What Civ Would you Cut?

Zulu would be the second civilization I would replace. Among all African civilizations in Civ6, Zulu has the weakest justification for being in the game. They're only there because they were historical rivals to the Brits and because they've become traditional in the franchise. There are many other more interesting African civilizations that could take their place.
Agree, there are too many good options from Africa that are out just for the sake of Shaka.

The third would be something between Australia and Canada. I can understand the complaints about the game having too many former British colonies. While Canada sounds more unique, Cree already kind of represented it. On the other hand, Australia occupies the continental mass of Oceania and was very well designed in Civ.
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.
- Land Down Under > Land of the Free
- Digger > Marine
- Outback Station > Ranch
 
Last edited:
Zulu would be the second civilization I would replace. Among all African civilizations in Civ6, Zulu has the weakest justification for being in the game. They're only there because they were historical rivals to the Brits and because they've become traditional in the franchise. There are many other more interesting African civilizations that could take their place.
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 just discovery about the Zulus because of this game and I'm all in favor to mantain Shaka in the game.

While Canada sounds more unique, Cree already kind of represented it.
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.
 
I am not certain I like the idea of eliminating post-colonial nations... The game would have a nice logical consistency if all the civs featured felt like they could at least plausibly have emerged in antiquity. But if firaxis were going to completely eliminate them, they really should slay one of their sacred cows and not include the USA. If they still had it then the US would stand out like a sore thumb. But I can't see them putting out a game without representation of a huge market and founding civ.

So I guess I think a mix of indigenous and post-colonial civs is fine. Just rotate which post-colonial ones (particularly from South America) get represented.
 
I am not certain I like the idea of eliminating post-colonial nations... The game would have a nice logical consistency if all the civs featured felt like they could at least plausibly have emerged in antiquity. But if firaxis were going to completely eliminate them, they really should slay one of their sacred cows and not include the USA. If they still had it then the US would stand out like a sore thumb. But I can't see them putting out a game without representation of a huge market and founding civ.

So I guess I think a mix of indigenous and post-colonial civs is fine. Just rotate which post-colonial ones (particularly from South America) get represented.
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.

Still I would like to point on how we have regular representative civs like Aztec instead of Zapotec, Indonesian instead of Philippine, or Ethiopian instead of Somali civ because the first one of each couple is "the big one", the second options are out living at the shadow of the top option. If we apply this to post-colonial and even european civs we should not get civs like Australia or Scotland.
 
I am not certain I like the idea of eliminating post-colonial nations... The game would have a nice logical consistency if all the civs featured felt like they could at least plausibly have emerged in antiquity. But if firaxis were going to completely eliminate them, they really should slay one of their sacred cows and not include the USA. If they still had it then the US would stand out like a sore thumb. But I can't see them putting out a game without representation of a huge market and founding civ.

So I guess I think a mix of indigenous and post-colonial civs is fine. Just rotate which post-colonial ones (particularly from South America) get represented.
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.

Still I would like to point on how we have regular representative civs like Aztec instead of Zapotec, Indonesian instead of Philippine, or Ethiopian instead of Somali civ because the first one of each couple is "the big one", the second options are out living at the shadow of the top option. If we apply this to post-colonial and even european civs we should not get civs like Australia or Scotland.
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 remember in the old threads of Civ5, Australia was a very requested civilization around here, so much so that there were many mods of the Australian civilization, Canada was almost as requested as it. I think a lot of complaints with the inclusion of Australia was because it was added too early and when the game was very Eurocentric. If Australia had been included in the NFP or GS, I don't think there would be so many complaints.

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.
- Land Down Under > Land of the Free
- Digger > Marine
- Outback Station > Ranch
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.

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 just discovery about the Zulus because of this game and I'm all in favor to mantain Shaka in the game.
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 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 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.
 
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
 
Do we really need Brazil in every civ game?

Don't get me wrong, I really like Brazil as a civ (in civ5 it was one of my fabourite civilizations in general), I just don't think it is that super important in the bigger picture that it should be the obligatory recurring Latin America representative at the expense of many other absent nations (because let's be honest I'd be surprised if we got three Latin American civs next game).

Overall Mexico has been arguably somewhat more globally influential Latin American country (or at least comparable enough to appear interchangeably with Brazil), and then there is also Argentina which had the economy comparable with Brazil for many decades. Brazil only industrialized and became culturally prominent on a global scale across like past 50 years. I'm not denying it should visit series often, bc it should it is a great modern culture, but it isn't some sort of Goddess of Latin America which has to be an eternal staple due to its enormous global prominence. You could just as well make a game with only Mexico, or only Argentina, or Argentina and Cuba etc etc and it wouldn't be some grave sin, just like Poland or Indonesia or Nigeria don't have to return every game just because they are the biggest nation of their respective cultural region of the world.

Although my pro - Mexican approach is also helped by the fact I don't give a smallest damn about the notion of rejecting any civ ever just because it is "unlucky" to share the geographic spot with somebody else, and therefore Nauru should appear in game earlier than Renaissance Italy, Al-Andalus, Mughals, Mexico, Islamic Egypt etc etc some of the richest cultures to ever exist
 
Last edited:
Do we really need Brazil in every civ game?

Don't get me wrong, I really like Brazil as a civ (in civ5 it was one of my fabourite civilizations in general), I just don't think it is that super important in the bigger picture that it should be the obligatory recurring Latin America representative at the expense of many other absent nations (because let's be honest I'd be surprised if we got three Latin American civs next game).

