How diverse is civ6?

[Henri Christophe]

I'm pretty sure at this point we will never get rid of Shaka, Gandhi and Alexander so that would probably be the best option along with another leader for Greece as well if Macedon goes back to being a part of Greece.

I'm very glad Shaka is in this list, I just discover about Shaka because this game.

Ideally it would probably be for the best. But in a game with between only 40 to 60 different factions there's only so many civs you can make and realistically I only see the possibility of maybe a separate Mughal Civ appearing. The same can be argued for the different Chinese dynasties. The way Humankind works it's fine to have a separate Zhou and Ming but not for Civ.

I guess Chinese laws avoid the game separete they, we need to think in China just as a thing to be able to sell their (for these reason we never will see Tibet in this game, despite Tibet super deserve be in the game).

But India don't care for this, we can deblobed they and making this game sell even more in India.

There's Chola to represent Sri Lanka and the surrounding lands...

The Chola was an amazing option to become a civ

But, as I said before, I would prefer Ahmadnagar Sultanate because the amazing saga of one of his leader, Malik Ambar
Who fought and won the might Mughal Empire.

 

[Evie]

More than one, two at the very most, other Indian subcontinent civs is just not really reasonsble with limited civs. As said before, we csnnot just have every culture and state in the game. I think one southern Indian civilization is our best bet.

Henri, I'm sorry but Ahmadnagar doesn't strike me as a good choice there. Southern India is much more distinct than the various minor sultanates of North Central India, and much more in need of deblobbing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There's Chola to represent Sri Lanka and the surrounding lands...

Chola is probably the best bet if we were to have a separate southern India civ but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I know some Civ fans were kind of annoyed at about Gaul incoming as they said "it's just Ancient France". I can only imagine the outrage at the Chola being "it's just Medieval India."

Even so I think Northern India, with the Maurya and Mughals, are more marketable and would sell better as separate civs more than the Chola. Not to mention they would be more familiar to Western audiences, which is what Civ mainly caters to.

I guess Chinese laws avoid the game separete they, we need to think in China just as a thing to be able to sell their (for these reason we never will see Tibet in this game, despite Tibet super deserve be in the game).

Even though I think dynasties such as Zhou, Han and Ming fall under China, I believe that Tibet could be their own separate civ based on their Medieval Empire.

 

[nzcamel]

India should start to be represented by the many kingdoms and sultanates it was formed up.

we need to deblobed India

This map is a perfect example of why India is absolutely fine as one civilisation. Indian territory covers all of this. That's actually something to celebrate. If Civ ever has over a hundred civilisations, then let's talk about one of their more distinct dynasties getting seperate representation.

The term "blob" certainly doesn't apply to them at all; as there is nothing artificial about India as a civilisation, like there is with Native Americans, Polynesia, etc.

 

[Evie]

Not so true, given how recent unified India is, and how it's largely a product of (western) Colonialism - prior to Britain merging all its colonies together, the north and South of India had essentially never been together for long in all their millenia of history (the Mughal and Maurya at their greatest extent included parts of. - but not all - of the south, but briefly and not the whole region). The people spoke different languages, had different religious beliefs (broadly related, but distinct), different cultures, and never were united.

India largely IS an artificial construct imposed by westerners to group a lot of largely unrelated people together, just like Native Americans or Polynesia. It's just one that was enforced more effectively than most, to the point of becoming something like a modern reality. But not a historical one.

 

[nzcamel]

I don't see that any differently to China not always being the complete mass we know it as today. Or a whole raft of civilisations ingame actually (i.e. Spain). Sure, the totality is something we see today, but let's say that India increased its borders to include another significant chunk of its neighbours that it had never held before, in another hundred years I wouldn't expect this conversation to play out any differently just because of that. That they haven't always held that land doesn't automatically make their representation in game inaccurate.
And the Mughal were foreign invaders

Again, this is on the basis that atm we get 40-50 odd Civs. The more Civs can be added the more I'm happy to see different dynasties (like the Mughal) get their day in the sun.

 

[Evie]

I mean, I would certainly consider Tibet a different civilization from China. Arguably the people of Xinjiang and the Manchu as well. The difference here is that Tibet is politically dodgy due to the PRC and there are better Turkic and Steppe people representative to include first before Xinjiang and Manchu. Southern India is neither dodgy nor has better representation.

In that vein, Vietnam and Korea have both been part of China longer than Southern India and Northern India have been united, yet no one argues for excluding them on that basis. Political borders at any specific point are often a poor indicator of what is or is not part of a civilization.

