How diverse is civ6?

[Duke William of Normandy]

The Civ4 “Nextwar” scenario actually did this. “America Inc” including the Anglo sphere, “Europa”, “Pan Asian Cooperative” aka east Asia, and everyone’s favorite Uber blob, The Great Southern Empire which somehow crams South America, Africa, And India together under the guise of “they are all like, poor people or something.”

We will never again see such blobby perfection in our lives.

Speak for yourself, man. Civilization Blobs to me will always be an abomination.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Civ4 “Nextwar” scenario actually did this. “America Inc” including the Anglo sphere, “Europa”, “Pan Asian Cooperative” aka east Asia, and everyone’s favorite Uber blob, The Great Southern Empire which somehow crams South America, Africa, And India together under the guise of “they are all like, poor people or something.”

We will never again see such blobby perfection in our lives.

I'd be fine with something similar if it was relegated to a futuristic scenario setting similar to maybe how BE did their factions. Though maybe not the last one.
According to the Civ Wiki it lumps Africa, the Middle East, India and Latin America together which those 4 should at least be separated from each other.

 

[The Civs 6]

How about future Saudi Arabia with a capital of Neom?

 

[Sostratus]

Speak for yourself, man. Civilization Blobs to me will always be an abomination.

I'd be fine with something similar if it was relegated to a futuristic scenario setting similar to maybe how BE did their factions. Though maybe not the last one.

Oh i wasn't saying those were good choices for a civ game, only that it was peak blob. Standard fare for a game also had "vikings" and "native americans" I suppose.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'd love the blob of Polinesya in Civ5

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Oh i wasn't saying those were good choices for a civ game, only that it was peak blob. Standard fare for a game also had "vikings" and "native americans" I suppose.

True, true. At least it's a scenario and not an actual Civilization. I still think any blob is bad though.

 

[Evie]

Countries and civilizations are different things. Athens and Sparta were never the same polity in any meaningful way (one briefly conquered the other, then lost it again), but they shouldn't be separate civilizations. I likewise wouldn't want a Burgundy civilization split off from France (and I love Burgundy!), or as preciously mentioned, Austria from Germany. The same goes IMO for Kongo and Ndongo (and the later was a vassal of Kongo for a while, so there is a linkage).

At some point, we cannot represent every state in history in Civ. We need to have civilizations over countries, and alt leaders to represent different polities. We shouldh't have a Bantu or Native American (or Algonquian) civ blob, but we shouldn't have every single Bantu polity or Native tribe either. Europe as it is pushes deblobbing as far as it should ever go - IMO too far, in Macedonia's case (I'd much rather have Alex as the third Greek Leader).

If Free Cities could take up a name when they form, I could see all those independent polities becoming names that the Free Cities can take. But not playable civilizations.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Countries and civilizations are different things. Athens and Sparta were never the same polity in any meaningful way (one briefly conquered the other, then lost it again), but they shouldn't be separate civilizations. I likewise wouldn't want a Burgundy civilization split off from France (and I love Burgundy!), or as preciously mentioned, Austria from Germany. The same goes IMO for Kongo and Ndongo (and the later was a vassal of Kongo for a while, so there is a linkage).

At some point, we cannot represent every state in history in Civ. We need to have civilizations over countries, and alt leaders to represent different polities. We shouldh't have a Bantu or Native American (or Algonquian) civ blob, but we shouldn't have every single Bantu polity or Native tribe either. Europe as it is pushes deblobbing as far as it should ever go - IMO too far, in Macedonia's case (I'd much rather have Alex as the third Greek Leader).

If Free Cities could take up a name when they form, I could see all those independent polities becoming names that the Free Cities can take. But not playable civilizations.

Although I agree with most of this statement I'm not so sure about Austria being blobbed into Germany all the time. I mean a separate Austria exists today for a reason and the Austria under Maria Theresa was a separate entity from Prussia, which constitutes most of modern Germany as we know today. I think a more 20th century designed Germany would distinguish more from Austria than a Holy Roman Empire designed one.

As much as I like the idea behind Macedon I can agree that Alexander could arguably be another Greek leader. Though having two warlike Greek leaders might be too much and would rather swap Gorgo for him.

