How diverse is civ6?

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I get what you mean, but then out of all European civilizations that are currently in the game, which one do you think we should do without? If you want to fill somewhere else, you need to take something out, right? The only European civ I think can be missing is Gaul, I personally don't like that choice, if they want another European civ for NFP, they couldve gone east to Bulgaria or Romania, Gaul seems uninspiring, but for the rest of Europe, I think their history earns them a place here. Newer additions like Scotland or Georgia also seem great, I especially love the inclusion of Georgia, a civ from the Caucasus area, which has never been done before. There are only that many spots the devs can use to make civs, it is not unlimited. Choosing to forgo one major power can make it feel like something is missing (like Portugal, for example) but picking only one new civilization does not seem to fill the void of certain regions (you wouldn't say if the Inuit makes it, North America is filled, would you?), so in order to achieve a better level of representation everywhere, A LOT of major world powers need to go, which is just not a choice the devs are likely to make anytime soon.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I get what you mean, but then out of all European civilizations that are currently in the game, which one do you think we should do without?

I would take out first Byzantium, after Nederlands, Scotland, Hungary, Poland and Sweden.
6 spots free I would put the Olmecs, Hawaii, Haiti, Guarani, Iroquois and Dahomey and still very eurocentric hehe.
Better than that, if Civilization 7 just have Rome from Europe? And just after going add Germany, France and England and so on.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I would take out first Byzantium, after Nederlands, Scotland, Hungary, Poland and Sweden.
6 spots free I would put the Olmecs, Hawaii, Haiti, Guarani, Iroquois and Dahomey and still very eurocentric hehe.
Better than that, if Civilization 7 just have Rome from Europe? And just after going add Germany, France and England and so on.

And is that "diverse"? 5 out of 6 "civilizations" you just named are from the Americas alone. There are 3 Eastern European civs in the game, you want to take all 3 out while still leave a huge density of Western Europe. Among all the civ mainstays, Rome is the one people want to replace most with modern Italy and that is the only one you want to keep. I rest my case, glad that this is just wishful thinking that will never happen.
Maybe in an alternate universe where any of the civ you just name managed to conquer half of the planet, then I could see it happening.

 

[8housesofelixir]

"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.

 

[Leucarum]

The only European civ I think can be missing is Gaul

Despite saying I want more non-European diversity in civ6 - Gaul has been my favourite NFP civ (Ethiopia comes very close). I love their implementation and feel. That said, in future civ games I'd love to see them rotate among celtic nations/cultures similar to how they have done with the scandinavian countries between civ6 and civ5. The celt blob wasn't a great solution so give each of them their chance to shine.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would take out first Byzantium, after Nederlands, Scotland, Hungary, Poland and Sweden.
6 spots free I would put the Olmecs, Hawaii, Haiti, Guarani, Iroquois and Dahomey and still very eurocentric hehe.
Better than that, if Civilization 7 just have Rome from Europe? And just after going add Germany, France and England and so on

The problem with the Olmecs is they have no known spoken language so I don't ever see them getting added unless they go back to leaders that don't speak.
Not sure why you'd take out the Netherlands either who had a global empire and trading network and well Byzantium was a world power in it's own right, even if was just the Eastern Roman Empire
I can see the others but if it wasn't for Hungary we'd probably get Austria or Italy etc. Poland and Sweden nowadays is are big gaming markets so I don't see that happening. I would argue Scotland is the main one that could be taken out because now we have a proper Celtic civ in Gaul but even then my Scottish heritage prevents me wanting that.

I wouldn't mind the Iroquois and Dahomey, or Benin, in the game but not necesssarily at the cost of all of these.

And is that "diverse"? 5 out of 6 "civilizations" you just named are from the Americas alone. There are 3 Eastern European civs in the game, you want to take all 3 out while still leave a huge density of Western Europe. Among all the civ mainstays, Rome is the one people want to replace most with modern Italy and that is the only one you want to keep. I rest my case, glad that this is just wishful thinking that will never happen.
Maybe in an alternate universe where any of the civ you just name managed to conquer half of the planet, then I could see it happening.

Considering Italy is on my wish list I don't think anybody wants to outright replace the Roman Empire, but somehow make it work alongside of it.

