How diverse is civ6?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Question: Why are you quoting me but not addressing my point? Not to be rude at all, but it seems like you forgot to put something in between the two first quotes.

Sorry. I had to run somewhere and forgot to respond to you before I posted. It's fixed now.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The problem with my position is that countries like Sweden and Georgia are in the game. I know a bit about Byzantine history, and even then, Georgia is a small player. Sweden had its 15 moments of fame and has done little else other than invent dynamite since. I have no idea why these countries are in the game.



Yep. Although Korea has probably done enough to merit inclusion, deferring to them being included since 3 (and before Civ became concerned with social justice, which to me adds even more credibility). Why be offended? I'm not sure achieving what I define as 4x success is anything to be proud about IRL.

That would be like being offended that Ronald Reagan isn't in Super Smash Bros

because it gives people a chance to learn about certain culture . I would say Civ needs to focus more on lesser-known cultures- we all know about Rome and China, and America and Great Britian... letting people know about smaller nation is always a good thing

 

[Henri Christophe]

No offense but one could argue that Gaul were more significant than many others that you want in the game such as the Dahomey and the Guarini.

that is the why we cannot judge a civilization by importance, but instead in fun to play with.
Gaul have the same importance to Europe than Guarani have to South America, both are just the native in land before the might civilizated society conquer them.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Gaul have the same importance to Europe than Guarani have to South America,

you are wrong sir- so many countries still claim Gaulic heritage... how many nations claim Guarani heritage?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Your representation map is incomplete as it is missing all the city states. Far more cultures are present than is represented by the major civs.

Also, as noted elsewhere in this thread, your map projection is misleading when identifying geographical gaps. I would recommend a Lambert projection for a more useful comparison.

--------

From a purely personal perspective, I would much prefer pretty much exclusively ancient (maybe up to medieval) cultures with geographic considerations being secondary to whether there's an era-appropriate culture present.

 

[Henri Christophe]

you are wrong sir- so many countries still claim Gaulic heritage... how many nations claim Guarani heritage?

Paraguay still speak the Guarani language and country as Brazil and Argentina is very influenced by Guarani

Your representation map is incomplete as it is missing all the city states. Far more cultures are present than is represented by the major civs.

Also, as noted elsewhere in this thread, your map projection is misleading when identifying geographical gaps. I would recommend a Lambert projection for a more useful comparison.

--------

From a purely personal perspective, I would much prefer pretty much exclusively ancient (maybe up to medieval) cultures with geographic considerations being secondary to whether there's an era-appropriate culture present.

I'm thinking in do City States map after, I didn't made yet because some city state I don't know where is it XD

 

[The Civs 6]

because it gives people a chance to learn about certain culture . I would say Civ needs to focus more on lesser-known cultures- we all know about Rome and China, and America and Great Britian... letting people know about smaller nation is always a good thing

Why is the world improved by recasting New Zealand as a genociding conquering power? There are other and better mediums for providing information about non-4x appropriate polities. For example, the Goths are very interesting and people should learn more about them, but that doesn't make them suitable for a Civ 6 game. So there is Rome Total War, Barbarian Invasion. For the Irish (another European civ that doesn't get love because they don't fit the social justice agenda), there is Crusader Kings 2.

Is there a need for strategy games that go outside of the overused times and places like the Medieval era? Absolutely.

you are wrong sir- so many countries still claim Gaulic heritage... how many nations claim Guarani heritage?

And there is no Gaulic heritage left, other than a few street signs in Wales and Ireland and a name that is occasionally applied to France. Their polity did not stand the test of time.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Why is the world improved by recasting New Zealand as a genociding conquering power?

Because people would have heard about it. Just as why Mapuche people were happy when they heard it is going to be in civ 6.

 

[The Civs 6]

Because people would have heard about it. Just as why Mapuche people were happy when they heard it is going to be in civ 6.

So Civ is a platform for agendas. Why not just advocate for a game where a small country like New Zealand (that has had no substantial impact on the world, other than being the filming location for Lord of the Rings) is actually a good fit? Why try to shove a round peg into a square hole?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Because people would have heard about it. Just as why Mapuche people were happy when they heard it is going to be in civ 6.

As far as New Zealand goes I'm not sure I would necessarily want to see them any time soon, even over other post colonial nations. Plus Auckland is a good city state.

I think Civ 6 did a good job by at least giving us the Maori which is basically like giving us New Zealand, and I'm sure you would agree. It's kind of similar to how they gave us the Mapuche without giving us Chile or continuing to give us the Zulu and Aztecs over South Africa and Mexico.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think population isn't important to a civ be in a game. Important is, how many people will have fun with they.
Olmecs I guess everybody will have fun with they.

