nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
That depends on what justifies one getting a "turn" in Civ is. As a reflection of history, life ain't fair.
How diverse is civ6?
- Thread starter Henri Christophe
- Start date
- Status
That depends on what justifies one getting a "turn" in Civ is. As a reflection of history, life ain't fair.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I mean, yes, there are civilizations of global importance that have to be in regardless of background, most of whom are Europeans. The great colonial empires (French, British, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch), Russia and Germany, probably still America, and earlier Rome and Greece/Macedon (one civ, though, not two), along with the early great empires (Persia, China, India (or one of the great Indian empires, anyway) and Egypt) are what they are.
But beyond those, it does not appear to be very balanced either. Civs in Europe (or of European origin) that were limited largely to a regional impact (a significant one, but still regional) get in much more easily than civs of other origins that impacted their own regions just as much. We get Sweden, Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Canada, Australia, Gran Colombia, Brazil, Gaul, Poland, Venice...and really no comparable amounts of non-European origins. At that point it's less "history is not fair" and more "European regional history is more important than other regional histories".
But beyond those, it does not appear to be very balanced either. Civs in Europe (or of European origin) that were limited largely to a regional impact (a significant one, but still regional) get in much more easily than civs of other origins that impacted their own regions just as much. We get Sweden, Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Canada, Australia, Gran Colombia, Brazil, Gaul, Poland, Venice...and really no comparable amounts of non-European origins. At that point it's less "history is not fair" and more "European regional history is more important than other regional histories".
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I certainly agree re Scotland, Hungary, and the modern nations (the U.S. aside as it has dominated the world for the last 2 era's of the game). I think Sweden, Poland, and a Viking representative have done enough to qualify them most editions, but certainly not every one. TBF while I have always argued that with limited spots Macedon should be part of the Greek Civ, not separate to it, yet given both of their impacts on world history, I don't think having them both in was that out of line. Of course then you also have the odd non-European Civ like the Maori (or Zulu) who weren't world beaters by any stretch, no matter how much I admire them for their tenacity and fearlessness.
The good news regardless is that every edition the number of Civ's officially released increases by no small percentage... so hopefully the lesser lights both of Europe and the rest of the world do get more turns
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
It's not that those nations don't deserve to be in. Other than the Greece/Macedon split, there's not a single nation I listed that doesn't belong in the game.
It's that other continent have their own plethora of comparable civilizations that had a considerable influence on regional/continental history, but they tend to be included in much smaller numbers than their European counterparts.
It's that other continent have their own plethora of comparable civilizations that had a considerable influence on regional/continental history, but they tend to be included in much smaller numbers than their European counterparts.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
Yes, and no. In recent history Europe has dominated the world through several Civ win conditions. The game reflects that to a degree. Also it has had more distinct entities exist more often than in some other parts of the world like China or India, where empires have been more normative.
I'm personally even fine with the way they implemented Greece/Macedon this time around, but wouldn't mind if Alexander went back to Greece either.
That being said I do think Poland is here to stay for future iterations, becoming the new Ethiopia for Europe? That is coming in later to the franchise but still having a recurring appearance since then.
I would put Sweden there as well but there's a small chance we could get non-Viking era Denmark in a game. But then again would they do that over Sweden?
SMcM
Emperor
Exactly, this makes no sense
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Like I said, I have nothing against including them even as semi-regulars or regulars. I just would like to see them matched by a few more similar...call them A-tier and B-tier nations from thecrest of the world (where S tier is the global/supraregional empires.
S-tier: global and supra regional empires. To be included no matter what (even if they're, say, a colonial nation), and origins balance doesn't matter.
A-Tier: Key regional players who were a dominant power in their region for a significant period (and who are well documented). Poland and Sweden may be here, but so are the Aztec-Inca-Maya, Mali-Songhai-Kanem-Swahili-Ethiopia, Siam and many others, including, yes, the Iroquois in North America (there aren't many A-tier North American natives, but the Kingmakers of the Northeast certainly are). Most of the major Fertile Crescent empires also qualify here. This is where Europe is overrepresented at the expanse of others.
