How diverse is civ6?

[nzcamel]

I think another important nod to diversity would be some sort of acknowledgment of the the PRC and the Soviet Union. Yes, those are problematic places to go. But they undeniably represent the most "4x-y" non-European, indeed, anti-European polities since the 1800's.

Civ4 was the last time Firaxis included controversial leaders. Without any disrespect, the OP's intention didn't go any deeper than the geographical representation.
"Two major civs border one another? Bad! Two small tribes in a forsaken corner of the planet? Good!"

Oh... Just Mao Zedong.

Don't forget Stalin.

Yeah, Civ has been there and done that, and while I'm fine with it from the POV that many of the figures still included in VI were just as brutal (Genghis Kahn say); it does grate that these guys who are as bad as Hitler get a pass because "socialists are just misguided where Nazi's were evil".

Yes thank you! And the civics tree x 2. Like I'm playing as China and for some reason I'm going into the middle ages?

Well, have they translated the names of era's differently in different versions? I know the structure is built around that European view on history that we were talking about earlier (the one in which Europeans look to the M.E. when it comes to pre-classical civilization) but while that is kind of unavoidable given the market for Civ, surely when they release versions in other languages like Chinese they can be relabeled to fit something more appropriate to local era's.

 

[Sostratus]

Show numbers and create a story,

It is so easy for people to overlook the importance of a story or narrative when designing a civilization. Sure, the civilized is can educate people a little, but whatever the design package is, it needs to quickly and easily communicate what playing that Civ is about. It’s literally like a meme. If you don’t have something to work with the civilization design probably won’t be that popular. I would suspect that the Mapuche are near the bottom of Civ popularity, and a lot of that rides on their obscurity leading to a lack of memetic narrative. If I give you the Mongols, you instantly grasp mounted warmongers, for example. Our current iteration of Russia- the expansive tundra empire- is instantly digested as a player narrative.

Even the Zulu are built around a story, namely isandlwana / related battles, and that is enough memetic fuel to have gotten them into every Civ game. Literally go look at 20 years of firaxian zulus- Shaka + Impi + warmonger.

If a culture lacks writing and written records, as a huge number of choices in Africa and the Americas do, our only recorded knowledge of them will come from people who do have that ability: either contemporaries, or archaeologists. This can make it almost impossible to build a good Civ design out of such a limited perspective. It may not be fair in some sense, but think of all the prehistoric tribes and cultures - other than separation in time, I’m sure many of them would be just as compelling as some of the groups tossed around in these threads.

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.

I think post colonial nations have mixed reception (although they can be well designed and fun!) and if you set those aside, huge swaths of the planet are literally European controlled territories going back centuries.
But the world population distribution used to be extremely lopsided in favor of Europe/Mediterranean, China, and India. Which makes some sense as to why so many Civ’s come from these places. The populous American cultures- namely Aztec, maya, and Inca, are all in the game routinely. Cultures that don’t build permanent cities, like many North American groups, are just hard to study. No one’s fault.
Look at Kongo- certainly qualifies as a “diversity” pick- their population is estimated as a fraction of a million during the time of Mvemba. And this is the populated part of Africa! So I think historically Civ has done a pretty good job at including population with its Civ choices- without the people you can’t have any narrative.

It’s not just about including civs that have never been included, you need to be able to sell a story (which may be a stereotype) in a few seconds of browsing the selection menu. Civilization Uniques are literally core to this entire strategy. This is also why the generalist civs are also the most well known- the name by itself gives enough background for most people. A lot of the more obscure ideas in this thread are just hard to design around. Especially if they did not write things down so we have very little idea of who the leaders were, key historical events, etc.

 

[Evie]

Agreed very much that narrative matters. But disagreed that this requires a well known civ. What it requires is a well known civ OR a strongly thematic design, which the Mapuche really don't have. Their abilities are a hodgepodge without much common theme - loyalty loss and bonuses against golden age and bonuses for governors. They come off as a showcase of RF mechanisms, not a civ with an easily identified nature.

Contrast Mali: you don't need to know anything about them to know who they are: the mechanism spell it out. They're a civilization of filthy rich desert caravans and gold mines. Which is actually a good summary. Likewise, Mvemba's leader ability also spells out a story: a deepy devout convert to another religion. The Cree, too: you get just from looking at their abilities that they're far traveling expert traders. These all are easily groked because their ability fit together to have a strong narrative theme.

 

[Henri Christophe]

They added the Mapuche. MAPUCHE! Who has ever heard of the Mapuche prior to playing Civ 6? The answer, not that much.

C'mon, Mapuche defeat the Incas and the Spaniards, was an amazing choice. When I enter in this forum in 2018 I was asking for Mapuche, Gran Colombia and Haiti (Just left one to I become totally satisfected with this game.

