Nothing against you being critical. Wasn't even singling you out; you responded to my unpopular take. I'll not say I wasn't expecting a response, but it wasn't targeted from me, if that makes sense. Regardless, of course Civilisation refers to a general timeline. But the events within it can happen in a different sequence to our timeline, with factions who did not enjoy dominance enjoying that in their place. An "empire" is a constructed thing, usually based on a very direct application of might making right. It's only science fiction that tends to explore (purely) technological or religious empires (and even as a contrived example, the Borg were very reliant on might makes right despite the particulars of the techno-organic assimilation). Priest, a movie I rewatched last night (good fun action movie to watch a bit mindlessly) has what I'd consider a more religious "empire" (was more of a last-bastion-of-humanity thing), and even that used a militia to enforce the law. I mean, I'm happy for more variance in Civilisation in this regard. For all its faults, I greatly enjoyed Beyond Earth, and the different thematic victories despite all being clicker races were styled very nicely. A more insiduous / on-the-surface "peaceful" kind of religious victory would be a neat subversion (though I still prefer Civ 6 in this regard compared to previous games - again, perhaps an unpopular opinion, hah). Applying that to culture might be a bit trickier to get the image right; Firaxis' combat-proxy choices are probably to a) link the various types of warfare thematically and b) to avoid getting too deep down into specific real-world parallels. That said, I'm failing to see the relevance to my arguments made previously. Maybe there isn't meant to be, I'm happy to keep on tangents like this.