B-tier: Other major regional power who may not quite have been dominant but still had an interesting or striking role in their regional history (and who are well documented). The Scots are here, the Gauls likely too, the Scythians, the Zulus. Also possibly some European overrepresentation at this tier, but less pronounced because few b-tier civs are in to begin.
C-tier: Overall minor but striking regional powers, who may be associated with a famous person or incident in history, but otherwise largely obscure (if well documented). Not many of those in past Civ games.
D-tier: Minor regional powers with no striking features. Likewise, and too many of them in the world to name.
E-tier: Civilizations that were never more than local players. (Olmec-Xicalanca are here, and so's Liechentstein)
F-tier: Civilizations that we're not even sure actually existed (Srivijaya, arguably Toltec)
Z-tier: Civilizations we're pretty sure never existed (Atlantis, Mu)
Not Contending Tier: Civilizations that definitely existed but of which we know next to nothing because our knowledge of them is purely from examining their material remnants, and they didn't write or we have yet to decipher their writing, and their neighbors didn't write much either. Our old friends the Olmec are here, and the Harappans, and the Minoans, the Cahokians/Mississipians, etc...(A lot of them WOULD be A-tier if they had a writing system we could decipher)
S-tier: global and supra regional empires. To be included no matter what (even if they're, say, a colonial nation), and origins balance doesn't matter.
A-Tier: Key regional players who were a dominant power in their region for a significant period (and who are well documented). Poland and Sweden may be here, but so are the Aztec-Inca-Maya, Mali-Songhai-Kanem-Swahili-Ethiopia, Siam and many others, including, yes, the Iroquois in North America (there aren't many A-tier North American natives, but the Kingmakers of the Northeast certainly are). Most of the major Fertile Crescent empires also qualify here. This is where Europe is overrepresented at the expanse of others.
B-tier: Other major regional power who may not quite have been dominant but still had an interesting or striking role in their regional history (and who are well documented). The Scots are here, the Gauls likely too, the Scythians, the Zulus. Also possibly some European overrepresentation at this tier, but less pronounced because few b-tier civs are in to begin.
C-tier: Overall minor but striking regional powers, who may be associated with a famous person or incident in history, but otherwise largely obscure (if well documented). Not many of those in past Civ games.
D-tier: Minor regional powers with no striking features. Likewise, and too many of them in the world to name.
E-tier: Civilizations that were never more than local players. (Olmec-Xicalanca are here, and so's Liechentstein)
F-tier: Civilizations that we're not even sure actually existed (Srivijaya, arguably Toltec)
Z-tier: Civilizations we're pretty sure never existed (Atlantis, Mu)
Not Contending Tier: Civilizations that definitely existed but of which we know next to nothing because our knowledge of them is purely from examining their material remnants, and they didn't write or we have yet to decipher their writing, and their neighbors didn't write much either. Our old friends the Olmec are here, and the Harappans, and the Minoans, the Cahokians/Mississipians, etc...(A lot of them WOULD be A-tier if they had a writing system we could decipher)
Last edited:
Ryansinbela
Emperor
Would you make a tier list with all Civs
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Hmmm, let's see, sticking to civs that have already been in the game, and keeping in mind that this is my best guess based on what I know of them currently, and am ammenable to reeevaluating some...
From Civ VI:
America: S-tier
Arabia: S-tier
Australia: Borderline A/B tier. Technically dominant in their region, but also alone on their island so...I lean B.
Aztec: A-tier
Babylonian: A-tier
Brazil: A-tier, much as I hate outting a colonial there. But they are a dominant regional power in SA and have been for a while.
Byzantine: A-tier. Might be a case for S, but I think half the Roman Empire should be a tier below the whole Roman Empire
Canada: B tier. Sure, striking enough, but dominant? In the shadow of America? Not so much.
China: S-tier, and the S-tierest of of S-tiers too. They've been a global or supraregional power for very large chunks of the last two milleniums. Despite the dark ages and the hard times, they keep getting back there, and would you look at it, here they are again. What more can be said?
Cree: Borderline A/B tier. A dominant player of the northern plains, but not quite with the impact on colonial powers that, say, the Iroquois had as kingmakers, so I'm reluctant to give them the full A tier (there really aren't many of those in North America in my opinion.
Dutch: S-tier (lower S-tier, but S-tier) due to their colonial empire, would be more like B-tier if they had only their European holdings to rely on.