I think Mexico is about as worthy of an inclusion as Italy, for what it's worth. But you throw out this polity called "Muisca". I did a quick Wikipedia search and the researchers estimate that only, at most, 3 million people were a part of this entity. Why should they be included? I would ask this question about any entity that someone suggested should be included.

Muisca is a tribe of the El Dorado, they are native american full of gold, they should be fun as the Gaul is fun, this game is about FUN, don't neeed the most empire nations, but need nations the players will have fun with.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

C'mon, Mapuche defeat the Incas and the Spaniards, was an amazing choice. When I enter in this forum in 2018 I was asking for Mapuche, Gran Colombia and Haiti (Just left one to I become totally satisfected with this game.

I know they are a great choice. My point was that not many people had heard of the Mapuche and that Firaxis chose the Mapuche to be in Civ 6 is a pretty astonishing, but welome, thing.

 

[SMcM]

In the North you have nearly no civs but then again there are just 3 countries: Russia, Canada and the USA (Alaska) which are all already in the game.

I mean that empty region is part of Russia now, but many different ethnic groups live there. There is actually many civ options there, for ideas there is plenty of civ 5 mods in that part of the world. Khanate of Sibir or Yakutia could be interesting choices. Western China is also not covered at all, although Tibetans and Uighurs are probably too controversial in China for Firaxis to dare. Indigenous peoples of Brazil have not been represented at all.

Generally Civ 6 has done a very good job covering new regions though. There is certainly still scope for further representing more unexplored regions, but overall Firaxis has done very well in terms of having a diverse selection peoples and regions.

 

[Xandinho]

Muisca is a tribe of the El Dorado, they are native american full of gold, they should be fun as the Gaul is fun, this game is about FUN, don't neeed the most empire nations, but need nations the players will have fun with.

Not to mention that Muisca was one of the most advanced civilizations in the Americas alongside the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs. They had a lot of knowledge in astronomy, and like the Mesoamericans, they had ritualistic sports and had a very equal society between men and women.
People usually underestimate what they don't know enough, but Muisca is not so obscure and more than worthy to be in Civ. It's not a random tribe that lived in the jungle just hunting and planting

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

C'mon, Mapuche defeat the Incas and the Spaniards, was an amazing choice. When I enter in this forum in 2018 I was asking for Mapuche, Gran Colombia and Haiti (Just left one to I become totally satisfected with this game.

Even though I majored in history in college I admit that I've never heard about the Mapuche, or the really the Cree for that matter. The classes that I took usually focused on the tribes located only in the U.S. In the world history classes I also got to learn about the Aztecs, Maya and Inca but that was it.

So no I don't think the Mapuche are as well known, especially to the general population, outside of mainly South America. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be in Civ though and I enjoyed learning more about them and the Cree.

 

[BD123]

I think Civ 6, at its present state, is pretty good in terms of cultural and geographic diversity, they really sought to add under-represented regions and peoples through the expansions and dlcs over the years. It's been so long but I think at launch, Civ 6 was oddly not very diverse - we didn't have the Ottomans, Siam, Persia, or the Iroquois at base game but we had Norway and Scythia, with Brazil being a surprise first round pick . Then I remember the fist batch of DLCs and the mess Australia's addition before say the Maya or Ethiopia entailed, though I don't mind them and I think a broad definition of "civilization" is good for keeping and adding interesting factions to the game as well as diversifying cultures.

Europe is always going to be crowded based on historical influence, Western historiography and its role in pop culture, and of course marketability. It's weird to me that Portugal is not in yet, just as as it was weird not to have the Maya until recently while Canada (and a very meme-y, stereotypical one at that) made it in. But there's of course still room for civs from everywhere else to be added. We still lack a North African civ. There's only 3 Islamic civs - Arabia, Mali, and Ottomans - and Civ 6 Arabia isn't even in Arabia this time around since it's the Ayyubids of Egypt lol. Others have mentioned we could do the Muisca or Ashanti. North America could use more indigenous cultures.

I don't think people are opposed to adding less-known empires or cultures from less-known regions, in fact I think most casual players wouldn't mind or would like to see such inclusions since they might be interesting in gameplay.

 

[Bibor]

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

Central Western Asia and mesoamerica a bit underrepresented, otherwise spot on and even generous in some parts, considering the 6000 year timespan.
The fact that there was a very unique hut "somewhere near nowhere near Siberia" doesn't exactly scream "underrepresented!" to me.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Even though I majored in history in college I admit that I've never heard about the Mapuche, or the really the Cree for that matter. The classes that I took usually focused on the tribes located only in the U.S. In the world history classes I also got to learn about the Aztecs, Maya and Inca but that was it.

So no I don't think the Mapuche are as well known, especially to the general population, outside of mainly South America. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to be in Civ though and I enjoyed learning more about them and the Cree.

Mapuche also is the biggest native american nation in Americas, they have a place in ONU (the only one to have it) and maybe we will see in our life time more one country rising in south Chile.

