How diverse is civ6?

[Evie]

We have Aztecs and Mongols for the crazy warmongers. Among others. And aggressive and always ready for war really sounds like what Rome or Alex should be, too. For Africa, Songhai is probably a better choice for that role.

Kupe - In Civ VI, yes. In Civ as a whole, Shaka predates them by twenty-five years and five game versions, and it's only starting in Civ IV that Zulu stopped being the only African representation and became an expansion civ. Which I'm relatively fine with them being, though I'd still have them later down the list - NFP or a hypothetical Final Frontier Pass, rather than the expansions.

 

[Henri Christophe]

That's what I mean. For Civ 7 instead of Kongo maybe we could get Ana Nzinga leading Angola.

I would love that, I prefeer she too.
How many leaders will be in Civ 6? Maybe still have time to her. Do you have any idea who will come in March?

We have Aztecs and Mongols for the crazy warmongers. Among others. And aggressive and always ready for war should be Rome, really.

Kupe - In Civ VI, yes. In Civ as a whole, Shaka predates them by twenty-five years and five game versions, and it's only starting in Civ IV that Zulu stopped being the main African representation and became an expansion civ. Which I'm relatively fine with them being, though I'd still have them later down the list - NFP or a hypothetical Final Frontier Pass, rather than the expansions.

Zulu is the craziest, Aztecs some times build a monument or something as that, Shaka no, he just build up Impi and nothing more, don't matter what happens, he build more Impi. Your game NEVER is safe while he is around.

 

[Evie]

What's the material difference between a civ that plays like this (regardless of who they are) and the Barbs?

And, that's a problem right there (and why having them as the only African civ was especially bad). The zulu have been summed up by civ as this quasi-barbs entity. Which plays into a lot of horrible cliches about zulus and Africa as a whole.

No civ should be reduced to "barbs with a UU".

 

[Henri Christophe]

What's the material difference between a civ that plays like this (regardless of who they are) and the Barbs?

And, that's a problem right there (and why having them as the only African civ was especially bad). The zulu have been summed up by civ as this quasi-barbs entity. Which plays into a lot of horrible cliches about zulus and Africa as a whole.

No civ should be reduced to "barbs with a UU".

If Shaka should live civilization, at least the Zulu nation would stay with another leader as Chetswayo, who was less warmonger than Shaka.
But I like the way the Shaka to be, is the only full evil in this game, play with him is play during the Mfecane, the age of terror.
I'm very sad because Shaka isn't in Vanila Civilization and I can't play whit him, Isn't the same thing doing the world conquest with Kongo *I lost all religious districts when I conquer a new city*

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would love that, I prefeer she too.
How many leaders will be in Civ 6? Maybe still have time to her. Do you have any idea who will come in March?

As far as we know there will be 50 civs and 54 leaders. I don't know if anyone else will come.

I think we are most likely getting Portugal in March because that's the last civ whose been in many previous games missing. If not Portugal then I think they might go with the Iroquois for North America so we wouldn't just have the Cree for native North America.

We have Aztecs and Mongols for the crazy warmongers. Among others. And aggressive and always ready for war really sounds like what Rome or Alex should be, too. For Africa, Songhai is probably a better choice for that role.

I'm fine with Zulu being the warmonger African civ over Songhai, because I prefer trading/economic Mali better.

What's the material difference between a civ that plays like this (regardless of who they are) and the Barbs?

And, that's a problem right there (and why having them as the only African civ was especially bad). The zulu have been summed up by civ as this quasi-barbs entity. Which plays into a lot of horrible cliches about zulus and Africa as a whole.

No civ should be reduced to "barbs with a UU".

I consider the Huns from Civ 5 to be the barb civ with two UUs though. At least the Zulu have city names.

That being said one could argue that Scythia and Gaul, despite having some abilities not related to warmongering, have more similarities to what would be a barbarian civ, rather than the Zulu which were mentioned by the devs.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I consider the Huns from Civ 5 to be the barb civ with two UUs though. At least the Zulu have city names.

Burn!!!!! Anyway, yeah, the Zulu may be a little overrated in terms of historical impact, but they at least had Cities that we have names for.

 

[Henri Christophe]

As far as we know there will be 50 civs and 54 leaders. I don't know if anyone else will come.

I think we are most likely getting Portugal in March because that's the last civ whose been in many previous games missing. If not Portugal then I think they might go with the Iroquois for North America so we wouldn't just have the Cree for native North America.