 

[Evie]

There is a reason they're different doesn't mean they raise to the level of being distinct civilizations. In the same vein that there are very good reasons why Belgium exist as a separate nation but that doesn't make it a separate civilizations. Multiple polities can be part of one civilizartion.

Maria Theresa's Austria was very much German civilization - the predominant part of it, in fact, since Maria Theresa's husband was
holy Roman Emperor in name (and that was a legal fiction because Maria Theresa couldn't be legally). It's Prussia that was the outlier at the time. It later grew to be predominant in the wake of the Napoleonic wars, but Prussian Germany barely lasted over a century, compared to the four+ of Austrian/Habsburg Germany.

Certainly if Germany were to get a distinctly Prussian leader like Bismarck or Frederick the Great then having a Habsburg altleader would make a lot of sense. But Frederic Barbarossa has no such issue.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There is a reason they're different doesn't mean they raise to the level of being distinct civilizations. In the same vein that there are very good reasons why Belgium exist as a separate nation but that doesn't make it a separate civilizations. Multiple polities can be part of one civilizartion.

Belgium isn't a separate civilization because it exists as a separate city-state, Brussels.
Certain civilizations in the game are no different from different polities and there's nothing stopping them from possibly making a Belgian civ if they wanted too. Not that I'd want it.

Maria Theresa's Austria was very much German civilization - the predominant part of it, in fact, since Maria Theresa's husband was
holy Roman Emperor in name (and that was a legal fiction because Maria Theresa couldn't be legally). It's Prussia that was the outlier at the time. It later grew to be predominant in the wake of the Napoleonic wars, but Prussian Germany barely lasted over a century, compared to the four+ of Austrian/Habsburg Germany.

Certainly if Germany were to get a distinctly Prussian leader like Bismarck or Frederick the Great then having a Habsburg altleader would make a lot of sense. But Frederic Barbarossa has no such issue.

Arguably yes I can see why Austria isn't needed with Frederick Barbarossa leading Germany. I have feeling that's also a reason why they did go with Hungary this time around.
But Austria as a separate civ existed apart from Germany in the past so I don't see why that would prevent them from returning in some capacity in the future.

 

[Evie]

I mean nothing I'm saying prevents anything, as I don't make the rules.

But I am saying that in a game that has limited ressources for civilizations to include, there are numerous things that are far more interesting to use those limited resources on than splitting off from Germany a nation that has only really been outside Germany for 200 years and spent most of the time before that being the political center of Germany. Basically, if we have a limit on civs to include, then Austria and Germany (and the HRE) I think should be one civ.

 

[nzcamel]

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

While Civilization can be educational on the side, it has no duty to let people know about smaller nations. While opinions will differ part of its success is that it mostly pits the Titans of history against each other. The average player does find that more interesting than too much "what if", I think because it does have real historical world weight behind it.

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?

Well... we are known for a couple more important things than that; but yes, I agree that Peter Jacksons efforts have been a huge boost towards our impending cultural victory

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.

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.

Christchurch would be an even better one
I am content that the Maori represent NZ in part; though any culture that never got past Chiefdomship is not a great contender for Civ imho.

Why is he wrong? We have 6000 years of China blob. Why shouldn't we look at European history the same way?

Alright, I digress. We could be able to deblob China with maybe an additional Civ in the regional area, I could agree with that.

Because that comparison isn't valid. Yes, China's borders and dynasties changed; but they didn't have the same vying nation state situation for millennia that Europe has. Post Rome just about every conqueror in Europe has tried to bring it's hegemony back, but none succeed for good reason.

I think the long lasting civilisations like China and India and Egypt are better represented by multiple official leaders than by different Civs; especially where the core of their empire has remained within the same general area.

However, we should not take the China somewhat-blob as a sign to blob America with New Zealand and England. These three have different cultures, mannerisms, etc.

