I have to admit, I can't vote, because I see too many pros and cons from privileging one or another. I love to see new civs a "little" more obscur, but they have to remain somewhat important or influential. Like Nubia. I don't really see them adding as a civ, for example, the principality of Andorra, which would be totally new, but a little bit too marginal in a "grand scheme" of history. Of course, I don't think my opinion of importance is the same as the dev's mainly eurocentric view. For instance, I do believe Swahili and the Khmer or Burma are extremely important civs that should implemented almost right away, yet they seems very obscure for many players, putting them in the "new" category. I also think that when too civs are closely related, culturally or else, we should implement at first the more known than the lesser known (it doesn't mean the lesser known shouldn't be in the game, it can simply come later). This is the case, in Civ VI, of Scythia. I don't mind their inclusion, but the Mongols should have come sooner as the steppe riders civ, being the most known and important of the two.
Anyway, this is why I cannot vote for one or another : some civs should be implemented the earliest as possible because they simply can't be overlooked (Ottomans, Mongols, Portuguese, Dutch, ...), but in those I consider too important to be overlooked aare also civs that for some players are much more obscure, mainly because they're not western european (Bulgaria, Khmer, Burma, Swahili, Mali, Morocco, etc.)