 

[Xandinho]

The problem with my position is that countries like Sweden and Georgia are in the game. I know a bit about Byzantine history, and even then, Georgia is a small player. Sweden had its 15 moments of fame and has done little else other than invent dynamite since. I have no idea why these countries are in the game.

Well, the main reason that Georgia is in the game is probably the Tamar's meme, maybe Firaxis wouldn't consider it if it was not the meme. Even so, I think Georgia is a good inclusion (boring gameplay, but cool addition). The Caucasus was never represented in the game before with a playable civ and Georgia made it. Obvisiously Armenia could be a better option, but would be controversial, so Georgia is probably the best option if we want Caucasus represented in the game.

And Sweden is in the game because of its gameplay in mixing culture, great people, diplomacy and giving new world competitions to scientific and cultural awards (Nobel Prize) as Sweden is the best civs for such gameplay, in addition to giving a post-vinking representation to Scandinavia. I don't see Sweden as an unnecessary inclusion.

That is why I don't like this argument that a small population or size should exclude civs, it's quite simplistic.
Possibly, some people have resistance to smaller cultures and civs from other places that they're not familiar with because they're not used to seeing this in Civ. Until Civ4 only large civs were included in the game, in Civ5 we had a little more diversity adding Sweden, Morocco, Brazil, Polynesia (although not a fan of the blob) and in Civ6 we had a very diverse game both in playable civs and in city-states representing cultures from around the world quite well. Perhaps adding these civs to the game will make people who are unfamiliar get educated and see that history is more than the European wars that we are tired of seeing in history books.

For example, I had never heard of Cree before R&F, and after playing and getting to know their history, I find them fascinating. I had heard of Maori on the surface, but now knowing more about their history and culture, I already think they should be in all editions of the game.
Anyone can look at Mapuche and think it is a random tribe, but today they are possibly one of the largest native nations on the American continent and were able to resist the Incas and Spaniards for centuries.

I know that is coolest to play with big empires of the history: Mongol, China, England, Spain...but history is not only of the biggest ones. And adding small civs don't mean exclude the big ones. If you look at the game you'll see that most of the big empires are already in the game, the biggest one missing is Portugal, which is probably coming in March.

Some civs can be interesting if they have a nice culture and history, a nice leader, a good opportunity to give a nice and unique gameplay...

 

[Kupe Navigator]

So Civ is a platform for agendas. Why not just advocate for a game where a small country like New Zealand (that has had no substantial impact on the world, other than being the filming location for Lord of the Rings) is actually a good fit? Why try to shove a round peg into a square hole?

Every media is a platform for agendas.

 

[The Civs 6]

Sweden isn't a culture that's unfamiliar to me. Same with Scotland. Same standard applies for non-European countries. They are just bad inclusions in a game at the scale of Civilization.

Someone brought up how Tanzania has 50 million people, the same as the Romans. Sweden has about 10 million people. It's just such a small nation and I just don't see their big historical impact.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Well, the main reason that Georgia is in the game is probably the Tamar's meme, maybe Firaxis wouldn't consider it if it was not the meme. Even so, I think Georgia is a good inclusion (boring gameplay, mas cool addition). The Caucasus was never represented in the game before with a playable civ and Georgia made it. Obvisiously Armenia could be a better option, but would be controversial, so Georgia is probably the best option if we want Caucasus represented in the game.

And Sweden is in the game because of its gameplay in mixing culture, great people, diplomacy and giving new world competitions to scientific and cultural awards (Nobel Prize) as Sweden is the best civs for such gameplay, in addition to giving a post-vinking representation to Scandinavia. I don't see Sweden as an unnecessary inclusion.

That is why I don't like this argument that a small population or size should exclude civs, it's quite simplistic.
Possibly, some people have resistance to smaller cultures and civs from other places that they're not familiar with because they're not used to seeing this in Civ. Until Civ4 only large civs were included in the game, in Civ5 we had a little more diversity adding Sweden, Morocco, Brazil, Polynesia (although not a fan of the blob) and in Civ6 we had a very diverse game both in playable civs and in city-states representing cultures from around the world quite well. Perhaps adding these civs to the game will make people who are unfamiliar get educated and see that history is more than the European wars that we are tired of seeing in history books.

For example, I had never heard of Cree before R&F, and after playing and getting to know their story, I find them fascinating. I had heard of Maori on the surface, but now knowing more about their history and culture, I already think they should be in all editions of the game.
Anyone can look at Mapuche and think it is a random tribe, but today they are possibly one of the largest native nations on the American continent and were able to resist the Incas and Spaniards for centuries.

I know that is coolest to play with big empires of the history: Mongol, China, England, Spain...but history is not only of the biggest ones. And adding small civs don't mean exclude the big ones. If you look at the game you'll see that most of the big empires are already in the game, the biggest one missing is Portugal, which is probably coming in March.

