Agree, there are too many good options from Africa that are out just for the sake of Shaka.
One polynesian civ is good enough to cover the whole Oceania, Australia itselft is a lesser version of America and their whole design could be completely used by USA with simple name changes.
I think is very respectfull to Shaka Zulu, have him in all games since now. That put him in the same feet as Alexander the great and Gengis Khan. Also in the same feet with Gandhi, but Gandhi I think should go out of the franchise.
I also agree the native american can represente the former colonial countries of America, as your example the Cree can represent the Canada in a scenario, for example. Guarani represents Paraguay, Mapuche-Chile, Aztecs-México, Inca-Peru, Muisca-Colômbia, Tupi-Brazil... and so on.
America is without question a civ too significative to be out and at least one LATAM is fundamental to represent this massive new culture. But it is also clear that the main reason to have these many post-colonial civs is pure market appealing, so we should be not surprised to see Canada and/or Australia again in CIV7.
I agree. I think we need no more than what we have currently available. But if it were up to me I would rotate Gran Colombia and Canada for Argentina and Haiti. America, Brazil, and Australia I would want to stay.
I believe that the only reason that Scotland exists is because they wanted to break up the Celtic blob that they had in Civ 5. Considering it was too British designed however then they rectified it with Gaul. I hope they only stick to one group next time, particularly Ireland.
I don't know if one Polynesian Civ is enough, I think if we have 50 Civs then we can have two of them. We might have a third if we get close to 60 civs. Maori was an amazing inclusion, and I would love to see Hawaii and Tonga someday.
Zulus might show up eventually, but I don't think they should be a staple. They are popular in the media because they were historical rivals of the British, it helps them. However, I particularly find other African civilizations more interesting.
I think America and Brazil are here to stay, they are big gaming markets anyway. Australia I have my doubts but I wouldn't mind if it became a staple either. I have a feeling we will see Gran Colombia again in Civ7.
The only way I see having two different Polynesian civs is if they decide to keep the Maori, but have them land based, and then have the other one (Tonga, Hawaii, Samoa etc.) the wayfinding naval one. But I don't see that happening.
I believe the Zulu are here to stay. Even if we get magically get South Africa as a civ in the future, I think they'll stay because they are one of the twelve originals.
I think the main thing going for Australia is TSL/geographic location. Gran Colombia can easily get rotated for the Muisca, while it's harder to find a substitute for Australia.
That is a way better solution who makes everyone happy, make every civilization with even more civs.
I don't know if Firaxis sees it this way but the one thing that Brazil has going for them is they are Portuguese speaking, which distinguishes themselves from the others being Spanish speaking. I'd at least like to keep that dynamic returning and Brazil is the only great option for a Portuguese one.
As I had said, I believe three times on this thread (I was a bit surprised - not offended or entitled, but surprise, at absolutely no response) that instead of Post-Colonial Civ's as Civ's, in their right, from the start, some sort of mechanism - I don't clearly know what, just yet - to have Colonial Revolution, Commonwealth, and latter-day Independence Wars by conquered Civ's regarding Civ's who expand quickly, via building new cities and trade routes, vassalage, and conquest, on multiple continents, and overextend themselves, regardless of who that Civ is. Any thoughts?
Both Australia and Canada are certainly popular, on the context of current world is natural for the average gamer to think on these countries when asked for a list of famous countries, but for a game about 6K years of civilizations their cultures are far from be unique, these countries are the very young and well educated sons of Britannia, both surpassed in every way by their older and more rebellious brother America.
). Then we have Tupi, Ge and Caribe cultures from Brazil that would also fit better than australian Aboriginals but rarely are suggested when they could be the actual "Jungle civ" with their Terra Preta and their cities in the Amazon!!!
Similar in CIV4. Would be great to get back this role of culture instead of pure late game great works, tourism and rock bands
As a potential game mechanic, I do like the idea. I don't necessarily care to limit that to just using post-colonial nations. To me America existing at 4000 B.C. is no different than Babylon existing at 2050 A.D.
I mean to say Australia and Canada doesn't have unique culture is kind of unfair. In fact, you could argue that they are more distinct from the UK, and each other, than most of the Latin American countries are to each other and Spain.
I'd like something like this to replace the loyalty system.
True, I strongly believe that Muisca will be in Civ7, but I think it will replace Mapuche and not Gran Colombia. I think every continent will have at least one more civilization compared to Civ6. One of the reasons I think Gran Colombia will return is because of Simon Bolivar, and they tend to focus on prominent leaders.
It would be really cool to have Mexico, but I don't think they compete directly with Brazil, which is South American civ, and if they want at least three civilizations from South America, I think Brazil will be there anyway. Mexico's inclusion depends on opening up more spaces for Central American/Caribbean civilizations. I think Mexico isn't in the game yet because the devs try to avoid geographical overlap, but only when it's not Europe.
Having a colonial revolution would be interesting. New civs could show up halfway through the game and that could mess things up quite a bit. For this, the game should have a way to encourage colonization, perhaps the gold obtained from colonies is significant enough to be worth the effort.
So, who is closer to America or England culture...
I dare you to put an average Spaniard, Mexican and Chilean in the same room and say this
Well, we can only hope. That surely wasn't the case for North America in Civ 6. Yes, thematically it might replace the Mapuche, but geographically they'd overlap. Which is why I think for the Spanish speaking modern nation they might go for Argentina.
Honestly, I hear as much, or more complaints, about the overrepresentation of Greeks. I mean if we only want one Anglo country besides England, which would honestly be America, we could always swap it out for a Dutch one like South Africa and get rid of the Zulus once and for all.
First we don't have Brazil in every civ, Brazil just appear in civ 5 and civ 6. But I like to play with Brazil, and I will understand cut out Brazil if we also cut off USA. Both are similar enouth to be cut together.
