How diverse is civ6?

[The Civs 6]

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.

10,000 people is very small for any time and place. We are talking about civilizations not towns. If 10,000 were closed to justifying, we'd give every single Greek city state its own civ.

Advocating for a 10,000 sized polity (solely on the basis that they are non-European) is what is wholly nonsense.

At some point I have to say, with some people talking about so-called civs with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people (in the middle ages+)

We have civ states, serendipity huts, suburbs and barb camps in the game for a reason.

 

[Evie]

Small, yes, but I wouldn't say that one-quarter of the size of Sparta at its height is "very" small, no. Sparta proved how much a city of a few tens of thousands could affect history.

 

[The Civs 6]

Small, yes, but I wouldn't say that one-quarter of the size of Sparta at its height is "very" small, no. Sparta proved how much a city of a few tens of thousands could affect history.

I certainly don't think Sparta merits inclusion as a Civ for the same reason - they were a relatively small polity and non-influential in world history. And I think you put it in a way that separates the issue from so-called Eurocentrism. You have a great story with sparta - Thermopylae and the victory over Athens in the Peloponesian war. But I don't think a great story is quite enough to make a civ - in the grand scheme of things Sparta's impact is probably very negligible.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

...

I certainly don't think Sparta merits inclusion as a Civ for the same reason - they were a relatively small polity and non-influential in world history. And I think you put it in a way that separates the issue from so-called Eurocentrism. You have a great story with sparta - Thermopylae and the victory over Athens in the Peloponesian war. But I don't think a great story is quite enough to make a civ - in the grand scheme of things Sparta's impact is probably very negligible.

so let me get this straight.. are you saying only populous and important "cultures" deserve to be in civ?

 

[The Civs 6]

...

so let me get this straight.. are you saying only populous and important "cultures" deserve to be in civ?

Abso-freaking-lutely. That's like asking whether 100 cents = a dollar.

Smaller polities that don't rise to the level of civs are adequately represented by civ states, barb camps, serendipity huts, etc.

Edit - are you being ironic??

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Abso-freaking-lutely. That's like asking whether 100 cents = a dollar.

Smaller polities that don't rise to the level of civs are adequately represented by civ states, barb camps, serendipity huts, etc.

Edit - are you being ironic??

As a Korean-New Zealander that is bit offensive. You are saying small nations like Korea and NZ don't deserve to be in over US and China?

 

[Sostratus]

As a Korean-New Zealander that is bit offensive. You are saying small nations like Korea and NZ don't deserve to be in over US and China?

Let’s not make this thread personal (unless you want it locked.) I don’t think anyone is saying “your heritage is lesser/unworthy” nor is anyone saying “Europeans were unimportant in world history, let’s get rid of them.”

~~
There is nothing mutually exclusive about “many cultures are worthwhile to be represented in civilization games” and “because a limited number of cultures can appear in any one iteration, the designers should prioritize <this collection or criteria or whatever.>” That’s like saying everyone who isn’t a professional Olympic swimmer can’t swim.

It looks like people are talking past each other a little. If you surveyed the player base and asked them if a particular culture should be added, you will likely find fewer detractors than if you ask if a particular culture should be prioritized for inclusion.
It’s a rough game the devs have to play- as the roster grows, more and more civs are inevitably going to not return in civ7; the devs are almost certain to try a few new or out there choices in each game, and die hard fans of non returning civs will be agitated by that. If NFP didn’t happen I would actually be unhappy about not having the Byzantines, for example.

But the best way to make it happen is to get a lot of people to agree that Civ X would be so cool/fun that it’s inside the top 40-50 choices of civs- the community pretty much meme’d Tamar into existence, and the devs know who the overwhelming fan requests are. Launching a Civ game full of relatively unknown picks and missing a ton of the “core group” would not sell very well, I can promise you. Go outside of this forum and you will find tons of people who “only play Rome” or only want to stick with those big name empires.

 

[Henri Christophe]

To choice a new Civ we need to go beyond numbers, but need to think how fun it will be play with them.
The best example is Gaul, they are small and insignificante in history. But it is fun to play with.


For me I guess this game need more Black people around the world, I like to play with they. Despite I'm not Black, I'm just a white latino-american

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The best example is Gaul, they are small and insignificante in history.

errrm nope? Gauls ( and "celts" to certain extent) were NOT insignificant at all. They shaped a pre-Roman Europe and even now some countries like Ireland, Scotland, France and Belgium all have some Celtic influence. Heck to see Gaulic influence in today's world you need to see no further than one certain indomitable Gaul... Astrix himself:

Even now in 2020 Astrix is beloved by many in France and world wide- like me. I read the comic in school as I grew up and was familiar with some Gaulic culture through him. Heck even Civ's Gaulic leader Ambiotrix is seen as Belgium's hero. So no I wouldn't say Gauls are insigniifcant.