Egyptian: A-tier. Never quite had supraregional or global influence, but were among the most fabled of regional powers in world history.
English: S-tier. We all knew that.
Ethiopian: A-tier. A long-standing major player in African history.
French: S-tier. Also all knew that.
Gaul: B-tier. I'm sorry, they're cool, I love Asterix and everything, but I cannot rank them higher just because they razed Rome that one time. I'd argue that there are better choices for "Celtic" representation, too.
Georgian: B-tier and low end B tier at that, not too far above C. Let's face it: they're a meme civ.
German: S-tier.
Gran Colombian: B-tier. Too short-lived to be any higher.
Greek: A-tier as Greece. S-tier as Greecedon. Greece without the Macedonian Empire just doesn't rise to the level of supraregional or global power; its influence never really extended past the eastern half of the Mediteranean. Get Alex here, and of course they immediately jump to S-tier.
Hungarian: A/B tier. I don't tend to view them as quite rising to the level of a dominant power in Europe, personally, so B, but I am not too versed into the history of this part of Europe so could be somewhat wrong. Definitely a major regional power either way.
Incan: A-tier, easily so.
Indian: S-tier as the whole of India. If split into various periods of Indian history, more likely a number of A, B, C, D and E tier states.
Indonesian (and proto-Indonesian kingdoms): A-tier
Japan: S/A tier. A for most of history, but arguably rose to the level of a global power in the first half of the twentieth century...with disastrous consequences.
Khmer: A-tier. A dominant state that exerted influence across much of South-East Asia.
Kongolese: A-tier. By far the most significant kingdom and state between the mouth of the Niger and the Cape.
Korean: A/B-tier. By technical wording should be a B, but that seems unfair to them as the only reasons they never really rose to a dominant role is they were stuck next to the S-tierest of S-tier civilizations ; it's hard to be dominant anything in China's shadow. That they stood out as much as they did in that shadow probably bump them to A-tier in my mind.
Macedonian: S-tier, but should be S-tier as Greece, since their greatest accomplishment is ushering an hellenistic age across much of the Ancient World.
Malian: A-tier. A dominant empire of the Sahel, whose economic fortitude had impact as far away as Europe.
Maori: AB-tier, for largely the same reason as Australia. Technically dominant in their region, but their region is also an isolated pair of Islands, and may be more known for their striking culture and resistance than for their impact on regional history.
Mapuche: A-tier, surprisingly. The civilization that halted Incan southern expansion and greatly delayed the Spanish one afterward can definitely be said to have played a dominant historical role. You could maybe make a case for B, but I lean toward the A - they're just obscure and very, very, very badly designed.
Mayan: A-tier and without much question.
Mongolian: S-tier. It's easy to view them as barbarians, but they were, in fact, a global power for much of the late medieval era. You don't stretch from China to Poland without getting that S-tier.
Norwegian: AB tier as a Viking representative: the Viking's status between a dominant power and one that wasn't actually THAT dominant, but highly striking is a little hard to place. They're both easy to overrate and underrate. (If this was the actual modern nation of Norway, they'd be C-tier though). No, colonizing a little corner of Newfoundland does not move them to S-tier.
Nubian: A-tier. Deep impact on Egypt and the upper Nile area.
Ottoman: S/A-tier. They easily qualify for the A, but were they ever really global, considering the Byzantine (wiith similar territory) got an A? I tend to lean yes, because of their role as the Great Boogeyman of European history (something Byzantine never had; if you have a whole continent shaking in fear of you, you might be S-tier).
Persian: S-tier, easily.
Phoenician: A-tier, both as themselves and Carthage, because the entire network of Phoenician cities and colonies never was really united - and Carthage, the most visible of them, was more a regionally dominant power than a global one.
Polish: A-tier, especially once the PLC is taken into account.
Portuguese: S-tier like the Dutch.
Roman: Very easy S-tier
Russian: S-tier also.
Scottish: B-tier. They're striking and cool, but they rarely if ever were the dominant power in the British Isles, let alone further than that.