Some civs can be interesting if they have a nice culture and history, a nice leader, a good opportunity to give a nice and unique gameplay...

Exactly! On a personal note, the reason why I am into history so much is because of Civ 6. Making these empires and meeting memorable Leaders made me want to know the history behind them. To this day, I will always thank Civ 6 for giving me my love of history.
On the subject of the Maori, adding them really helps deblob the Polynesia blob, same with Gaul for the Celts.
And on the subject of City-States, giving you specific bonuses for becoming Suzerain of a City-State instead of just making you their overlord really helps flesh out the different cultures that each City-State has to offer.

Sweden isn't a culture that's unfamiliar to me. Same with Scotland. Same standard applies for non-European countries. They are just bad inclusions in a game at the scale of Civilization.

Someone brought up how Tanzania has 50 million people, the same as the Romans. Sweden has about 10 million people. It's just such a small nation and I just don't see their big historical impact.

Thirty Years War? Gustavus Adolphus? Nobel Prizes? Kalmar Union?

 

[The Civs 6]

Every media is a platform for agendas.

Do we have to do that? Can't we have stuff like sports and video games that are free from the taint?

Thirty Years War? Gustavus Adolphus? Nobel Prizes?

Didn't Sweden get booted out pretty early? Like they weren't even that successful, just temporary success that wasn't sustainable. And Nobel prizes, please, freaking Henry Kissinger got a Nobel peace prize.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Didn't Sweden get booted out pretty early? Like they weren't even that successful, just temporary success that wasn't sustainable. And Nobel prizes, please, freaking Henry Kissinger got a Nobel peace prize.

The early ones. But still, Sweden has left its mark on the world for better or for worse. Yes, they were booted out pretty quickly, but through the Thiry Years War, they established an empire that lasted for around a century.
Even if some of their legacies aren't for the better, they still left legacies worthy to remember. At least, that's how I view it. You're free to disagree with me.

 

[The Civs 6]

The early ones. And besides, Sweden has left its mark on the world. Yes, they were booted out pretty quickly, but through the Thiry Years War, they established an empire that lasted for around a century.
Even if some of their legacies aren't for the better, they still left legacies worthy to remember. At least, that's how I view it. You're free to disagree with me.

Yeah no disrespect, I just don't see why they aren't blobbed with the Vikings.

 

[Xandinho]

Sweden isn't a culture that's unfamiliar to me. Same with Scotland. Same standard applies for non-European countries. They are just bad inclusions in a game at the scale of Civilization.

Someone brought up how Tanzania has 50 million people, the same as the Romans. Sweden has about 10 million people. It's just such a small nation and I just don't see their big historical impact.

Well, maybe there are ~30-35 civilizations/empires that have had a great global impact, and if we have 48 civilizations at the moment, it would be expected that many of them will not have a such global impact. In addition, if we were to restrict the game to only civs with great global impact, we would always have a game with a maximum of 35 civs and always the same.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, the main reason that Georgia is in the game is probably the Tamar's meme, maybe Firaxis wouldn't consider it if it was not the meme. Even so, I think Georgia is a good inclusion (boring gameplay, mas cool addition). The Caucasus was never represented in the game before with a playable civ and Georgia made it. Obvisiously Armenia could be a better option, but would be controversial, so Georgia is probably the best option if we want Caucasus represented in the game.

I'd prefer Armenia too but I agree that Georgia is an interesting choice though probably the most boring design wise.

And Sweden is in the game because of its gameplay in mixing culture, great people, diplomacy and giving new world competitions to scientific and cultural awards (Nobel Prize) as Sweden is the best civs for such gameplay, in addition to giving a post-vinking representation to Scandinavia. I don't see Sweden as an unnecessary inclusion.

As much as I would have initially rather have Austria over Sweden, and Hungary, when I found out GS was getting a diplomatic victory, I do find the their Nobel Prize mechanic unique.
Of course many would say that Austria is basically Germany 2.0, when it comes to diversity, which I can't wholly argue with that statement.

Someone brought up how Tanzania has 50 million people, the same as the Romans. Sweden has about 10 million people. It's just such a small nation and I just don't see their big historical impact.

Is there any particular civilization that you would rather get in the game over Sweden that you can claim has had more of a historical impact?
In a game with about 40 to 50 civs I don't see any reason not to include them. Even Humankind looks to be including them over the Inca and Portugal and they have 60 in their base game.

Yeah no disrespect, I just don't see why they aren't blobbed with the Vikings.

Scandinavia was blobbed but people complained about a civ called Vikings, not to mention that the Swedes were the least Viking like compared to their Danish and Norwegian counterparts.