It's not arbitrary at all. Given the pattern in expacks of adding city-states specifically representing second string civs that the devs decided weren't going to be civs (Akkadia, Madagascar, Ireland, New Zealand, Babylon, Brunei, Belgium, Argentina, Missisippian, Wales, Andalusia, Mexico, Oman, Nazca, Kanem-Bornu, Rapa Nui, and now Taino, Muisca, Sikh Confederacy, Singapore, Nok, and Vatican City State), there was every reason to believe that city-states added as late as Gathering Storm had been dismissed as candidates. The Maya gave us hope that maybe the Viking DLC city-states could be reconsidered, but it wasn't until Antioch was removed that we had any reason to believe that the state of the game's development anticipated having to replace Fez or any of the other city-states added in 2019. It was a wholly reasonable inference to believe that the devs would be adding city-states that would be least likely to need replacing. False equivalency, Gaul and Eleanor had no Fez. They weren't major gripes but there were plenty of volunteered opinions that, if Morocco returned, members on these boards wanted it to be led by a Berber. Also, you're trying to paint me as someone who doesn't actually want Morocco? I would be happy with either Morocco or the Berbers. It is so incredibly unlikely that, in vetting leaders for Assyria, the devs have not considered Shammuramat. It's basically willful ignorance to pretend otherwise. And I really can't help you on the Shammalamma hatred if you simply haven't been paying attention on these boards. I got torn apart in the civ speculation thread for merely stating that I expected her to be under consideration because VI loves baity leader selections.