Scythian: AB tier. They were certainly dominant on the steppes, but their historical impact on their neighbors is more brief, striking intervention than lasting dominance over other civs. Well, unless one count the Parthian Empire as Scythian and not Persian, but I would not agree with that. Hard to place quite properly. Lack of unity also hurts them.
Spanish: S tier.
Sumerian: A tier.
Swedish: A tier thanks to a certain Captain Gars, would probably slip to a B without his achievements.
Vietnamese: AB tier, same as Korea. Technically a B because of China's long shadow, but standing out in that shadow is arguably A-tier in itself, and I would give them the A.
Zulu: B-tier. Look...they were a bright explosion, but in terms of lasting influence, not so much. Iconic and striking, though.
Older Civs:
Assyrian: A-tier
Austrian: A-tier,only if Germany doesn't cover the Holy Roman Empire, because Austria's history is too intertwined in that.
Carthaginian: A-tier, see Phoenicians above.
Celtic: F-tier. They're a hodgepodge of completely different groups that had limited or no link between them; as a single civilization, that makes them largely a myth.
Danish: See Norway, above, since they're both in as essentially Viking representatives. As post-viking era Denmark, AB - a little below Sweden but not too far.
Hunnic: B-tier for largely the same reason as the Zulu. Striking, iconic, but not really a long-term dominant power.
Iroquois: A-tier. Dominated the Great Lakes region for a century, and largely served as colonial kingmaker.
Moroccan: A-tier. Berbers would essentially be the same for the same reasons.
Shoshone: B-tier (and so would the Pueblo whom they replaced). They're fascinating, interesting group, but their long-term influence over their region is...just not quite there (there really aren't that many A-tier in North America in my opinion). Move to A-tier if we count the Comanche as Shoshone (but we shouldn't)
Siamese: A-tier.
Songhai: A-tier.
Venetian: A-tier. Much as I don't like it.
Holy Roman Empire: A-tier. As Germany they rise to an S, but without they remain a dominant regional power, not a global one. As the Habsburg, they also rise to an S, but that's on the back of Spain, not the Empire.
Native American: F-tier. THAT was never a unified civilization and has no place in this game. Bad joke, Firaxis.
From Civ VI:
America: S-tier
Arabia: S-tier
Australia: Borderline A/B tier. Technically dominant in their region, but also alone on their island so...I lean B.
Aztec: A-tier
Babylonian: A-tier
Brazil: A-tier, much as I hate outting a colonial there. But they are a dominant regional power in SA and have been for a while.
Byzantine: A-tier. Might be a case for S, but I think half the Roman Empire should be a tier below the whole Roman Empire
Canada: B tier. Sure, striking enough, but dominant? In the shadow of America? Not so much.
China: S-tier, and the S-tierest of of S-tiers too. They've been a global or supraregional power for very large chunks of the last two milleniums. Despite the dark ages and the hard times, they keep getting back there, and would you look at it, here they are again. What more can be said?
Cree: Borderline A/B tier. A dominant player of the northern plains, but not quite with the impact on colonial powers that, say, the Iroquois had as kingmakers, so I'm reluctant to give them the full A tier (there really aren't many of those in North America in my opinion.
Dutch: S-tier (lower S-tier, but S-tier) due to their colonial empire, would be more like B-tier if they had only their European holdings to rely on.
Egyptian: A-tier. Never quite had supraregional or global influence, but were among the most fabled of regional powers in world history.
English: S-tier. We all knew that.
Ethiopian: A-tier. A long-standing major player in African history.
French: S-tier. Also all knew that.
Gaul: B-tier. I'm sorry, they're cool, I love Asterix and everything, but I cannot rank them higher just because they razed Rome that one time. I'd argue that there are better choices for "Celtic" representation, too.
Georgian: B-tier and low end B tier at that, not too far above C. Let's face it: they're a meme civ.
German: S-tier.
Gran Colombian: B-tier. Too short-lived to be any higher.
Greek: A-tier as Greece. S-tier as Greecedon. Greece without the Macedonian Empire just doesn't rise to the level of supraregional or global power; its influence never really extended past the eastern half of the Mediteranean. Get Alex here, and of course they immediately jump to S-tier.
Hungarian: A/B tier. I don't tend to view them as quite rising to the level of a dominant power in Europe, personally, so B, but I am not too versed into the history of this part of Europe so could be somewhat wrong. Definitely a major regional power either way.