At this point in time, just as the Belgians aren't distinct enough to actually be a different Civilisation to the Dutch; nor is NZ, Australia, Canada distinct enough to be a different Civilization to the UK. Yes, we do have some significant cultural differences, informed by both out distance from old blighty and by the native peoples who lived here before Europeans; but we are still the same Civilisation for most intents and purposes. Maybe in centuries to come some of us will stride the world stage in such a way as to merit our own inclusion, but that simply isn't a reality in the early 21st century.

that's a tenable position I think, although I would say deblobbing China also has the virtue of showing different phases civilization (Song versus Qin versus Qing versus CCP)

You won't get the CCP (other than Civ 4 adding Mao) as they are post-WWII; and while their influence may be able to keep Tibet etc out, but that in turn should keep them out too.

since we have Roman and Byzantium. We can have different stages of China history as different Civ as well.

See, I would do away with Byzantium in my ideal version of Civ with the limit of the number of Civs we have. Having said that, as the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, I do think they are a bit more distinct than a different Indian or Chinese dynasty split off into it's own Civ would be. They rarely controlled Italy, the core land to the Roman Republic and Empire.

As someone who was born in America and then moved, I wouldn't find it offensive, but I would find it odd and ignorant of the different cultures. It's odd that you choose to defend your idea of blobbing all English speaking countries by pointing to a somewhat-blob of China. There is a difference between the two. With the China blob, the people are in the somewhat same regional area under leadership that ostensibly rules over all of them. With your Anglo-blob, we have peoples split by vast oceans with different cultures, different governments, different histories, etc.

I largely agree with the Duke's take above

I'd rather have individual cultures thoroughly and uniquely represented through interesting gameplay choices than artificially try to fill up the map just because.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I agree with most of your points, @nzcamel, although I do somewhat not appreciate being called "stupid". I do hope it's a joke or a misclick.

I also agree with your statement about China being better represented by different Leaders from different dynasties. Cao Cao, Han Wudi, Taizong, and other examples could be good choices.

To add to the topic, the Iroquois in Civ 6 would finish North America.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I personally believe Native American civs like Iroquois would be a final new civ for NFP in March 2021.
Shoshone would be nice too

 

[nzcamel]

I agree with most of your points, @nzcamel, although I do somewhat not appreciate being called "stupid". I do hope it's a joke or a misclick.

I also agree with your statement about China being better represented by different Leaders from different dynasties. Cao Cao, Han Wudi, Taizong, and other examples could be good choices.

Thankyou, and of course I'm not actually calling you stupid. It's completely silly banter

 

[Evie]

Iroquois would be a huge add (though they would overlap a lot with Canada and USA on a TSL map, but that's a Canada and the Us problem, not an Iroquois one), but what's really missing is something in the Rockies or Pacific Northwest.

 

[Sostratus]

Iroquois would be a huge add (though they would overlap a lot with Canada and USA on a TSL map, but that's a Canada and the Us problem, not an Iroquois one), but what's really missing is something in the Rockies or Pacific Northwest.

US native groups can get difficult, especially extant ones that still exist today, as Firaxis found out with the pueblo. There are only so many north american tribes which have enough "material" to make a civ out of - we are talking about something approximating stone age hunter-gatherer cultures right up to and around the point of contact. AFAIK copper was available by picking it up off the ground or from exposed rocks, and mining activity was scant. Some pacific NW cultures were briefly known to use iron that floated in from japanese shipwrecks (now there's a niche resource) but you have literally no smelting/metal casting etc. I'm only talking about north America here. It's a bit weird to think that even horses and the prominent horse culture only came about after europeans showed up - imagine trying to depict the Plains tribes before horses!

 

[nzcamel]

Iroquois would be a huge add (though they would overlap a lot with Canada and USA on a TSL map, but that's a Canada and the Us problem, not an Iroquois one), but what's really missing is something in the Rockies or Pacific Northwest.

I think their overlap on any TSL map is not even a US or Canada problem. It's only a problem for the small, but vocal, percentage of players who adore TSL.
And yes, The Haudenosaunee should absolutely be added!

 

[Henri Christophe]

About Iroquois, their Unique Unit should be something replace mosquetman or rifleman.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

About Iroquois, their Unique Unit should be something replace mosquetman or rifleman.

Perhaps the Mohawk Warrior as a Unique Unit?