[R&F] Philosophy of Civilization Choice in R&F

[Tech Osen]

The Kingdom of Kush went a bit farther south than Khartoum, which makes a part of it Sub-Sahara, but that would be a bit misleading. Nubia is probably more accurately described as a Nile Civilization. Sub-Saharan as a term makes more sense in West Africa where there isn't a river and the Red Sea facilitating trade and cultural exchange. (In West Africa, you have to transverse the desert on camel or foot.) Much of Nubia is in the Sahel, but that's a poorly-defined term.

Been reading through some wikis and it seems mostly a matter of semantics. Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing Morocco return.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Whatever they were historically, Nubia's introduction was a fresh breath of pure oxygen hooked up to the veins and I refuse to hear otherwise. Same applies to Khmer/Indonesia's additions, as well as the Mapuche in this expansion.

 

[Karpius]

The Nubian civilization straddled what we know today as the Egyptian-Sudanese border, roughly south of the Aswan Dam. This area is well within the Sahara Desert, with a small, fertile floodplain surrounded by desert. The Nubians were a Saharan civilization.

I stand corrected! I never considered the Nile Valley as part of the Saharan Desert.

 

[K4wa]

But if Nubia replaces my glorious Haile Sellasie of Ethiopia, i am not down with it.
Ethiopia is a must. It's absence is as weird as Turkey's. It is the big man of Africa, you cannot represent Africa without Ethiopia in the same way like you cannot represent Europe without France.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

You are assuming the missing big civs will find it's way into Civ 6 regardless ("because of the money"). We don't know if that's the case at all.
Maybe they'll stick with fresh faces.

Why would they leave them out? Ancient Civs like Babylon and Inca are sure to generate a lot of interest and will attract a lot of players. They are running a business and know perfectly what they're doing. Of course we can never know for certain, but it's pretty safe to assume. Sometimes hard facts and sience is inferior to common sense.

 

[Karpius]

Sometimes hard facts and sience is inferior to common sense.

It all depends on what Firaxis deems to be the Common "Cents" of the moment.

 

[pgm123]

Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing Morocco return.

I'm definitely down to see Morocco again. Maybe they could do an Almoravid this time?

Whatever they were historically, Nubia's introduction was a fresh breath of pure oxygen hooked up to the veins and I refuse to hear otherwise. Same applies to Khmer/Indonesia's additions, as well as the Mapuche in this expansion.

100%

 

[Ivan Hunger]

It seems Firaxis has decided that all civs who are sold separately as DLC packs must come with a related scenario to give their DLC added value.

So whether or not they have an interesting idea for a scenario related to a civilization probably plays a big role in determining whether that civ get included in an expansion proper or whether its kept in reserve for a future DLC.

 

[Arent11]

Why would they leave them out? Ancient Civs like Babylon and Inca are sure to generate a lot of interest and will attract a lot of players. They are running a business and know perfectly what they're doing. Of course we can never know for certain, but it's pretty safe to assume. Sometimes hard facts and sience is inferior to common sense.

It all depends on what Firaxis deems to be the Common "Cents" of the moment.

Obviously the civ choices are part where the big markets lie (Western, China, India, south America), part actual history (Europe, China, India, Egypt, Mesopotamia) & part interchangeable (Native civs, minor & obscure civs). Babylon & Inca surely are staple & influential civs, but they are no Rome or China & there are no Inca left to buy civilization 6.

 

[anandus]

It seems Firaxis has decided that all civs who are sold separately as DLC packs must come with a related scenario to give their DLC added value.

So whether or not they have an interesting idea for a scenario related to a civilization probably plays a big role in determining whether that civ get included in an expansion proper or whether its kept in reserve for a future DLC.

Not sure if there'll be any more DLC, though. So far they are following Civ 5's model. And Civ 5 didn't have any DLC after the first expansion.

(Which, I personally think is a bit sad, as I love DLC and the drip-feed mechanism of putting something fresh in the game every few months. An expansion is another year's wait (or longer) without anything in between.
But that's all a bit offtopic here.)

 

[Sagax]

Babylon & Inca surely are staple & influential civs, but they are no Rome or China & there are no Inca left to buy civilization 6.

You don’t have to be Babylonian/Incan to be willing to throw money at the screen when these two are added to the game.

 

[PhilBowles]

Is it "political correctness" or desire for variety? How many white dudes in a military uniform do we need?

If Robert the Bruce is any indication, at least one more.

Never mind the argument made in favour of Georgia that there aren't enough Caucasians in the game...

Civs like the Mapuche don't really add any variety to civ representation when they're replacements for civs that are waiting the game out, at least for now, from the same region.

