How diverse is civ6?

[The Civs 6]

Dude just because you don't know about the Muisca doesn't mean they are just a random small tribe
For example i didn't know things like importance of Bulgaria as an empire until saw some people just mentioning as something they wanted, i did my researched and found out they did amazing things which made understand why would people want them, like i said its fine if you prefer european history, just don't put down the rest of the world because its not of your interest or knowledge

I'm aware of Bulgaria and I don't think they should merit inclusion, European or non-European. I'm just saying when you have a medium-sized polity like Bulgaria, you ought to show that there was something really remarkable about them (IE they conquered the known world like the Macedonians). Just to be clear I disagree with a lot of Civ's inclusions of irrelevant European countries (Georgia and Sweden standing out to me right away).

Basically, I am giving you an opportunity to educate me. Instead, you are attacking me.

 

[nzcamel]

One thing I can't help thinking about is how Civ's refusal to include post-World War 2 elements actually is harmful to non-European representation.

After all, countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Mexico and Nigeria are among the most populous - more so than countries like France or England, let alone the Netherlands or Sweden. Certainly at least some of these countries will be significant geopolitical players in the next 200 years. It's hard to point to exactly what kind of Civ they would be, but just food for thought.

I think the issue with modern countries is again that their impact on the world is still...moderate. I mean Australia and Canada are economic powerhouses; but they haven't dominated even their own region of the world in any meaningful way. Nor have the others you have listed here. History has not stopped, and as the world continues to spin no doubt some of them will. But until that day, they too are not really contenders.

I just said i wanted more civs from other places that aren't Europe thats it, and i like Civ 6 because they have done a better job of doing it; if you guys get so touchy from me just saying Eurocentrism

You want that, and you are entitled to say so, and why. We don't want that, certainly not on the basis of diversity for it's own sake; and we are entitled to say so, and why.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I think the issue with modern countries is again that their impact on the world is still...moderate. I mean Australia and Canada are economic powerhouses; but they haven't dominated even their own region of the world in any meaningful way. Nor have the others you have listed here. History has not stopped, and as the world continues to spin no doubt some of them will. But until that day, they too are not really contenders.

I'm sure you think australia doesn't dominate their region has nothing to do with the fact that you're Kiwi dude
But yeah, I'm from Canada and have to admit we are as flavorful as a bowl of ice cube soup, but hey, we are skewed for a "cultural" victory btw.

You want that, and you are entitled to say so, and why. We don't want that, certainly not on the basis of diversity for it's own sake; and we are entitled to say so, and why.

Just ignore it, I literally asked him earlier what is his desired fraction of other regions compared to Europe, and he said he wanted equal representation, and now he is just back pedalling when people said it was unrealistic.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

After all, countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Mexico and Nigeria are among the most populous - more so than countries like France or England, let alone the Netherlands or Sweden. Certainly at least some of these countries will be significant geopolitical players in the next 200 years. It's hard to point to exactly what kind of Civ they would be, but just food for thought.

Mexico was formed before WW2...

 

[The Civs 6]

Mexico was formed before WW2...

I think the case for Mexico pre-world war 2 (AFAIK it was more or less a failed state at that time) is worse than the case for post world war 2 Mexico, the 10th largest country in the world by population and an increasingly important part of the world economy.

 

[nzcamel]

I'm sure you think australia doesn't dominate their region has nothing to do with the fact that you're Kiwi dude
But yeah, I'm from Canada and have to admit we are as flavorful as a bowl of ice cube soup, but hey, we are skewed for a "cultural" victory btw.

Lol, I take my hat off to Aussies in a few different ways. Hell, if things ever get hot in this part of the world war wise, we're gonna need them!! They absolutely are a regional power; but with China and Indonesia in our neck of the woods they don't hold that title alone

 

[Birch617]

I'm aware of Bulgaria and I don't think they should merit inclusion, European or non-European. I'm just saying when you have a medium-sized polity like Bulgaria, you ought to show that there was something really remarkable about them (IE they conquered the known world like the Macedonians). Just to be clear I disagree with a lot of Civ's inclusions of irrelevant European countries (Georgia and Sweden standing out to me right away).

Basically, I am giving you an opportunity to educate me. Instead, you are attacking me.

My dude if you see my answer as an attack thats on you tbh

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think the case for Mexico pre-world war 2 (AFAIK it was more or less a failed state at that time) is worse than the case for post world war 2 Mexico, the 10th largest country in the world by population and an increasingly important part of the world economy.

Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz would like to object. (Yes, I know they are very controversial, but under their leadership, Mexico was under somewhat-actual good leadership. Santa Anna was bad, though, no objections.)

Lol, I take my hat off to Aussies in a few different ways. Hell, if things ever get hot in this part of the world war wise, we're gonna need them!! They absolutely are a regional power; but with China and Indonesia in our neck of the woods they don't hold that title alone

More like your hat fell off because you're in the land down under.

 

[The Civs 6]

I made this map to see how diverse is Civ6:

Is it possible an expansion without more civs from Europe/Middle eastern and do more civs in blanks of this map?

The other thing I would like to see is a graphical depiction of corresponding population #'s. Like if you look at the enlightenment and imperialist European powers that are included, they all had pretty huge demographic dividends (compared to the rest of the world) which kind of justifies why they are so heavily represented. I think it would be interesting to see if there were any very populous regions that are not getting represented, and to understand why exactly that was happening.

 

[Fudge Nuggets]

I don't think any of them were quite as hell bent as you suggest. Diseases they didn't understand at that time did 90% of the killing.

