If so, that's appalling. The Maya ought to be a base game standard over Monty the Mascot, and Carthage and Babylon are pretty non-negotiable, too (though I'd accept Assyria in Babylon's stead).I'm assuming that the ones that are repped by City States (Babylon, Bulgaria, Carthage, Hatti, Maya, Portugal) won't be added in a future xpac.
Your reasoning makes sense, and it's not encouraging.Byzantines, Ottomans/Incans and Incans
one civ from the Middle East (Akkad, Assyria or Palmyra)
one civ from America (Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Iroquois or Sioux)
one other civ from Europe (Austria, Gaul, Ireland, Italy, Hungary or Sweden),
one Civ from Africa (Ethiopia, Mali)
one Wildcard civ that can be anything (like Huns, Shoshone and Venice in Civ 5 and Mapuche in R&F. In Civ 6, I would give this slot to the Maori or the Haida/Tlingit)
one Alt Leader (Louis XIV, Elizabeth or whatever, idgaf about alt leaders)

100% agree: nothing is lacking in East Asia at this point.East Asia is kind of full with China, Japan, Khmer, Korea, Mongolia, and Indonesia.
I hope you're wrong. At the very least Carthage and one of Babylon and Assyria seem to me a necessity.Sumer, Egypt, and Persia are probably all we are gonna get for ancient and classical Middle East.
I agree the Americas have been neglected. I was concerned we'd see no indigenous civs other than the Aztecs before the Cree were announced. I could pass on the Southwest; I'd prioritize instead the East and Northwest. But it'll be a sad day if we don't get the Inca and especially the Maya.The Americas have been neglected missing two incredibly important cultures in the Inca and Maya and a diversity in Northern tribes ie the cultural PNE and the very warlike Southwest.