 

[Sirimiri]

We are dealing with the idea of a canon of civs, and there are clearly huge discrepancies between who wants what and why. The thing is the devs have to cater to what the fans from a wide spectrum want and expect. If you have played as one civ in every game and your favourite doesn't make it in, you will feel as if you have been cheated by Firaxis or whoever makes the choices. The same thing goes for people who want to roleplay as whatever empire/state/culture they think of as the most important and others (me included) who like to play as leaders which somewhat reflect us. If gameplay is the most important thing, then perhaps the flavour of each civ is less important than making choices which allow for interesting games (i.e. Māori).

As someone who studies Latin America academically, I was impressed the Mapuche made it into Civ VI. The things that made them unique historically didn't really translate well into the design, hence why I feel people are apprehensive about their inclusion; they lack the name value that Aztec/Inca/Maya have. The inclusion of city states in more recent games does make a difference, in my opinion, to how I feel regions are represented. The Nazca wouldn't make sense for inclusion as a civ for a number of reasons, although they could be reasonably represented by an Aymara speaker and Aymarised city list. Do I want to see Nazca as a playable civ? Not really. Where I would like to see some movement would be an indigenous South American civ from the Amazon or El Chaco. There is archeological evidence of reasonably sized cities, long trade routes between the Andes and the Atlantic coast and significant cultural exchange. The scale of Arawak expansion from the Caribbean to Argentina alone (albeit non-contiguously) should merit them a place beyond Caguana city state.

This said, I don't know if this matters all that much in the end. For every fan who wants to see the TSL map filled up more evenly there are those who would have Europe covered so densely settlers spawn more or less on top of each other, as in the case of the inclusion of Gorgo, Pericles and Alexander. Diversity also also necessary for companies to show themselves as being inclusive, and while the feminist perspective on this is useful, this isn't the thread to go into female leaders. I'd also say the game is more interesting visually with a variety of body types, skin colours and city styles. No matter how important some civs are perceived as being, I hope there is also space for some interesting/off-the-beaten-track choices. Not everything should come down to 'what percentage of the world population lived in x state?' and 'which civs have we always had?'. Not every civ who merits inclusion will or must be included in every iteration.

To be clear, I'm not asking for a Siberian civ or the inclusion of the Inuit to fill up my TSL map. However, that we haven't seen a civ from the bight of Benin/Bight of Biafra and the Swahili coast is an example of new regions that have yet to be explored and have reasonable historical sources as far as I am aware. If we don't get Portugal this time round, I don't know how much I would miss them personally. For all their historical significance, there has to be an argument too for a civ to be a meaningful addition to the gameplay beyond filling a gap.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

For me I guess this game need more Black people around the world,

sigh... enough with black nonsense... We need more "smaller civs" NOT just blacks. In fact, I will say we have enough black leaders. What we need is more Native Americans since all we have is Cree.

 

[Henri Christophe]

sigh... enough with black nonsense... We need more "smaller civs" NOT just blacks. In fact, I will say we have enough black leaders. What we need is more Native Americans since all we have is Cree.

We need both!
For me next expansion should be Iroquois and Haiti, make me happy with the first Black AMerican Civ to be add EVER and also give the community more Native Americans (I also wish more Native Americans)

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Perhaps no surprise, but a thread that was supposedly begun to debate diversity in the game has become yet another thread about what civs people think should be in the game -- a topic for which the Ideas & Suggestions forum was created. Thread moved.

 

[Linklite]

Part of the problem is that the arguments put forth are treating values as absolute determinants. Really, the factor should only be, what civs would improve the game the most? That breaks down into name recognition, influence and uniqueness. Population is, of course, a major determinant of influence, so it's an important factor, but not the only one.

Personally, I think some of the Civs were bad choices. As much as it irks to me to say, as a fellow Celt, Scotland should not be in the game. The "English Empire", which is wrongly named on several levels, should have been called the British Empire and used as an umbrella for the Scottish, Irish and Welsh. While I see Scottish as distinct from English, they just aren't that different, in the grand scheme of things. How on Earth Scotland beat Babylon and Byzantium into the game, I don't know. That spot belongs to another Civ. The Portuguese, Venetians, Assyrians, Berbers, Goths, Huns, Carthaginians. Someone else.