I'd say that a second Indian civilization is around the 50-60 rank for inclusion on a priority list.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Mainland China don't need more Civs, but mainland India need.
I guess next expansion will be Kublai Khan and VIetnã, maybe next expansion in Asia can be Chola Sultanate and Mughal Empire.
Asia is so big and a kind of empity of Civs

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't see that any differently to China not always being the complete mass we know it as today. Or a whole raft of civilisations ingame actually (i.e. Spain). Sure, the totality is something we see today, but let's say that India increased its borders to include another significant chunk of its neighbours that it had never held before, in another hundred years I wouldn't expect this conversation to play out any differently just because of that. That they haven't always held that land doesn't automatically make their representation in game inaccurate.
And the Mughal were foreign invaders

Again, this is on the basis that atm we get 40-50 odd Civs. The more Civs can be added the more I'm happy to see different dynasties (like the Mughal) get their day in the sun.

I think the Mughal Empire based around Lahore with Akbar the Great, or Babur from Kabul, which could be interesting and could even appear alongside India. It would have to wait for Civ 7 though.

Not so true, given how recent unified India is, and how it's largely a product of (western) Colonialism - prior to Britain merging all its colonies together, the north and South of India had essentially never been together for long in all their millenia of history (the Mughal and Maurya at their greatest extent included parts of. - but not all - of the south, but briefly and not the whole region). The people spoke different languages, had different religious beliefs (broadly related, but distinct), different cultures, and never were united.

India largely IS an artificial construct imposed by westerners to group a lot of largely unrelated people together, just like Native Americans or Polynesia. It's just one that was enforced more effectively than most, to the point of becoming something like a modern reality. But not a historical one.

That's arguably the reason why we've always had a civ called India in the game. Firaxis has designed it to where it's always supposed to represent the history of the whole modern country, especially when you continue to put Gandhi as the leader who lead the independence movement for all those groups of people, even it's not the most ideal way to do it.

Historically yes they weren't always united but today it's not like a country called the Republic of India doesn't exist. Considering there is no Republic of Polynesia or Republic of Native Americans, I feel that India as a civ is a little different in that regard.

I'd say that a second Indian civilization is around the 50-60 rank for inclusion on a priority list.

I would agree though I don't think that would happen for Civ 6. At least not until Gandhi isn't a leader and India isn't a civ in the game. Of course I mention above that the Mughals could still be a possibility.

 

[Evie]

No, the reason they've always had a civ called India is because they started out with zero research just throwing popculture concepts of history at the wall, and Gandhi (especially obvious popculture choice less than ten years after the movie came out) stuck. Shaka is an even worse case (this was only a few years after Shaka Zulu on tv).

They really weren't putting that much thought into it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, the reason they've always had a civ called India is because they started out with zero research just throwing popculture concepts of history at the wall, and Gandhi (especially obvious popculture choice less than ten years after the movie came out) stuck. Shaka is an even worse case (this was only a few years after Shaka Zulu on tv).

They really weren't putting that much thought into it.

What I said isn't mutually exclusive with what you said either. Of course Civ 1 was definitely more pop culture choices, even so far as they replaced Zulu with Japan for the NES version for reasons.
I still believe that even if say Ashoka was chosen in Civ 1 as a leader it still might have been called India though for clarity purposes. The same could be said in regards to Indonesia, when the civ has been ruled by leaders from the Majapahit Empire, yet they use the name Indonesia because it's less confusing, even for the people that worked at Firaxis.

That being said I personally don't care if Gandhi keeps recurring in the game as long as we at least have another leader for India as well.

I also don't mind Shaka and the Zulu either as long as we get more African civs, which we've started to. At least the Zulu probably keep out modern day South Africa from appearing
Ethiopia is now also recurring from the past 3 games as well as one from West Africa, so at least in that regard Africa is doing better.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Shaka is an even worse case (this was only a few years after Shaka Zulu on tv).

you DO realize Shaka was the most famous leader of Zululand even before the Zulu series... Heck he was famous during his time amongst European settlers in South Africa!

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

What I said isn't mutually exclusive with what you said either. Of course Civ 1 was definitely more pop culture choices, even so far as they replaced Zulu with Japan for the NES version for reasons.
I still believe that even if say Ashoka was chosen in Civ 1 as a leader it still might have been called India though for clarity purposes. The same could be said in regards to Indonesia, when the civ has been ruled by leaders from the Majapahit Empire, yet they use the name Indonesia because it's less confusing, even for the people that worked at Firaxis.

That being said I personally don't care if Gandhi keeps recurring in the game as long as we at least have another leader for India as well.

I also don't mind Shaka and the Zulu either as long as we get more African civs, which we've started to. At least the Zulu probably keep out modern day South Africa from appearing
Ethiopia is now also recurring from the past 3 games as well as one from West Africa, so at least in that regard Africa is doing better.

They also added the Kongo in the Vanilla game and Nubia as a standalone DLC pack before Shaka even appeared. Firaxis really is trying to bring more diversity to Africa. We still need Morocco, though.

you DO realize Shaka was the most famous leader of Zululand even before the Zulu series... Heck he was famous during his time amongst European settlers in South Africa!