I guess it is a point, there are many Americans nations few people heard about and this game have the power to give voice to they. Muisca, for example, I discover in this forum, I also never heard about they before and now I want they in this game.

 

[Evie]

One upside of more diversity is the potential for more diverse gameplay - civs that break out of the mold (which is, after all very European) and change fundamenral rules. Some civs in Europe-MidEast (eg civ 5 venice, 6 Babylon) can do that, but non-European civs often have the widest design space there, especially American/African ones.

 

[nzcamel]

I don't think people are opposed to adding less-known empires or cultures from less-known regions, in fact I think most casual players wouldn't mind or would like to see such inclusions since they might be interesting in gameplay.

Casual players? They aren't big on what is interesting game play compared to hard core players who are looking for more variety after hundreds of hours+. And yes, almost no one is opposed to adding lesser known empires/cultures. But many of us are opposed to that when it comes at the expense of a Civilisation that excites us, that we enjoy role playing as thanks to their very real impact on the world; just as we like playing our favourite real world top teams in any sports computer game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Mapuche also is the biggest native american nation in Americas, they have a place in ONU (the only one to have it) and maybe we will see in our life time more one country rising in south Chile.

I'm not sure about that. I think they are the biggest in South America, not counting the Quecha speakers.
I'm sure the Cree might be bigger and even the Navajo and Cherokee in the U.S. might have more population.

 

[Evie]

No, he's right on this - if we exclude the big three (Mayincaztec). Depending on sources, they are somewhere between 4- and 10x the Cree, Navajo and Cherokee.

They are, however, a fraction of the Maya and Quechua, and a little below the Nahuatl.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, he's right on this - if we exclude the big three (Mayincaztec). Depending on sources, they are somewhere between 4- and 10x the Cree, Navajo and Cherokee.

They are, however, a fraction of the Maya and Quechua, and a little below the Nahuatl.

I see. Accidently leaving off a zero on the number changes things dramatically.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm not sure about that. I think they are the biggest in South America, not counting the Quecha speakers.
I'm sure the Cree might be bigger and even the Navajo and Cherokee in the U.S. might have more population.

There are around 2 million Mapuches on Chile and Argentina, that is more that Navajo, Cherokee and Cree together, you need to put the biggest native nations of the main anglo colonial countries (Navajo+Cree+Maori) to try to match Mapuche population.

Beyond Quechuas and Mapuches, Aymaras are kind of populous, behind are the Wayuu (Bigger than Navajo) and Guarani (at the level of Cree).Then on Mesoamerica apart of the Maya and the "Aztec" (Nahua), there are the Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi and Totonac with similar or bigger numbers that anything from USA or Canada. And of course here are not counting the even bigger population of mestizos with way more obvious indigenous ancestry on both culture and blood from than any anglo-colonial country.

To be fair the Muisca were one of the 4 advanced Pre-Colombian civilizations of the Americans. Obviously they aren't as well known as the Aztecs, Maya or Inca but I think that they could be considered at some point, if the Mapuche got in.

I think this give a wrong impression of the regional development on the Americas.
Aztecs and Maya are both from Mesoamerica, and on this region there are many other groups like Zapotecs, Totonacs or Purepechas that were clearly more complex and stratified than Muiscas.
Same with the Central Andes, Incas are not the only group, like Mesoamerica it was divided on many regions with different cultures of very similar technological level (like Mochicas, Chachapoyas, etc.)

Is just after Mesoamerica and the Central Andes that we can talk about the Colombia+Venezuela Andine region from were Muisca (Chibchas) are also just one representative. Of course behind these 3 regions come the Amazonian (Terra Preta), Mississipian and Pueblo regions.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There are around 2 million Mapuches on Chile and Argentina, that is more that Navajo, Cherokee and Cree together, you need to put the biggest native nations of the main anglo colonial countries (Navajo+Cree+Maori) to try to match Mapuche population.

Yeah I accidently read about 195,000 instead of 1,950,000.

 

[The Civs 6]

The lack of population and other characteristics that usually make a polity eligible for a 4x game (a point which is becoming clear as I hear the ardent advocates for diversity make their best cases) is evident. The reality to me is that post-colonial non-European states are the best way to represent non-Europeans. These pre-colonial groups apparently had small population levels, few written accounts (and none generated by themselves), and unfortunately no signs of their existence. In much the same way as the game doesn't represent pre-Hellenized/Romanized European states.

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.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

That's exactly why I don't see the Inuit happening. Sure they would have an interesting gameplay mechanic probably revolving around snow or exclusively being able to work the ice tiles, similar to Inca working mountains, but that's about it. Of course there is also an igloo unique infrastructure, even though they weren't mainly used by Inuit but it's not like there are any other choices.

Cities would have to be made up not to mention finding a leader and possibly a UU as well.