I really hope don't come Portugal now, we just have 2 europeans (Gaul and Byzantium) just in this season.
For North America I think should be Haiti
or Iroquois with Todadaho, I'm tired of Hiawatha. I enjoy warmongers.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I really hope don't come Portugal now, we just have 2 europeans (Gaul and Byzantium) just in this season.
For North America I think should be Haiti
or Iroquois with Todadaho, I'm tired of Hiawatha. I enjoy warmongers.

How about Tecumseh leading the Shawnee? He's a good choice as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Burn!!!!! Anyway, yeah, the Zulu may be a little overrated in terms of historical impact, but they at least had Cities that we have names for.

The Huns had it coming after they burned so many others.

To be fair another reason I have no problem with them is they are also the largest ethnic group of South Africa today. So I see it from the perspective of how the Aztec might represent Mexico and Maori represent New Zealand, then Zulu represents South Africa without having to put in too many post-colonial nations in the game.

I really hope don't come Portugal now, we just have 2 europeans (Gaul and Byzantium) just in this season.
For North America I think should be Haiti
or Iroquois with Todadaho, I'm tired of Hiawatha. I enjoy warmongers.

If this is the last content for the game, I don't see the game ending without Portugal which is why I mentioned it.

I think if the pack is North America it will be mainland North America north of Mexico because Latin America and the Caribbean were already represented in Pack 1 by the civs, some city states and natural wonders.

 

[Henri Christophe]

How about Tecumseh leading the Shawnee? He's a good choice as well.

I guess Tecumseh is even better than Iroquois because is someone new and can come in amazing scenario of North West war.

 

[Leucarum]

So I see it from the perspective of how the Aztec might represent Mexico and Maori represent New Zealand, then Zulu represents South Africa without having to put in too many post-colonial nations in the game.

As well as Ambiorix representing Belgium, Rome representing Italy, and probably a few others. I suspect Pedro was supposed to also cover portugal at release and that seems to have been the one which annoys the most people.

I guess this has led to the endless argument with some people being unhappy about the substitutions and want firaxis to put in the civs that are being proxied, while others want firaxis to prioritize new regions and civs... Not the easiest tightrope for them to walk...

 

[Henri Christophe]

As well as Ambiorix representing Belgium, Rome representing Italy

As well Mapuche for Chile and Inca for Peru. We are missing up Aymara for Bolivia and Guarani for Paraguay to complete South America.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As well as Ambiorix representing Belgium, Rome representing Italy, and probably a few others. I suspect Pedro was supposed to also cover portugal at release and that seems to have been the one which annoys the most people.

I guess this has led to the endless argument with some people being unhappy about the substitutions and want firaxis to put in the civs that are being proxied, while others want firaxis to prioritize new regions and civs... Not the easiest tightrope for them to walk...

Well I for one am hoping for one day that Italy can be in a game alongside Rome.

To be fair we also had Spain at release and with both Spain and Brazil in the base game there was no need to start off with Portugal, though it's probably past time for them to appear. They always seem to end up in the last expansion cycles for every civ game they end up probably because of their similarities with Spain and the Dutch which seem to be more popular to the fans.

 

[Leucarum]

Well I for one am hoping for one day that Italy can be in a game alongside Rome.

To be fair we also had Spain at release and with both Spain and Brazil in the base game there was no need to start off with Portugal, though it's probably past time for them to appear. They always seem to end up in the last expansion cycles for every civ game they end up probably because of their similarities with Spain and the Dutch which seem to be more popular to the fans.

Portugal being left off in favour of Brazil made me suspect market size was the big deciding factor. I can't really blame them, though Pedro's music annoys the hell out of me... Plus it did help out with the geographic diversity.

Personally I'd rather see firaxis rotate through some of the renaissance Italian city states, so that they get their turn rather than a single Italy civ. Florence would certainly play differently to Venice for example and I'd love to see the variety.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Portugal being left off in favour of Brazil made me suspect market size was the big deciding factor. I can't really blame them, though Pedro's music annoys the hell out of me... Plus it did help out with the geographic diversity.

For sure. Portugal wasn't going to get in the base game anyway and Brazil is easily the biggest market for South America even if they had the more historical Inca.
I mean it's no coincidence that right before the game launched that Rio de Janeiro hosted the 2016 Olympics and the Maracana was a wonder in the base game.

Personally I'd rather see firaxis rotate through some of the renaissance Italian city states, so that they get their turn rather than a single Italy civ. Florence would certainly play differently to Venice for example and I'd love to see the variety.

