For someone like myself, who makes a big distinction between a country and a civilization. This: Would be my definition of a civilization. A country can be part of a civilization, but just because a country is a country, does not automatically mean it is its own civilization. This seems to be the case to me with the inclusion of Norway, in lieu of the classic Viking civ (I know now the name is wrong, but the spirit is not) that appeared in Civs 2, 3 & 4. It's likely too late, and they're probably not going to change Norway for two reasons specifically: 1) They set the precedent with Denmark and Sweden in Civ 5 and they're committed on this decision 2) Civ6 is close to Gold and ready to be shipped to stores/pre-loaded For Europe I do agree that my definition doesn't quite work as well, but there should be a baseline where we don't get too much overlap. What I want is moderation on the spectrum. I don't want to see Germany split into Ulm, Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, etc. On the other hand, the Germanic civilization is perhaps too broad. Something as simple and granular as there being just Germany and Austria is perfect for me. But definitely no to Germany and the HRE. And to me, Norway, Sweden, Denmark approach the first level of balkanization; too much. But I understand the reasoning. Having a Pan-Slavic civ would not work for a myriad of reasons that we probably shouldn't get into in this thread. And Celts should emphatically be split up by region; I even suggested a split between Continental and Insular Celts in another thread. But for everyone who had been equating my argument about a Pan-Scandinavia civ to the Civ4 Native America civ; that's apples and oranges. There are huge, huge differences between the Navajo, to the members of the Iroquois, to the Sioux, to any other tribe you can think of. Comparatively, as evidenced in the Norway thread, at least Danes, Norwegians and Swedes can somewhat understand each other with a common origin in the languages. They are not in the same tier of "blob civ". Not in the slightest. But what this would mean is that we need some way to show different facets of a civilization for different styles of polities, eras, periods or like in the case of Scandinavia, multiple leaders from all of the kingdoms belonging to the Scandinavian civ. Which brings me to an elegant solution and one that we'll likely see implemented by the devs for existing civilizations in expansions and DLCs: This is so much more elegant. Especially now that we have Greece getting different capitals depending on whether you have Pericles or Gorgo. (If Greece is actually split into an "Athens" and "Sparta" "civ", I think my head might explode) This is one of the primary reasons why I think we shouldn't see so many inclusions of subsets of civilizations. You can portray every aspect or side of a civ just by switching the leader. Some of you have leaders that you don't like for one reason or another as opposed to myself and my distaste for the specific choice of "civ". Count yourself lucky, because multiple leaders can serve as a panacea for that. So what specialties/aspects do you think are lacking from certain civs, and what kind of additional leader would you place to cover that gap? For China, I'd add Tang Taizong, for an offensive, assimilationist China that is rarely depicted. Instead of the Builder bonus, he'd get reduced costs or speed bonuses towards being the Suzerain of city-states along with a land combat bonus against anyone who is in a war with a city-state or a civ you have good relations with. I like Tomyris. A lot. But there's a lot of people claiming a difference between the Massagetae and the Scythians (numerous sources however, say the Massagetae originate from the Scythians). I mean, you could add Skilurus and assign him a trade related UA. So let's hear it. What gaps do you see in the civs and who would you add to fill them?