Also Hawaii isn't technically American, but from Oceania, even though the current state of Hawaii is part of the U.S.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

"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.

Not gonna lie, after Europe, Central/Mesoamerica and South America are very well-represented, if you take into considerations the level of representation of this area in the last few civ games and the number of major players in this area in the real world, and 3 out of 6 civs he just named are Mesoamerican and South American.

Also Hawaii isn't technically American, but from Oceania, even though the current state of Hawaii is part of the U.S.

The thing about Hawaii is Polynesian cultures are very close to one another, so I fail to see any increase in diversity with the inclusion of Hawaii when Maori is in the game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Despite saying I want more non-European diversity in civ6 - Gaul has been my favourite NFP civ (Ethiopia comes very close). I love their implementation and feel. That said, in future civ games I'd love to see them rotate among celtic nations/cultures similar to how they have done with the scandinavian countries between civ6 and civ5. The celt blob wasn't a great solution so give each of them their chance to shine.

I also like the Gaul the most, Europe can be very well representade by Rome and Gaul only hahahahaha XD

The problem with the Olmecs is they have no known spoken language so I don't ever see them getting added unless they go back to leaders that don't speak.

That is a problem! Did you heard about Olmec-Xicalanca from Cacaxtla? they are Mayan-Olmecs, maybe if use Maya language to they, just to they don't be quite will be fun enought

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not gonna lie, after Europe, Central/Mesoamerica and South America are very well-represented, if you take into considerations the level of representation of this area in the last few civ games and the number of major players in this area in the real world, and 3 out of 6 civs he just named are Mesoamerican and South American.

North America, north of Mesoamerica, is the region I think needs the most attention which could easily fit at least two more civs such as the Iroquois and another tribe in the west.

The thing about Hawaii is Polynesian cultures are very close to one another, so I fail to see any increase in diversity with the inclusion of Hawaii when Maori is in the game.

I agree that the inclusion of Hawaii isn't really needed with the Maori. I was just pointing out that the Kingdom of Hawaii wouldn't technically be another civ from the Americas so he only named 4. But yes taking away 6 European civs and putting in most into America isn't really spreading much out. Especially when you could argue that their is as much diversity of culture between Northern Europe and Southern Europe.

That is a problem! Did you heard about Olmec-Xicalanca from Cacaxtla? they are Mayan-Olmecs, maybe if use Maya language to they, just to they don't be quite will be fun enought

It really wouldn't feel like the Olmec civilization though, not to mention their city names would be a bunch of archaeological names in Spanish, even more so than the Maya already,

 

[Evie]

I appreciate your point.

However, when they add new Civs, I want to be excited by it, and that generally means name recognition. I was excited by Babylon, Byzantines and the Gauls because I'd known a bit about them and felt some kind of connection. Georgians? Mapuche? Khmer? I'd head their names before, and...that's about it. They're fillers, and that's about it.

Obviously, the roster of what is exciting and what is filler is different for each person, but there'll be some that would be universally desired and some that are more niche. I'd love to have Venetians, while I'd never even heard of the Yupiks. Guess which one I'd spend money on, and which I wouldn't? That's why it's Euro centric - two of the three main areas for selling games have a strong recognition for European civilisations.

I don't mind more obscure Civs, but I want recognisable ones too.

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.

Personally, Venetia and Portugal would bore the heck out of me - It's liley I would never use them. Austria (Germany Jr.) and the Holy Roman Empire (Germany Sr.) would be worse. Not every freaking polity in European history is a distinct civilization. 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 is a problem! Did you heard about Olmec-Xicalanca from Cacaxtla? they are Mayan-Olmecs, maybe if use Maya language to they, just to they don't be quite will be fun enought

The Olmec-Xicalanca are not the Olmecs. The confusion is the result of a sixteenth century text that predates our modern understanding of the Olmec civilization (and use of the term Olmecs), and the two are separate entities, one of them flourishing more almost a millenia after the other faded.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I think the olmecs are represented enough via La Venta, considering how little is known about them

 

[Birch617]

I get what you mean, but then out of all European civilizations that are currently in the game, which one do you think we should do without? If you want to fill somewhere else, you need to take something out, right?

I don't think thing have to be that way; i don't think we have to cut out someone to add another one, why not both, i think its better way to represent humanity showing that people thrive no matter where they are from.