Four new civs in an expansion with eight civs seems too many in general, especially with the number of civs already added to the series for the first time in Civ VI. It's exacerbated by the fact that the returning civs include only two 'heavy hitters' (Mongolia and the Zulu) - Netherlands and Korea are deserving and long-established civs in the series, but they seem to fall lower down many players' wishlists than civs like Byzantium, the Ottomans or the Inca.

I also dislike the fact that every civ in the expansion is either a long-term staple or an all-new civ. Civs that have been in one or two entries before - like the Khmer - are interesting additions, especially if they missed Civ V and so haven't had the modern civ ability treatment. They could have brought in the Hittites or Mali, in particular.

 

[PhilBowles]

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”
• We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

Quoted from the source directly from them
Let's see the criteria:
Cree, Mapuche, Zulu, and Georgia directly fit the first criteria. Places in those areas were lacking or completely new as in the case of the Caucasus region. Also most of Canada and parts of Chile/Argentina have never been represented in a game before.

The Caucasus isn't a big enough area to need representation given how many civs are centred in the adjacent regions - it's like adding Andorra because the Pyrenees aren't represented by their own microstate. Chile is fine, but given that the Inca have always started in Cuzco the Mapuche don't really add much that the Inca couldn't in their place.

 

[clapyourhands]

If Robert the Bruce is any indication, at least one more.

Never mind the argument made in favour of Georgia that there aren't enough Caucasians in the game...

Civs like the Mapuche don't really add any variety to civ representation when they're replacements for civs that are waiting the game out, at least for now, from the same region.

Four new civs in an expansion with eight civs seems too many in general, especially with the number of civs already added to the series for the first time in Civ VI. It's exacerbated by the fact that the returning civs include only two 'heavy hitters' (Mongolia and the Zulu) - Netherlands and Korea are deserving and long-established civs in the series, but they seem to fall lower down many players' wishlists than civs like Byzantium, the Ottomans or the Inca.

I also dislike the fact that every civ in the expansion is either a long-term staple or an all-new civ. Civs that have been in one or two entries before - like the Khmer - are interesting additions, especially if they missed Civ V and so haven't had the modern civ ability treatment. They could have brought in the Hittites or Mali, in particular.

I personally don't quite consider the Cree and Scotland as all-out new civs, unless they bring back two of the Shoshone/Sioux/Iroquois or the Celts/Gauls/etc in addition to them. Otherwise they're pretty much replacements for their predecessors, and I don't think many people are expecting 3 Native American groups or Celts and Scotland both in VI. It's the same with Norway in vanilla, it's technically a new civ, but everyone already expected some sort of Viking group and the inclusion of one in vanilla didn't feel like pushing out other more deserving civs, since Norway's pretty much standing in for the Viking cultures as a whole. Native American and Celts are standard for vanilla-to-first expansion and have been in pretty much all past games, and essentially are first expansion for VI too, just with different interpretations. From that perspective we only got 3 civs you can confidently say took up new "spots", as the other two just rotated into an existing civ spot we all knew was already coming.

 

[magha77]

Nice point. I’m happy. Looking at the long game, when the last expansion is out and the DLC’s are finished, we will be looking at game with at least 3 North American civs (and possibly 6 with Mayans, Canada and a western US based Native American civ), 3 South American civs (assuming Incans added) with possibly 4 with Columbia or Argentina. That’s a lot of civs in the new world compared to older games! I’m looking forward to Africa filling up with Carthage, Mali and Ethiopia. Can’t wait for the expansion to come out and have a go at each new civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The Caucasus isn't a big enough area to need representation given how many civs are centred in the adjacent regions - it's like adding Andorra because the Pyrenees aren't represented by their own microstate. Chile is fine, but given that the Inca have always started in Cuzco the Mapuche don't really add much that the Inca couldn't in their place.

Georgia is very clear evidence of where the devs priorities actually are:

1. Is it a meme? We are including it over other civs in the region. (Vietnam).
2. Does it have an iconic female leader? We are including it over other civs in the region. (Vietnam).
3. Is it a modern state with a vocal playerbase of that particular nationality? We are including it over other civs in the region. (Vietnam).

If neither of these were the case and they still felt the Caucauses needed to be filled, they would have gone with Khazaria.

This is also why I think Denmark is more likely to happen than Sweden (Margaret I).
This is also why I think Sabea or an Ethiopian blob is more likely to happen than Aksum/Ethiopia (Makeda/Bilqis).
This is also why I think Assyria or an Akkadian blob is more likely to happen than Babylon (Shammamurat).
This is also why I think Austria is more likely to happen than Switzerland or Bulgaria (Maria Theresa).
This is also why I think Ashanti or Hausa are more likely to happen than Mali (Asantewaa and Amina).
This is also why I think Morocco's only chance of being included is if Sayyida al Hurra is the leader.