The movie Zulu comes to mind.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

No, the reason they've always had a civ called India is because they started out with zero research just throwing popculture concepts of history at the wall, and Gandhi (especially obvious popculture choice less than ten years after the movie came out)

Also Gandhi has always been an Indian leader because he is the most famous Indian leader PERIOD. Ask anyone about who is Indian leader they know and about 70% of people will say Gandhi

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

you DO realize Shaka was the most famous leader of Zululand even before the Zulu series... Heck he was famous during his time amongst European settlers in South Africa!

I think the argument isn't against Shaka being the leader of the Zulu, but that Zulu got in the game before other historically prominent African cultures like Mali and Ethiopia, which I understand.

Though as it stands arguably Shaka and the Zulu were more recognizable than those cultures back in the 90s which is why they were chosen, and kept on appearing, as the obligatory Sub Saharan African civ.

I still don't see any reason to whine about it now though.

They also added the Kongo in the Vanilla game and Nubia as a standalone DLC pack before Shaka even appeared. Firaxis really is trying to bring more diversity to Africa. We still need Morocco, though.

Yes but who knows if they will stay on for Civ 7 which was my main point, unlike Ethiopia and Mali/Songhai which now keep appearing alongside the Zulu.

Although Kongo could easily become Angola and then there's the possibility of Madagascar or Swahili on the eastern coast for Civ 7.

I'd prefer a proper Berber civ over semi-Berber Morocco though for Africa if we get another from there in Civ 6.

 

[Henri Christophe]

you DO realize Shaka was the most famous leader of Zululand even before the Zulu series... Heck he was famous during his time amongst European settlers in South Africa!

I need to agree with Kupe Navigator, Shaka is one of the best choices of Fireaxis, Civ 5 I just play with Shaka (or Aztecs) in my dominations victory.

I think the argument isn't against Shaka being the leader of the Zulu, but that Zulu got in the game before other historically prominent African cultures like Mali and Ethiopia, which I understand.

Though as it stands arguably Shaka and the Zulu were more recognizable than those cultures back in the 90s which is why they were chosen, and kept on appearing, as the obligatory Sub Saharan African civ.

I still don't see any reason to whine about it now though.


Yes but who knows if they will stay on for Civ 7 which was my main point, unlike Ethiopia and Mali/Songhai which now keep appearing alongside the Zulu.

Although Kongo could easily become Angola and then there's the possibility of Madagascar or Swahili on the eastern coast for Civ 7.

I'd prefer a proper Berber civ over semi-Berber Morocco though for Africa if we get another from there in Civ 6.

I don't think Kongo and Angola are the same thing, they are two different countries. I know Mbanza Kongo, the Kongo capital, is in nowadays Angola, but Angola is better represented by Queen Ana Nzinga.

Marrocos should be fun, but if I need to choice someone to come first in Africa, I would pick someone from West Africa. One of the slavery kingdoms as Ashante, Oyo, Dahomey or Benin. Since AShante already have a city state called Kumasi, and DAhomey is controversial because slavery, I would vote from Oyo kingdom.

 

[Evie]

If there was only going to be only one Subsaharan African civ, Zulu was always a terrible choice for it. There are many more interesting choices for Africa, with deeper history and relevance, than the Zulu.

Zulu's a decent choice once you have a few subsaharan civs (though it's probably outside my top five Subsaharan civs and only narrowly in the top 10), but Zulu representing all of Africa and depicted as warmongers with early game units replacements (spearmen, later pike) is just Darkest Africa rearing its ugly head.

 

[Henri Christophe]

If there was only going to be only one Subsaharan African civ, Zulu was always a terrible choice for it. There are many more interesting choices for Africa, with deeper history and relevance, than the Zulu.

Zulu's a good choice once you have a few subsaharan civs, but not for the one subsaharan civ.

But Zulu is fundamental for this game! Who will be the nonsense warlord to always build impi ready for more war? Maybe Tadodaho from Iroquois? We need crazy warmongers in this game as Shaka is.

I just accept take out Shaka if take out Gandhi and Alexandre as well, Shaka don't deserve lost this battle as the longest leader in Civilization series.

Zulu and Gaul show us a nation don't need to be big to be fun. We need to think, in next expansion, about fun nations and not the might ones.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Zulu's a good choice once you have a few subsaharan civs, but not for the one subsaharan civ.

you DO realise Nubia was in the game BEFORE Zulus right? and what about Kongo?
poor Nubia and Kongo being forgotten...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think Kongo and Angola are the same thing, they are two different countries. I know Mbanza Kongo, the Kongo capital, is in nowadays Angola, but Angola is better represented by Queen Ana Nzinga.

That's what I mean. For Civ 7 instead of Kongo maybe we could get Ana Nzinga leading Angola.