"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.

I agreed but still we do need more non-european civs.

The thing about Hawaii is Polynesian cultures are very close to one another, so I fail to see any increase in diversity with the inclusion of Hawaii when Maori is in the game.

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.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think the olmecs are represented enough via La Venta, considering how little is known about them

Palmares and Haiti, if we want them in Civ 6, should at least get City-States, right?

 

[Birch617]

Palmares and Haiti, if we want them in Civ 6, should at least get City-States, right?

Not really, there is more info about them than the Olmecs, especially when it comes to Haiti, which is an important in history of freedom for african slaves in America, ideally it would be cool to have both, but if we need to be realistic, Haiti would be a Civ and Palmares a city-state

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

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.

Well, if the development of civ6 goes on for eternity with an unlimited number of slots, then sure, why not add literally everything you can think of regardless of how close certain cultures are to one another, but that is not the case here, isn't it? If you want to add a civilization, that one is gonna take the place a potential other, so which option sounds more "diverse", 2 closely resembled cultures or 2 totally unique ones?

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Olmec-Xicalanca are not the Olmecs. The confusion is the result of a sixteenth century text that predates our modern understanding of the Olmec civilization (and use of the term Olmecs), and the two are separate entities, one of them flourishing more almost a millenia after the other faded.

I visited Cacaxtla in Mexico and the guy who guide me tell me that>
First Olmecs moved out from their land to Teotihuacan and their they mixed up with Xicalanca people and when Teotihuacan fell they move out to Cacaxtla (in central Mexico, nowadays Tlaxcala state) and they like to paint their body with black dye

I think the olmecs are represented enough via La Venta, considering how little is known about them

I need to agree La Venta is one of the best city state in the game because the suzerain effect of build huge heads everywhere XD

But I guess Mesoamerica need more than Aztecs, maybe starts CIv 7 without the Aztecs but Toltec instead. Aztecs are famous because was conquered by the Spaniards but the biggest empire from MesoAmerica was the Toltecs.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I visited Cacaxtla in Mexico and the guy who guide me tell me that>
First Olmecs moved out from their land to Teotihuacan and their they mixed up with Xicalanca people and when Teotihuacan fell they move out to Cacaxtla (in central Mexico, nowadays Tlaxcala state) and they like to paint their body with black dye

I need to agree La Venta is one of the best city state in the game because the suzerain effect of build huge heads everywhere XD

But I guess Mesoamerica need more than Aztecs, maybe starts CIv 7 without the Aztecs but Toltec instead. Aztecs are famous because was conquered by the Spaniards but the biggest empire from MesoAmerica was the Toltecs.

Well, there's the Maya now, too

 

[Birch617]

I need to agree La Venta is one of the best city state in the game because the suzerain effect of build huge heads everywhere XD

In the rare event that they made the Olmecs into a Civ, i always toughs that the San Agustin Culture could take their place as city-state and retain their suzerain effect (of course changing the model of the improvement).
Both are Pre-Columbian people that we know very little about them and they impressive rock monuments

Well, there's the Maya now, too

Yeah i think when it comes to Mesoamerica, they are a great example of showing more diversity of a certain area; i wouldn't mind Zapotec or Toltec civ because i'm not saying that only two civs equals to fully representing an area, but yeah

 

[Gebstadter]

The upside-down map is killing my brain cells, Henri. Please, turn it right-side-up before I go braindead!

 

[Henri Christophe]

In the rare event that they made the Olmecs into a Civ, i always toughs that the San Agustin Culture could take their place as city-state and retain their suzerain effect (of course changing the model of the improvement).
Both are Pre-Columbian people that we know very little about them and they impressive rock monuments


Yeah i think when it comes to Mesoamerica, they are a great example of showing more diversity of a certain area; i wouldn't mind Zapotec or Toltec civ because i'm not saying that only two civs equals to fully representing an area, but yeah

San Agustin is a very good option to substitue La Venta, even because it is both are American.
I also don't mind if Zapotec and Toltec come to this game, the problem is, it is coming Civ7, will end all civs to add in this game and we will just have moods to play with our favorite civilizations.

I vote for don't do Civ7 untill have at least the Haiti and the Toltecs in Civ 6 XD