 

[PhilBowles]

Georgia is very clear evidence of where the devs priorities actually are:

1. Is it a meme? We are including it over other civs in the region. (Vietnam).
2. Does it have an iconic female leader? We are including it over other civs in the region. (Vietnam).
3. Is it a modern state with a vocal playerbase of that particular nationality? We are including it over other civs in the region. (Vietnam).

I doubt there are more Georgian players than Vietnamese ones. As much as I love Southeast Asian civs I wouldn't expect more than two - and no more than one mainland civ - in any Civ game so I wouldn't expect Vietnam in Civ VI at any point.

This is also why I think Denmark is more likely to happen than Sweden (Margaret I).
This is also why I think Sabea or an Ethiopian blob is more likely to happen than Aksum/Ethiopia (Makeda/Bilqis).
This is also why I think Assyria or an Akkadian blob is more likely to happen than Babylon (Shammamurat).
This is also why I think Austria is more likely to happen than Switzerland or Bulgaria (Maria Theresa).
This is also why I think Ashanti or Hausa are more likely to happen than Mali (Asantewaa and Amina).
This is also why I think Morocco's only chance of being included is if Sayyida al Hurra is the leader.

Evidently they're still adding civs with no particularly plausible female leaders - Macedon, Australia, Scotland etc. They reused the Zulu over including Madagascar, which has a female leader option. I doubt they'd add a blob civ in place of a preexisting non-blobby one - the only example of that was the Native American civ in Civ IV. And I think all of the Civ 1 civs will be included, just as they always have been - so Babylon will show up eventually. Most entries have two ancient Mesopotamian civs - Civ V had Assyria instead of Sumeria, but all have had Babylon.

I personally don't quite consider the Cree and Scotland as all-out new civs, unless they bring back two of the Shoshone/Sioux/Iroquois or the Celts/Gauls/etc in addition to them. Otherwise they're pretty much replacements for their predecessors, and I don't think many people are expecting 3 Native American groups or Celts and Scotland both in VI. It's the same with Norway in vanilla, it's technically a new civ, but everyone already expected some sort of Viking group and the inclusion of one in vanilla didn't feel like pushing out other more deserving civs, since Norway's pretty much standing in for the Viking cultures as a whole.

The way they've portrayed Scotland very much leaves the way open to bring the Celts in - they're closer to Sweden in Civ V than Denmark: part of a former blob civ, but representing a different part of that country's history. Denmark/Norway didn't replace the Vikings because of their geographical overlap, they replaced them because they were presented in the game as Vikings. Scotland isn't portrayed as an analogue of the Celts.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

And I think all of the Civ 1 civs will be included, just as they always have been - so Babylon will show up eventually. Most entries have two ancient Mesopotamian civs - Civ V had Assyria instead of Sumeria, but all have had Babylon.

 

[Ornen]

I'm pretty pissed off by the civ choices, and not just because they're intentionally leaving out big names. Africa's still very poorly represented, with no countries on the board from West Africa proper. And the lineup is super heavy on Anglo and Greek leaders. With 36 leaders on the board, I don't see why we have 4 Greek leaders and 4 Anglo civs, but still no Ottomans, Inca, Maya, or any West Africans.

And I think the series' efforts for diversity have been painfully superficial. For all the talk, of only two African civs in the base game, one is led by a white woman and the other makes adopting European practices a centerpiece of the civ. If anything, the racial politics of Civilization have only gotten more troubled in this iteration.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm pretty pissed off by the civ choices, and not just because they're intentionally leaving out big names. Africa's still very poorly represented, with no countries on the board from West Africa proper. And the lineup is super heavy on Anglo and Greek leaders. With 36 leaders on the board, I don't see why we have 4 Greek leaders and 4 Anglo civs, but still no Ottomans, Inca, Maya, or any West Africans.

And I think the series' efforts for diversity have been painfully superficial. For all the talk, of only two African civs in the base game, one is led by a white woman and the other makes adopting European practices a centerpiece of the civ. If anything, the racial politics of Civilization have only gotten more troubled in this iteration.

It's not just the diversity of the civs that is lacking (and players STILL want Byzantium, Austria, and the Celts?). It's also the diversity of mechanics and playstyles.

One expansion in, and the game is still strictly focused on militarism and expansionism. Civ AI and later game politics have hardly been developed at all, and I doubt Emergencies will be the easy fix Firaxis wants them to be. And there isn't a single civ with a non-military UU, which practically forces heavy militarization and war for all civs. Pacifism and isolationism simply aren't options in this game yet.