I was also rather disappointed to read their process of decision making. I don't know if many people can understand that. The whole notion of, whoever has the most power gets the most representation is so old fashioned and outdated. I had hoped civs would be picked based on their credibility instead of their current market base. This is still a good step forwards, but the regulars feel overdone and rehashed. Why can we not have a Caucasus region civ? Or a Tibet or Uyghur civ? What about Mughals? They played a pretty damn important part in history.
We can't have a Tibet civ for obvious reasons - the Chinese market. Uighurs may face a similar issue. We can't have Mughals because they're only notable for their involvement in India, which is already covered. And what would a Caucasus region civ represent?
Although, while I welcome some civ selections based on "what interesting stuff can we do with Civ X?", which was never a feature of past games since civ abilities were generic, those civs that have the most power, or have had historically, really ought to be the best-represented. The game is called "Civilization", and is focused on empire-building and progressive technological development. This is something missed by the people clamouring for every minor state or tribe to be included - Civ isn't a game about equal representation, it's a game about major powers competing to shape the geopolitical landscape. Wanting Andorra in the game "just because" misses the point - it would be like adding Klingons to a Star Wars game or Madagascar in Company of Heroes because "hey, it was involved in the war and it's racist not to include it because it's African".
Klingons, Andorrans and Malagasy are all fine choices in their place for games where they fit the theme, but the games mentioned are examples where they would be wholly out of place. Likewise, tribes, ethnicities or minor nations with little historic or modern geopolitical influence relative to choices that are still missing from the game are not a suitable fit for Civ games.
I simply object to including civs based on market share - I doubt Company of Heroes 2 is intended mainly to sell in Germany and Russia, however that gets by with only those factions. Adding Brazil just because there are a lot of Brazilian players feels crass, and cheapens the idea of selecting suitable civs for the game.
Ugh. No Alpha Centauri please. The original was one of the most ludicrous versions of Civ ever put out, filling a silly niche that was at best a glorified scenario. You don't turn a game that is based on history into something that is not reality and cartoonish as if from a child's fantasy of aliens or robots or whatever. Yes, I have a strong bias towards history and deplore science fiction but that doesn't affect my opinion.
The interest in AC I think mainly stems from the detail in the story. The story itself was pretty daft, to be sure, a techno-fantasy "transcendence" tale that only got worse when they decided to turn it into an alien holy site that prompted a war (hey, why make do with one cliche when you can have two and charge for them both?), but the detail of the world-building and political rivalries made up for the uninspired plot and silly science (go chaos guns! Psychic powers FTW!).
I hear Rome 2 is going to be historically accurate.
Yes, I heard that too.
From the same source that mentioned the Pyramids are in Alexandria in the game.
Historical accuracy in a TW game would be a first, and Rome was the most egregious departure from it. We already know the wardogs are back, and there are fabrications like "repeating scorpions" in the Greek States unit roster (repeating ballistae were a Byzantine development, postdating the period represented in the game). What's the betting that the wedge formation will make a comeback as well, anachronistic as this medieval formation is in the Roman setting?
I hope there will be random events such as earthquakes destroying Wonders, to reflect the fact that at least three of the Wonders were destroyed by earthquakes, two of them in the time period covered by the game. And how will they cover the Lighthouse and Colossus, which were built after the start of the period covered? Will they be on the map from the start, despite the historical inaccuracy, or will they somehow materialise as game events when their date of construction is reached?
As you see just in our little corner, there are those excited to have "their" civ in the game. Imagine the emerging mass markets and the selling points.
There's a lot of interest in Indonesia on this forum, but as far as I've noticed, only two Indonesian posters. I don't think most people in the market for a Civ game are going to be the types to impulse-buy a title because one of the factions happens to be named after their country; conversely there's a lot of interest in historically relevant civs among non-nationals of those countries. Brazil is popular here because there seem to be a lot of Brazilian civ players who - imagine that! - are playing Civ games without Brazil in them. I don't even think it's a good marketing reason to include a civ, it is just cynicism.
