How diverse is civ6?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I understand your point but imo i don't think that having only one civ of a specific "culture" counts as diversity, saying that we don't another polynesian or for example a Latino American civ just because we have Maori and Gran Colombia is very dishonest; like i said, i don't care if they want to put Prussians and Austrias when the Germans are already in game as long as they put Civs from others Cultures/ places in the worlds.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Argentina in all honestly. But I also agree that Gran Colombia is a good example of representing Spanish speaking Latino America in Civ 6 without the need for Argentina to come, which I think is also the point of how I feel with the Maori and Hawaii.

 

[Birch617]

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Argentina in all honestly. But I also agree that Gran Colombia is a good example of representing Spanish speaking Latino America in Civ 6 without the need for Argentina to come, which I think is also the point of how I feel with the Maori and Hawaii.

If we are going to talk about representation and possible new additions when it comes to Latino Civs, i could speak on a personal level about Gran Colombia, because i'm born and raise Colombian and i still live in my country, when it come to representation inside the game, i think Gran Colombia does a good representation of a standar Latino Civ, but besides the Llaneros it doesn't feel very Colombian, and thats fine because it's supposed to be Gran Colombia and represent multiple future countries on their first steps to gaining a full identity, which i think the civ does fine, things like an Hacienda is very unniversal thing in Latino Country.
That why i think there could be other civs like Argentina with a more late game modern and Cultural game play and Mexico with idk a Cultural/Religious gameplay

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I loved the video until the end where that accursed map was shown. For my eyes' sake, please, no more! I've seen too many bad maps, Emperortigerstar has shown me more than the truth.

 

[Evie]

We should stick to the original proper orientation of maps! None of those newfangled maps anymore!

East clearly belongs at the top of the map!

 

[anonxanemone]

We should stick to the original proper orientation of maps! None of those newfangled maps anymore!

East clearly belongs at the top of the map!

Which "east"? China is considered an eastern country but, if you ask them, they are the Middle Kingdom!

 

[jasper]

Judging by your map, it looks diverse enough without going overboard. Inuits, really? You got major players from each part of the globe.

I dont understand how it matters that much if we aim for better diversity. People want diversity for the sake of diversity. With the diversity we currently have, how would adding a north or south American indian or sub saharan afrjcan civ make the game better than another euro civ? At this point its more about arbitrarily tweaking numbers than really adding substance.

Even with slightly imbalanced distributions, we would be better off adding a rome or a China over the inuits or californians or heavens knows what. Like it or not, Europe and east asia have left a bigger historical foot print than the americas and africas. Its not the only foot prints but cerrainly bigger.

 

[anonxanemone]

Like it or not, Europe and east asia have left a bigger historical foot print than the americas and africas.

"Screamed long-lost civilizations."

Big footprint or not, what's wrong with considering the forgotten civilizations as well? Are they not part of history and the human experience as much as the big players?

 

[Henri Christophe]

I guess this game need the small nation as well. Look the Gaul, they were vanished from history but a lot of players like they.
I'm emperor of Haiti, a very tiny and poor nation in Caribe, I would love to be able to play with Haiti in this game.

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

For me civ 6 is doing a good job in diversity if we look at others aspects like city states, Wonders and great people instead of only the playable civs, the game is not made only of them. The number of african Wonders the devs put on the game is impressive for me, some even from lost civs we know little about and dont fit a full civ concept

 

[Birch617]

Yeah i also think thats a plus of the game

 

[Henri Christophe]

For me civ 6 is doing a good job in diversity if we look at others aspects like city states, Wonders and great people instead of only the playable civs, the game is not made only of them. The number of african Wonders the devs put on the game is impressive for me, some even from lost civs we know little about and dont fit a full civ concept

they made 2 heroes from Africa, I like the most, but playable civs is one way to measure how diverse it is.
I'm thinking to do the same map to city states, because I have a felling it is also very eurocentric also, but just looking closely to be sure.

 

[Birch617]

they made 2 heroes from Africa, I like the most, but playable civs is one way to measure how diverse it is.
I'm thinking to do the same map to city states, because I have a felling it is also very eurocentric also, but just looking closely to be sure.

I do think the Heroes and Legends game mode is very eurocentric but that was a given for the first batch; if they were to expanded they would put more heroes from others places, which i would appreciate.
I do think City-State are very diverse, but that doesn't help the problem with the lack of some American and African civs

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I do think the Heroes and Legends game mode is very eurocentric but that was a given for the first batch; if they were to expanded they would put more heroes from others places, which i would appreciate.
I do think City-State are very diverse, but that doesn't help the problem with the lack of some American and African civs

Only 1/3 of the Heroes are from Europe, so I really don't agree with you when you say the mode is "eurocentric".

Oya and Anansi are from Africa, Sinbad is from the Middle East, Sun Wukong, Himiko, and Mulan are from Asia, Hunahpu and Xbalanque are from South America, and Maui is from Polynesia.

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Heroes_&_Legends_(Civ6)

 

[Linklite]

Then it would have been a better idea to spread out the known ones a bit more rather than focusing the vast majority of the early slots on them then insisting they still need to account for a lot of the expansions as well.

