Point being? The issue was with seeing your own leader, prompting queenpea above to suggest creating a mod to put over the leader. I responded by saying you’ll rarely see your own leader, which is true (assuming the AI doesn’t bombard you with messages anyway).
The AI leader not directly addressing the player is also a problem. I mean, they're both the same problem. The AI leader is addressing your leader instead of facing the camera and addressing the player.
Interesting. My complaint is fully about seeing my leader, I don't really care at all about the perspective.
Sorry but speak for yourself
Ha, sure! Although I wasn't criticising your point, I genuinely found it interesting since it hadn't occured to me that this was the issue for some people. I would be a bit miffed if they had their back to me (although that would be quite amusing), but otherwise I can imagine they are speaking to me, provided I don't see an obvious animated person that is supposed to be me, when it clearly isn't me.
I don't think you could call civ Eurocentric, but I do like that the representation of civs around the world is very even. I think it's telling that we have people calling for more representation from continent X,Y, and Z at the same time. It suggests the problem is really the low number of civs per age at release...Sorry but speak for yourself
Some people enjoy European Civs as much as you don't want them. You are not alone here.
2/10 European Civs in the Ancient era, same in Exploration. And you call it Eurocentric? Ridiculous!
like i said in the post that ppl keep twisting the words of, the leaders are what i find to be eurocentric.
ah fair enough man. i didnt read the inital message i was just responding the convo. thanks for clearing up
This only works because you fudge East Asia and Souteast Asia together. Which is bonkers and two can play that game.
]" and 1 civ each for South Asia and Africa. 
The post I replayed to was not about French-centrism in the European pie of Civs but about the overrepresentation of Europe and this is how I understood it:
Yet for ancient civilizations I only learnt about Greece, Egypt and barely the existence of Mesopotamia at French middle and high school (back at the end of the last century), not a word about China and the Indus Valley. So the link to later European culture is (was) very real at least for what is taught of history. I would not make that claim for the work of historians thought, however I suspect the foundings for historic studies are so biased too.
Exactly…Europe (Rome, France, Spain, America) is just part of Greater Mesoptamia
Mesopotamia and Egypt are thought of by Westerners as precursors to Western culture, sure, but that doesn't make them Western and doesn't mean their accomplishments should be thrown with the colonialist/eurocentric bathwater. I do hope we see a Harappan-type civ in a DLC at some point, but that doesn't mean I don't want Ancient Egypt and a Mesopotamian civ (which we don't really have here yet, Persia is something else though still related obviously) too.
Linking Egypt and any Mesopotamian civ as “Eurocentric” seems disingenuous to me. In that regard you could also claim Askum as well due to their links with the Middle East, Christianity, and the Roman Empire.This only works because you fudge East Asia and Souteast Asia together. Which is bonkers and two can play that game.
Mesopotamia is only touched in World [European] History because European civilisation derives from it. So is Egypt.
Antiquity:
4 European History Civs
2 "Greater East Asian" Civs
1 South Asian Civ
1 African Civ
2 Indigenous American Civs
We can also refine it further to how much of the era we're exploring by removing non-belonging civs.
4 European History Civs
1 "Greater East Asian" Civ (- Khmer who have no business being here)
1 South Asian Civ
1 African Civ
1 Indigenous American Civ (- Mississipians, who are also out of time and place)
Same sleight of hand in Modern and separating Mexico out of European civs. Giving us 5 civs pulled from the European History curriculum, 3 civs in this imaginary "Greater East Asian [Co-Prosperity Sphere?
And voilà, we're back home in the center of Europe. Of course the game is made by an American studio for an overwhelmingly European audience so I perfectly understand why it's the case and am more than satisfied with the amount of restraint the devs put on the "explicitly European" civs on launch. But at the same time you really need to lie to oneself to say it's not obviously deeply rooted in the familiar ""World"" history class. That most of the customers, European or otherwise, and in one form or another, have gone through.
Modern could have easily stomached at least one of: Persians, late Ottoman state, an Afghan state instead of America, France, Russia, Germany, Mexico.
Though of course these were selected to fit the Napoleonic [F,R,G]-WW1[F,R,G,A]-WW2[A,R,G,J?] wars theme of Modern era nicely.
Besides, we'll only see the "real" 1.0 civ list in March once they add the 4 civs with the first month DLC.