I agree. I don’t believe they were “hell bent on the removal of the native population”. Seems similar to Hollywood’s version of the noble savage. All of the native Americans weren’t sitting in a circle singing songs not warring with each other and then the evil Europeans showed up and tipped over their utopia. North America had lots of fighting before and after the evil Europeans strolled into town.

 

[The Civs 6]

I agree. I don’t believe they were “hell bent on the removal of the native population”. Seems similar to Hollywood’s version of the noble savage. All of the native Americans weren’t sitting in a circle singing songs not warring with each other and then the evil Europeans showed up and tipped over their utopia. North America had lots of fighting before and after the evil Europeans strolled into town.

Just to be clear I don't think they were intentionally like that on the grand strategic level. I think the English and Americans had their own plans for North America, that didn't include the Native Americans. I think the Spanish had a plan for their parts of the Americas that had a plan for the Native Americans - converting them to Catholic Christianity, just like they did in the Reconquista. I think reasonable minds could disagree about this, that's just my take on reading the history.

 

[anonxanemone]

I agree. I don’t believe they were “hell bent on the removal of the native population”. Seems similar to Hollywood’s version of the noble savage. All of the native Americans weren’t sitting in a circle singing songs not warring with each other and then the evil Europeans showed up and tipped over their utopia. North America had lots of fighting before and after the evil Europeans strolled into town.

I was intrigued by the concept of Mourning Wars declared by the Iroquois.

 

[nzcamel]

More like your hat fell off because you're in the land down under.

We are the counterweight Isles

Just to be clear I don't think they were intentionally like that on the grand strategic level. I think the English and Americans had their own plans for North America, that didn't include the Native Americans. I think the Spanish had a plan for their parts of the Americas that had a plan for the Native Americans - converting them to Catholic Christianity, just like they did in the Reconquista. I think reasonable minds could disagree about this, that's just my take on reading the history.

I think European plans did include native Americans; but no doubt for most, a "civilised" version of them, from the European POV.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I agree. I don’t believe they were “hell bent on the removal of the native population”. Seems similar to Hollywood’s version of the noble savage. All of the native Americans weren’t sitting in a circle singing songs not warring with each other and then the evil Europeans showed up and tipped over their utopia. North America had lots of fighting before and after the evil Europeans strolled into town.

You forgot to put quotation marks over "evil". Anyway, that is certainly true. Even the Iroquois, who are well known for their "peaceful ways", were really brutal in the ways of war and raids. I'm specifically looking at you, Mohawks. They were just as brutal as the Europeans, somewhat even more. The Europeans, for all the villainization thrown at them, were less savage in war than the Native Americans. And I am not talking about the Crusades, for anyone reading this.

We are the counterweight Isles

Just be careful you don't tip over and capsize in the process!

Reference to this video:

I think European plans did include native Americans; but no doubt for most, a "civilised" version of them, from the European POV.

Tecumseh comes to mind.

 

[nzcamel]

Just be careful you don't tip over and capsize in the process!

Reference to this video:

WTH...?

I mean, I'm sure this gentleman will be aware that NZ is securely attached to an underwater continent, so in no danger of capsizing... ... ...

 

[Xandinho]

For me, Europe will be done after Portugal, Italian representation and maybe Austria (I don't think Austria is that necessary, but it would still be nice to have it).

Native North America and Africa are the two continents that I would most prioritize for more civs. Native North America has only Cree and Maghreb is empty. if there are continents that need more attention these are. Two more civs from North America and two more civs from Africa would be fine.

Finally, when it comes to time representation, I think we need more ancient leaders. So Assyria, Hitites and the alternative Egyptian leader would be on my list as well.
After that all settled, I think the game would be complete for me.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

For me, Europe will be done after Portugal, Italian representation and maybe Austria (I don't think Austria is that necessary, but it would still be nice to have it).

Native North America and Africa are the two continents that I would most prioritize for more civs. Native North America has only Cree and Maghreb is empty. if there are continents that need more attention these are. Two more civs from North America and two more civs from Africa would be fine.

Finally, when it comes to time representation, I think we need more ancient leaders. So Assyria, Hitites and the alternative Egyptian leader would be on my list as well.
After that all settled, I think the game would be complete for me.

Morocco, Iroquois, Shawnee, Hittites, and Dahomey come to mind for me.

 

[Xandinho]

Morocco, Iroquois, Shawnee, Hittites, and Dahomey come to mind for me.

For me it would be, considering Portugal in March: Venice, Iroquois, Navajo, Morocco/or Berbers, Ashanti/or Madagascar, Assyria, Hittites and the last spot can be anyone (Austria, Siam, Argentina, Haiti...), I would prioritize Austria but it could be any of those.

 

[Birch617]

For me it would be, considering Portugal in March: Venice, Iroquois, Navajo, Morocco/or Berbers, Ashanti/or Madagascar, Assyria, Hittites and the last spot can be anyone (Austria, Siam, Argentina, Haiti...), I would prioritize Austria but it could be any of those.

I like your list; i'm not that much into the Venice civ but i can understand why people want them and i do think a Italian would be better but that only my opinion

 

[Leucarum]

The design of civ6's expansions - always containing a reasonably split around geographical areas - makes me think diversity is a goal of firaxis', but that being practical civ is a franchise with a lot of history. People buy it expecting to be able to play certain leaders and civs based on previous, less diverse iterations - and that's a lot of weight to shift. The base game was euro centric (~40% european civs I think?), but most of them were the 'core' civs... Expansions have pushed the geographic frontier quite well. So maybe the solution to more diversity is to request more expansions or to push some european civs into expansions... Or both?