It's a product intended to be sold, first and foremost. They needed a lot of of name recognition to get the game into people's homes - people are a lot more likely to buy it if there are ten Civs they recognise on the roster than if there are only two. Same logic applies to DLCs and XPs. The point of the game is to get your money, not to be diverse. Civ recognition will bring in a lot more money than diversity - although diversity does have its place.

Personally, Venetia and Portugal would bore the heck out of me - It's liley I would never use them.

I like the idea of Venice because I lived there for a while (well, somewhat nearby) and I'd definitely play as them. Others may disagree with that conclusion. Portugal doesn't hold any particular interest to me.

Austria (Germany Jr.) and the Holy Roman Empire (Germany Sr.) would be worse.

The HRE is already in the game. Agreed that I would be disappointed in Austria.

More obscure choices that feeds curiosity and encourage research are much more interesring to me - I vastly prefer the Cree to any of the above for example.

That's your niche, though. I personally don't get all that interested in civilisations based on a computer game - mostly because they are so abstractified that I know that they bear little resemblance to their real life counterparts. At most, my ears may prick up if I hear or read about them. I daresay name recognition will get a lot more sales than curiosity. It's not that I'm opposed to curiosity, but I am more interested in Civs that I've already formed some kind of connection with. I learned a lot about the Byzantines due to links made in the game.

 

[Virdrago]

Every iteration of Civ has had between 33 and 40% European civs, not including the Ottomans and so-called "colonial" civs (Canada, Australia and the like). Even before "probably" Portugal, there are already 18 European civs in Civ 6. I play large maps with random civs and I can't tell you when I played a game without a European civ. I can't tell you, because it's never happened.

I agree there are probably too many European civs. This idea of "rotating" civs in geographical areas doesn't hold merit when you put Scotland and then the Gauls, Spain and then (maybe) Portugal, Norway and then Sweden, and Macedon and Greece together, and have more civs in the game who controlled Anatolia (Turkey) at some time in history than African civs period. Non-European rotation, no problem. European? Just add another.

Money talks, though, so I don't expect much change for civ 7.

 

[The Civs 6]

Is this the We wuz kangz guy?

 

[jasper]

"Screamed long-lost civilizations."

Big footprint or not, what's wrong with considering the forgotten civilizations as well? Are they not part of history and the human experience as much as the big players?

Well, no, they are not. Rome really did play a larger role or greater part in world history than inuits or some others. This is what i meant by larger foot print lol. They both leave their print on history but some civs prints are larger than other.

Go ahead and consider. Theres nothing wrong there. Im saying, based on the diversity of the guys chart, we are good on diversity. Yeah, its a little sided in favor if europe because European countries really have, for better or worst of course, influenced the world more than some others.

 

[The Civs 6]

Well, no, they are not. Rome really did play a larger role or greater part in world history than inuits or some others. This is what i meant by larger foot print lol. They both leave their print on history but some civs prints are larger than other.

Go ahead and consider. Theres nothing wrong there. Im saying, based on the diversity of the guys chart, we are good on diversity. Yeah, its a little sided in favor if europe because European countries really have, for better or worst of course, influenced the world more than some others.

Moreover, it begs the obvious question - how do you make a game about a civilization, or anything for that matter, about which all you know are the very tentative findings of anthropologists and archaeologists?

And it's not like it's purely a Eurocentric thing. We know so little about people like the Goths. The Gauls are probably only in the game because of Greco-Roman accounts about them. It's not a coincidence that there are no pre-antiquity European civilizations - pre-antiquity Europe didn't leave written records and only gave us some stuff for archeologists. Is the game Levant-centric because Egypt, Babylon, Sumer etc. are the only representatives other than China from the pre-antiquity world?

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I do think the Heroes and Legends game mode is very eurocentric but that was a given for the first batch; if they were to expanded they would put more heroes from others places, which i would appreciate.
I do think City-State are very diverse, but that doesn't help the problem with the lack of some American and African civs

Do you mind explaining how Heroes & Legends is eurocentric when only a third of the Heroes are from Europe? What is your ideal fraction/distribution of Heroes and/or civilizations over the continents to fulfill what you would call "diversity"?

 

[nzcamel]

"Diversity" does mean "more civs from non-European regions", but I am afraid it does not imply "removing European civs from the game". That is the opposite of diversity.

In pragmatic terms it does. I love that every new version of Civ adds more official Civs (official as opposed to mods) which does allow for more places of the world to be represented in game. But The current limit sits somewhere around 40-50. That means that if you add three random cultures, you have to drop 3 others. Hell, with Scotland, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Gran Columbia and Gaul there is some room for that; but nowhere near as much as people pushing for diversity at any cost would want.
I often make the comparison to Sports games. Your Fifa '20 game probably does have all the international teams, along with a few different leagues present in it; but imagine they only had the budget to include 50 different teams. Would you want them to include minnow's of the game like the New Zealand All Whites (who I might add, didn't lose a game at the last world cup finals they played in...we didn't win one either, but that's another story ) or should they include all the titans of world football first? As a New Zealander I'm not big on football; but were I, I'd want to see all the great teams I admire, and the others who give them a run for the money, before seeing my own humble nation make an appearance.

I guess this game need the small nation as well. Look the Gaul, they were vanished from history but a lot of players like they.
I'm emperor of Haiti, a very tiny and poor nation in Caribe, I would love to be able to play with Haiti in this game.

Come back to us at Civilization XX, when there's 200 Civs in game