I'm sure there are other similar dubious choices that people with better history knowledge than me could pick out. On the other hand, most picks for far are pretty good, and while it could be more diverse, there are a lot of big names that could and should be represented that would interest people more than a random hamlet in outer stickistan could.

 

[nzcamel]

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.

I think @The Civs 6 is right that population is a solid factor when it comes to looking at who was usually the dominant civilisations of their time; but it is just one metric among many.

As a Korean-New Zealander that is bit offensive. You are saying small nations like Korea and NZ don't deserve to be in over US and China?

I'll say that we certainly do not deserve to be in over the US and China Kupe, and population is only one smaller reason for that! Of course Korea isn't small like NZ is; and with a roster of 40 to 50 Civs, should be in every itineration.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I'll say that we certainly do not deserve to be in over the US and China Kupe, and population is only one smaller reason for that! Of course Korea isn't small like NZ is; and with a roster of 40 to 50 Civs, should be in every itineration.

Meh, if Australia is in it, NZ can be in it too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

Yes North America is the only region in the world that still has the same number of civs from Civ 5 to Civ 6. And one of the native spots was given to Canada, at least at the moment.
Which is why I think we at least need one more.

Abso-freaking-lutely. That's like asking whether 100 cents = a dollar.

Smaller polities that don't rise to the level of civs are adequately represented by civ states, barb camps, serendipity huts, etc.

What about Georgia? I don't know exactly their population in the Medieval Era but somehow they got in as a playable civ.
Not that I would have necessarily chosen them to be in the game, at least not over Armenia, but I don't feel like they are big enough to fit your criteria, but other factors obviously helped out in their inclusion.

To choice a new Civ we need to go beyond numbers, but need to think how fun it will be play with them.
The best example is Gaul, they are small and insignificante in history. But it is fun to play with.


For me I guess this game need more Black people around the world, I like to play with they. Despite I'm not Black, I'm just a white latino-american

No offense but one could argue that Gaul were more significant than many others that you want in the game such as the Dahomey and the Guarini.

Personally, I think some of the Civs were bad choices. As much as it irks to me to say, as a fellow Celt, Scotland should not be in the game. The "English Empire", which is wrongly named on several levels, should have been called the British Empire and used as an umbrella for the Scottish, Irish and Welsh. While I see Scottish as distinct from English, they just aren't that different, in the grand scheme of things. How on Earth Scotland beat Babylon and Byzantium into the game, I don't know. That spot belongs to another Civ. The Portuguese, Venetians, Assyrians, Berbers, Goths, Huns, Carthaginians. Someone else.

Do I think that Scotland is probably one of the unnecessary civs in the game. Now that we have Gaul yes. Would I want to get rid of it. No because I think they are kind of fun to play as and I think that was the idea behind the design: Robert the Bruce, Highlanders, Golf Course, FREEEEEDOM!.
Which are thinks that definitely make them different than England, which became less British in design with GS.

I also wouldn't say that I would have wanted the Goths, Venetians or Huns over Scotland at all. The Carthaginians are also in the game as Phoenicia.

Don't get me wrong I still want Portugal (which I think we will be getting in March), Assyria, Berbers, Native American and something Italian in the game but I wouldn't necessarily want to trade Scotland for it. Maybe Georgia.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

What about Georgia? I don't know exactly their population in the Medieval Era but somehow they got in as a playable civ.
Not that I would have necessarily chosen them to be in the game, at least not over Armenia, but I don't feel like they are big enough to fit your criteria, but other factors obviously helped out in their inclusion.

Question: Why are you quoting me but not addressing my point? Not to be rude at all, but it seems like you forgot to put something in between the two first quotes.

 

[nzcamel]

Meh, if Australia is in it, NZ can be in it too.

Well of course, you won't get much argument from me on that. All n all I don't think either country should be in... but as Australia is you can make the case that other than militarily, NZ has had a bigger and better impact on the world

 

[The Civs 6]

The problem with my position is that countries like Sweden and Georgia are in the game. I know a bit about Byzantine history, and even then, Georgia is a small player. Sweden had its 15 moments of fame and has done little else other than invent dynamite since. I have no idea why these countries are in the game.

As a Korean-New Zealander that is bit offensive. You are saying small nations like Korea and NZ don't deserve to be in over US and China?

Yep. Although Korea has probably done enough to merit inclusion, deferring to them being included since 3 (and before Civ became concerned with social justice, which to me adds even more credibility). Why be offended? I'm not sure achieving what I define as 4x success is anything to be proud about IRL.

That would be like being offended that Ronald Reagan isn't in Super Smash Bros