Incan: A-tier, easily so.
Indian: S-tier as the whole of India. If split into various periods of Indian history, more likely a number of A, B, C, D and E tier states.
Indonesian (and proto-Indonesian kingdoms): A-tier
Japan: S/A tier. A for most of history, but arguably rose to the level of a global power in the first half of the twentieth century...with disastrous consequences.
Khmer: A-tier. A dominant state that exerted influence across much of South-East Asia.
Kongolese: A-tier. By far the most significant kingdom and state between the mouth of the Niger and the Cape.
Korean: A/B-tier. By technical wording should be a B, but that seems unfair to them as the only reasons they never really rose to a dominant role is they were stuck next to the S-tierest of S-tier civilizations ; it's hard to be dominant anything in China's shadow. That they stood out as much as they did in that shadow probably bump them to A-tier in my mind.
Macedonian: S-tier, but should be S-tier as Greece, since their greatest accomplishment is ushering an hellenistic age across much of the Ancient World.
Malian: A-tier. A dominant empire of the Sahel, whose economic fortitude had impact as far away as Europe.
Maori: AB-tier, for largely the same reason as Australia. Technically dominant in their region, but their region is also an isolated pair of Islands, and may be more known for their striking culture and resistance than for their impact on regional history.
Mapuche: A-tier, surprisingly. The civilization that halted Incan southern expansion and greatly delayed the Spanish one afterward can definitely be said to have played a dominant historical role. You could maybe make a case for B, but I lean toward the A - they're just obscure and very, very, very badly designed.
Mayan: A-tier and without much question.
Mongolian: S-tier. It's easy to view them as barbarians, but they were, in fact, a global power for much of the late medieval era. You don't stretch from China to Poland without getting that S-tier.
Norwegian: AB tier as a Viking representative: the Viking's status between a dominant power and one that wasn't actually THAT dominant, but highly striking is a little hard to place. They're both easy to overrate and underrate. (If this was the actual modern nation of Norway, they'd be C-tier though). No, colonizing a little corner of Newfoundland does not move them to S-tier.
Nubian: A-tier. Deep impact on Egypt and the upper Nile area.
Ottoman: S/A-tier. They easily qualify for the A, but were they ever really global, considering the Byzantine (wiith similar territory) got an A? I tend to lean yes, because of their role as the Great Boogeyman of European history (something Byzantine never had; if you have a whole continent shaking in fear of you, you might be S-tier).
Persian: S-tier, easily.
Phoenician: A-tier, both as themselves and Carthage, because the entire network of Phoenician cities and colonies never was really united - and Carthage, the most visible of them, was more a regionally dominant power than a global one.
Polish: A-tier, especially once the PLC is taken into account.
Portuguese: S-tier like the Dutch.
Roman: Very easy S-tier
Russian: S-tier also.
Scottish: B-tier. They're striking and cool, but they rarely if ever were the dominant power in the British Isles, let alone further than that.
Scythian: AB tier. They were certainly dominant on the steppes, but their historical impact on their neighbors is more brief, striking intervention than lasting dominance over other civs. Well, unless one count the Parthian Empire as Scythian and not Persian, but I would not agree with that. Hard to place quite properly. Lack of unity also hurts them.
Spanish: S tier.
Sumerian: A tier.
Swedish: A tier thanks to a certain Captain Gars, would probably slip to a B without his achievements.
Vietnamese: AB tier, same as Korea. Technically a B because of China's long shadow, but standing out in that shadow is arguably A-tier in itself, and I would give them the A.
Zulu: B-tier. Look...they were a bright explosion, but in terms of lasting influence, not so much. Iconic and striking, though.
Older Civs:
Assyrian: A-tier
Austrian: A-tier,only if Germany doesn't cover the Holy Roman Empire, because Austria's history is too intertwined in that.
Carthaginian: A-tier, see Phoenicians above.
Celtic: F-tier. They're a hodgepodge of completely different groups that had limited or no link between them; as a single civilization, that makes them largely a myth.
Danish: See Norway, above, since they're both in as essentially Viking representatives. As post-viking era Denmark, AB - a little below Sweden but not too far.