I'd personally like to see an Italy with different leaders based off of the Renaissance city states, sort of how we have leaders based off of Athens and Sparta for Greece, rather than a modern Italy.
I'm just not into playing as a single city-state like Venice was and an Italian civ lead by a Medici from Florence would be my first pick.

 

[Evie]

I’m with you there. Call the Civ Italy, rotate through various possible leaders. Not just Renaissance ones either: Matilda of Tuscany (Medieval) sounds like a cool option. Sometimes multiple in a have, sometimes only one.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

For sure. Portugal wasn't going to get in the base game anyway and Brazil is easily the biggest market for South America even if they had the more historical Inca.

poor Portugal... only nation of original language available in civ not to be in civ...
No wonder why this pic of countryball exists

 

[nzcamel]

Zulu is the craziest, Aztecs some times build a monument or something as that, Shaka no, he just build up Impi and nothing more, don't matter what happens, he build more Impi. Your game NEVER is safe while he is around.

Maybe in game, but the most warlike Civilisations the world has ever seen would have to be the Macedon/Greeks and the Mongols. No one tops their efforts for constant war.

What's the material difference between a civ that plays like this (regardless of who they are) and the Barbs?

And, that's a problem right there (and why having them as the only African civ was especially bad). The zulu have been summed up by civ as this quasi-barbs entity. Which plays into a lot of horrible cliches about zulus and Africa as a whole.

No civ should be reduced to "barbs with a UU".

I consider the Huns from Civ 5 to be the barb civ with two UUs though. At least the Zulu have city names.

That being said one could argue that Scythia and Gaul, despite having some abilities not related to warmongering, have more similarities to what would be a barbarian civ, rather than the Zulu which were mentioned by the devs.

Burn!!!!! Anyway, yeah, the Zulu may be a little overrated in terms of historical impact, but they at least had Cities that we have names for.

Well, this is one of the quandaries of what Civilisation is. Technically the Mongols and the Scythians and the Huns - they are the "Barbarians", as far as cultured city dwellers were concerned They'd rock up on all their horses, demand a bunch of stuff, and if you couldn't or didn't give it to them, well... I mean the Mongols are most famous for having moved past this because they settled into empire building of sorts once they got on a roll. The Zulu don't fit that quite the same. I guess while I'm a stickler for genuine civilisations being in Civilization (funny that), as I've said previously, I would like to see the Steppe Civs represented more accurately, so maybe that does involve making some Civs more "barbaric" and less "civilised", and doing away with the barbarians as a side feature altogether. Hrmmmm, nah, I do think you'd still have them. They serve a function of representing small hostile peoples.

As far as we know there will be 50 civs and 54 leaders. I don't know if anyone else will come.

I think we are most likely getting Portugal in March because that's the last civ whose been in many previous games missing. If not Portugal then I think they might go with the Iroquois for North America so we wouldn't just have the Cree for native North America.

I really hope don't come Portugal now, we just have 2 europeans (Gaul and Byzantium) just in this season.
For North America I think should be Haiti
or Iroquois with Todadaho, I'm tired of Hiawatha. I enjoy warmongers.

As well as Ambiorix representing Belgium, Rome representing Italy, and probably a few others. I suspect Pedro was supposed to also cover portugal at release and that seems to have been the one which annoys the most people.

I guess this has led to the endless argument with some people being unhappy about the substitutions and want firaxis to put in the civs that are being proxied, while others want firaxis to prioritize new regions and civs... Not the easiest tightrope for them to walk...

You've gotta have Portugal. Their impact on the world cannot be over stated. I get that there is so much European representation that they're unlikely to ever be in the base game; but it better have only been the 2016 Olympics etc which bumped Brazil in there.
Italy is another prime example of countries with varied histories only getting one representation. Brazil cannot represent Portugal like Rome does Italy. They may be bigger, but they haven't had one 100th the impact on the world that their mother country did.

 

[The Civs 6]

Other than adding port to the repetoire of dessert drinks, which was pretty good, what did Portugal do?

 

[Evie]

Portugal's pretty much the one European civilization I think should be added at this point (I'd like Italy, but it shoudl replace Macedon being merged back into Greece).

But if we only have one civ left to add, I'd hope for the Iroquois ahead of Portugal. That said, I'd much rather have a Final Frontier Pass of some kind coming, rather than Civ VII (probably easier, too, to expand this game some more rather than launch a whole new game due to current events)