they are non-European and have some archaeological finds/colorful pictures doesn't come close to meriting Civ inclusion.

At this point I am not far from saying that modern day megacorporations like Apple and Walmart are more deserving candidates than some of the so-called non-European civilizations that have been offered as candidates.

 

[Evie]

If you're reducing the debate to population number, then no ancient civs should be included and the game should be all modern countries (i mean Tanzania is more populated than The most common popularion figure for the Roman Empire). It's an asinine metric.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

In my opinion, Civ 6 needs at least one more South American Civ, two more Native American ones, around three ancient Middle East Civs, and at least three South-East Asian Civs.
Argentina, Iroquois, Shawnee, Assyria, Hittites, Israel, Siam, Philippines, and Burma come to mind. Maybe add a Himalayan one as well, just for fun.

Also, South America has more representation in Civ 6 than North America does. Let that sink into your brains...

 

[The Civs 6]

If you're reducing the debate to population number, frankly ai don't see why anyone would twke your opinion seriously ormanswer your questions.

I'm pretty sure number of people who are controlled or a member of a polity is a very important metric for measuring success or importance of a polity. I mean, at some level, 4x games are about empires. If a polity is not powerful enough to get a lot of people under it, it can't really be called a 4x-style empire.

And your point about Tanzania is absurd. the Roman empire had a much larger % of the world population than Tanzania does today.

Just to be clear about the math, Rome is estimated to have had about 50 million subjects at a time where the world had about 300 million humans. That's about 1/6 humans. By contrast, Tanzania has a population 56.32 million at a time when the world had a population 7.8 billion. That's less than a 1%.

How facile that argument is speaks for itself.

 

[Evie]

Comgratulation on getting the point.

For the exact same reason, your comparison of a Mayan polity in 600 AD (global pop 213m) to your home city in 2020 (global pop 7.8b) is asinine.

In term of percentage of population, the Mayan City would be about four times the size of your city. Not that it should be included (we already have a Maya civ, and we need less deblobbing civilizations into their various polities - Greece is the civ, Athens and Sparta are just alt leaders - not more), but the "population" argument as you made it was wholly nonsense.