Hunnic: B-tier for largely the same reason as the Zulu. Striking, iconic, but not really a long-term dominant power.
Iroquois: A-tier. Dominated the Great Lakes region for a century, and largely served as colonial kingmaker.
Moroccan: A-tier. Berbers would essentially be the same for the same reasons.
Shoshone: B-tier (and so would the Pueblo whom they replaced). They're fascinating, interesting group, but their long-term influence over their region is...just not quite there (there really aren't that many A-tier in North America in my opinion). Move to A-tier if we count the Comanche as Shoshone (but we shouldn't)
Siamese: A-tier.
Songhai: A-tier.
Venetian: A-tier. Much as I don't like it.
Holy Roman Empire: A-tier. As Germany they rise to an S, but without they remain a dominant regional power, not a global one. As the Habsburg, they also rise to an S, but that's on the back of Spain, not the Empire.
Native American: F-tier. THAT was never a unified civilization and has no place in this game. Bad joke, Firaxis.
Last edited:
Ryansinbela
Emperor
Polynesia:Z-Tier (Never unified)
Hittites:A (Controlled Anatolia and parts of Mesopotamia)
Sioux:B (iconic group from the Great Plains)
Vikings Z (never unified)
Hittites:A (Controlled Anatolia and parts of Mesopotamia)
Sioux:B (iconic group from the Great Plains)
Vikings Z (never unified)
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I disagree on the Vikings. The criteria for the Celts and Native American is not that they were not unified; is that they're hodgepodge of largely unrelated or loosely related groups. That's not true of the Vikings - they were IMO a distinct well-established culture, just not a unified country. The problem with Vikings is the name; they could easily fit into the game as the Norse (but Norwegian or Dane work too).
So I would say Vikings rate the same as Norwegian or Dane. Polynesian, yes, probably an F like the Native Americans and the Celts (I upgraded them from z to F because they're not completely imaginary like Atlantis or Mu).
Sioux are probably more AB than pure B to me, like the Cree - they're one of the few groups that might stake a claim to that A, though I'm less sure of them than the Iroquois. Significant and very influential over a broad area, but lacking the level and type of interactions the Iroquois had with colonizers.
Hittites are A, for sure,
So I would say Vikings rate the same as Norwegian or Dane. Polynesian, yes, probably an F like the Native Americans and the Celts (I upgraded them from z to F because they're not completely imaginary like Atlantis or Mu).
Sioux are probably more AB than pure B to me, like the Cree - they're one of the few groups that might stake a claim to that A, though I'm less sure of them than the Iroquois. Significant and very influential over a broad area, but lacking the level and type of interactions the Iroquois had with colonizers.
Hittites are A, for sure,
Last edited:
Ryansinbela
Emperor
Had a feeling about the Sioux being AB
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
I guess this game will be way better if we take out all S tier from Vanila in Civ 7 and make a game just with A and B tier.
and by the way, Zulu isn't B tier, they stay since first game and it cannot be ignored
and by the way, Zulu isn't B tier, they stay since first game and it cannot be ignored
Ryansinbela
Emperor
That won’t be possible
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I don't think the Scots are B tier, I'd argue that they are a C tier that is slightly better than your current definition (of C tier). I'd add a G tier, and push most everyone at B and below down a level. The Zulu's absolutely aren't B tier, more like D or E. Armenia on the other hand is clearly B tier along with the Gauls.
You do know that the Maori were no more unified than the other blob Civs that none of us like?
So you want to take out anything related to Japan, China and India, let alone the European S tier powers of England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome, Russia and Spain?
Good luck marketing and selling that game.
I wouldn't go that far to put the Zulus down that far. They were definitely at least a regional power in South Africa, at least the native one, even though it might have not lasted long at all but that was due in part to the Europeans intervening not long after.
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
As others have stated, if we do this, Japan, Egypt, Spain, America, England, Russia, China, Rome, and Persia will all be removed from the game. Is that what we really need, or is it just unnecessary?
I didn't mention Persia because they weren't in Vanilla, but you are also right. I did forget the other Greece, I mean Egypt, though.
And yeah America too but I feel like some people wouldn't miss it, at least for Vanilla.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
It would make the game less appealing, all the moreso to non-history buffs.
- Status
