Now that we have almost all the civilizations revealed (and it seems almost certain that the last one will be the Zulu), I think we can discuss the philosophy of the civilization choice in R&F. Many people have complained that while some of the "big names" from previous civs (Babylon, the Ottomans, Inca, Maya) are still missing, there is a number of civilizations included that were less spectacular. But I think it is deliberate! The expansion is called "Rise and Fall" - and it is only appropriate that the civ mix would reflect that, rather than just include those who have risen to greatness. In fact there seems to be a very interesting symmetry, because out of 8 new civs, there are 4 "great" ones who are also "players favourites" (Netherlands, Korea, Mongolia and the Zulu - now you could argue whether Zulu were really great but they are at least "great" for civ players) and 4 "not-so-great" ones (Mapuche, Cree, Georgia and Scotland - i.e. those that went into history with a heroic attempt to greatness and while they did not manage to build an empire, they at least had a shot at it and some unique culture). Personally, I am pretty happy with that philosophy - and I do not think it is guided by "political correctness" or, conversely, "eurocentrism" - two mirror image accusations often leveled against civilization choices. They are geographically balanced (two American, two Western European, one Caucasian, one central Asian, one African, and one East Asian) and neither overly male-dominated, nor forcibly feminised (3 out of 9 leaders are female). Plus I like the fact that we have two very hot male leaders.