Thoughts about how civilizations should be chosen for inclusion

[Shadowstrike]

I feel like this might be a contentious subject, but I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about it. I'm curious about what everyone thinks should be the criteria on which civilizations are selected for inclusion. For me, it boils down to 1) historical importance, and 2) representativeness of a larger group of unrepresented peoples. I would also like to caveat that each civ should be one with a coherent identity (as opposed to being some overly broad group that people didn't really identify with strongly), and that there should be an effort to avoid overlaps.

In terms of the civs that are already in the game, I feel like Australia, Canada, Macedonia, and Scotland are probably the most problematic based on these criteria. The first two are largely on the basis of historical importance. I'm Canadian myself, and I don't really feel like either Canada or Australia have been that important historically; they also really overlap with the Americans and English in terms of cultural origins. Macedonia and Scotland feel like they are too similar to Greece and England, and aren't themselves hugely culturally significant. I feel like all four might best be represented by city-states instead.

Just running down the list of countries by population, I'm noticing a few particular missing ones: Pakistan (#5), Nigeria (#7), Bangladesh (#8), Mexico (#10), Philippines (#13), Thailand (#22), Tanzania (#24), Myanmar (#26). Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably fit into a wider revamp of South Asian civs - this would suggest Afghan, Punjabi and Bengali civs (along with potentially one or more south Indian civs - Tamils and Marathis would be my picks). I would like to see Hausa/Fulani and Yoruba civs for Nigeria. Modern Mexico is a big missing one for the colonial American civs (especially since the US, Brazil and Colombia are represented). Thailand and Myanmar are often suggested, since they have long cultural traditions. Tanzania (and Kenya) would do well with a Swahili civ. The Philippines might be tough to model as a civ, but that might be a function of how I don't know their history well.

In terms of historic importance (among civs I haven't suggested), Assyria and the Hittites are the big missing ones from the ancient world. Early modern Italy is also a big missing civ. I would also like to see some representation of Turkic peoples in Central Asia (perhaps led by Tamerlane), since the Mongolians no longer cover them. The Tibetans and Israelites are other peoples that have historical importance that aren't represented at the moment either. Some extra leaders to cover different periods might be good here: Persia could really use a leader from the Sassanid period, I think, and Arabia could use one from the modern era.

In terms of representativeness, I think the main ones that are missing after this are additional indigenous peoples. I tend to favor the idea of including four civs to represent the indigenous peoples of the American Northeast, Southeast, Southwest and Northwest, plus the Taino for the Carribean. In Europe, the Balkans feels particularly empty - it would be good to see one of Bulgaria/Romania/Yugoslavia be represented. The Akan or the Shona might help flesh out Africa a bit.

 

[Linklite]

The thing to remember is that this is a game, not a history simulator. It's based on what people will want to play as. I'm not going to pay £5 to be able to have the ability to play as Unknownistan. Don't get me wrong, you can put few lesser knowns in as part of a base game or large pack, but most of them are always going to be well known civs that get people excited, not based on location or ethnic diversity.

That's why Europe TSL is so crowded. It's also why we have two European TSLs and two Earth TSLs but not a single proper African TSL - the European and global maps have more appeal among the base.

I'm conflicted. I'd like to be able to play random Earth TSL as Portugal and survive the loyalty battle. I'd like to learn more about new cultures. But I also can't deny that I was far more excited about the Babylon and Byzantium packs than I was about the Vietnam and Kublai Kahn pack, and it's because I recognise those cultures and have some attachment to them. Vietnam though? Apart from the fact that they wore the Americans down to defeat and beat the French, I have no mental connection to them. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have them, but Byzantium did more to make me happy that I bought NFP.

So what should the metric be? It's not going to be simple or easy. However, the largest factor is going to have to be, which one encourages the most sales. That is, beyond the big players at the moment (US, Russia, China, UK, etc) going to be Anglosphere countries, European civs, Middle Eastern civs, then really famous ones like Zulu, Mongols, etc. Then a sprinkling of other lesser known civs becuase they realised that while they have 23 European civs, they only have 5 African ones.

It's the nature of things.

On a slight tangent, I despise the addition of Scotland. They weren't ever an Empire, at least not until they merged with England and Wales to form the UK, and they aren't that distinguished from the English anyway. They should have instead just made the "English" (another civ name that I really dislike) the British instead and be done with it. Maybe throw in the longbowmen as a nod to the Welsh.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In terms of the civs that are already in the game, I feel like Australia, Canada, Macedonia, and Scotland are probably the most problematic based on these criteria. The first two are largely on the basis of historical importance. I'm Canadian myself, and I don't really feel like either Canada or Australia have been that important historically; they also really overlap with the Americans and English in terms of cultural origins. Macedonia and Scotland feel like they are too similar to Greece and England, and aren't themselves hugely culturally significant. I feel like all four might best be represented by city-states instead.

Are Canada and Australia historically relevant. Not really, but that doesn't really matter anymore. Canadians and Australians are one of the biggest markets for gaming outside of the U.S. and Europe. It was only a matter of time until they eventually got in.
They were also city-states beforehand, even Canada was in the base game, but got promoted.

As for Macedonia, they were historically significant. Whether they are considered part of Greek culture is still up for debate, but Alexander is at least deserving enough to be in the game.

As for Scotland, this is the one that I can partially agree on. That being said if it wasn't Scotland I could have easily seen us getting Ireland instead and is that any different?

Just running down the list of countries by population, I'm noticing a few particular missing ones: Pakistan (#5), Nigeria (#7), Bangladesh (#8), Mexico (#10), Philippines (#13), Thailand (#22), Tanzania (#24), Myanmar (#26). Pakistan and Bangladesh would probably fit into a wider revamp of South Asian civs - this would suggest Afghan, Punjabi and Bengali civs (along with potentially one or more south Indian civs - Tamils and Marathis would be my picks). I would like to see Hausa/Fulani and Yoruba civs for Nigeria. Modern Mexico is a big missing one for the colonial American civs (especially since the US, Brazil and Colombia are represented). Thailand and Myanmar are often suggested, since they have long cultural traditions. Tanzania (and Kenya) would do well with a Swahili civ. The Philippines might be tough to model as a civ, but that might be a function of how I don't know their history well.

Well we've already got Thailand before in Civ 5 as Siam. Burma has also been thrown around as a possibility for the future SE Asian civ.

I can also see Mexico soon but it would feel too similar right now to Gran Colombia. Though I could see Argentina first because Mexico is already competing at least with both the Aztecs and Maya, geographically speaking.

South Asia is interesting because I don't really see a lot of separate civs happening on the Indian Subcontinent unless they break India up. That being said I could possibly see a Mughal/Timurid civ separate from India in the future.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

For me, it boils down to 1) historical importance, and 2) representativeness of a larger group of unrepresented peoples.

I agree with #1 in that a Civ game without Rome, for example, would be silly. Apart from that I care about:-

• Are they fun to play?
• Do they have an interesting character to lead them?
• Do they have a coherent mixture of abilities?
• Will they help sell copies and keep Firaxis making content for us?