Overall Mexico has been arguably somewhat more globally influential Latin American country (or at least comparable enough to appear interchangeably with Brazil), and then there is also Argentina which had the economy comparable with Brazil for many decades. Brazil only industrialized and became culturally prominent on a global scale across like past 50 years. I'm not denying it should visit series often, bc it should it is a great modern culture, but it isn't some sort of Goddess of Latin America which has to be an eternal staple due to its enormous global prominence. You could just as well make a game with only Mexico, or only Argentina, or Argentina and Cuba etc etc and it wouldn't be some grave sin, just like Poland or Indonesia or Nigeria don't have to return every game just because they are the biggest nation of their respective cultural region of the world.
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.
 
I am not certain I like the idea of eliminating post-colonial nations... The game would have a nice logical consistency if all the civs featured felt like they could at least plausibly have emerged in antiquity. But if firaxis were going to completely eliminate them, they really should slay one of their sacred cows and not include the USA. If they still had it then the US would stand out like a sore thumb. But I can't see them putting out a game without representation of a huge market and founding civ.

So I guess I think a mix of indigenous and post-colonial civs is fine. Just rotate which post-colonial ones (particularly from South America) get represented.

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.

Still I would like to point on how we have regular representative civs like Aztec instead of Zapotec, Indonesian instead of Philippine, or Ethiopian instead of Somali civ because the first one of each couple is "the big one", the second options are out living at the shadow of the top option. If we apply this to post-colonial and even european civs we should not get civs like Australia or Scotland.

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 remember in the old threads of Civ5, Australia was a very requested civilization around here, so much so that there were many mods of the Australian civilization, Canada was almost as requested as it. I think a lot of complaints with the inclusion of Australia was because it was added too early and when the game was very Eurocentric. If Australia had been included in the NFP or GS, I don't think there would be so many complaints.


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.

Do we really need Brazil in every civ game?

Don't get me wrong, I really like Brazil as a civ (in civ5 it was one of my fabourite civilizations in general), I just don't think it is that super important in the bigger picture that it should be the obligatory recurring Latin America representative at the expense of many other absent nations (because let's be honest I'd be surprised if we got three Latin American civs next game).

Overall Mexico has been arguably somewhat more globally influential Latin American country (or at least comparable enough to appear interchangeably with Brazil), and then there is also Argentina which had the economy comparable with Brazil for many decades. Brazil only industrialized and became culturally prominent on a global scale across like past 50 years. I'm not denying it should visit series often, bc it should it is a great modern culture, but it isn't some sort of Goddess of Latin America which has to be an eternal staple due to its enormous global prominence. You could just as well make a game with only Mexico, or only Argentina, or Argentina and Cuba etc etc and it wouldn't be some grave sin, just like Poland or Indonesia or Nigeria don't have to return every game just because they are the biggest nation of their respective cultural region of the world.

Although my pro - Mexican approach is also helped by the fact I don't give a smallest damn about the notion of rejecting any civ ever just because it is "unlucky" to share the geographic spot with somebody else, and therefore Nauru should appear in game earlier than Renaissance Italy, Al-Andalus, Mughals, Mexico, Islamic Egypt etc etc some of the richest cultures to ever exist
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?
 
I remember in the old threads of Civ5, Australia was a very requested civilization around here, so much so that there were many mods of the Australian civilization, Canada was almost as requested as it. I think a lot of complaints with the inclusion of Australia was because it was added too early and when the game was very Eurocentric. If Australia had been included in the NFP or GS, I don't think there would be so many complaints.

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.
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.

The use of civilizations (plural) refer to distinct groups of societies characterized by different ways of life, institutions, religion, language, etc. We learn about the civilizations of the Nile, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mesoamerica, Andes, etc. But there is a reason the whole modern Europe/Western is seen as a common civilization born in medieval times from the Christian Greco-Roman tradition and "barbarian" (mostly Germanic) dynasties. In game civs like Canada or Australia are the furthest from provide the feel of a different world history born from early cultures with their own unique gods and language. Note that I am not asking for all Europe/Western civ to be one civ on game (also I am sure Canada and/or Australia would come again in CIV7) but a second or even tird anglo-colonial civ is an annoying trend.

The whole idea of Oceania deserving multiple slots lacks justification beyond the idea that its a continent. For example the whole Oceania is basically the same size as Brazil but the later have five times the population of the former. People ask for an australian Aboriginal civ when their culture is one of the further from fit the imperial urbanized basic model of the game, ignoring Melanesian or Papuan cultures that fit a little better (because they are not from Australia :rolleyes:). 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!!!
 
Last edited:
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?

Sure, I would like it if several free cities rebelling could spawn post-colonial nations.

Just a rough idea:

Maybe every citizen should have an ethnic background that is controlled by the culture system like in civ 3. Each citizen has a cultural 'memory', so that they will consider themselves ethnic members of the previous civilization until they are assimilated into their new occupying civilization. If a bunch of free cities on another continent is predominantly your own ethnicity and rebels, it could spawn a post-colonial nation. (If they are predominantly from another ethnicity that has been wiped out it should respawn that Civ instead.)
 
Sure, I would like it if several free cities rebelling could spawn post-colonial nations.

Just a rough idea:

Maybe every citizen should have an ethnic background that is controlled by the culture system like in civ 3. Each citizen has a cultural 'memory', so that they will consider themselves ethnic members of the previous civilization until they are assimilated into their new occupying civilization. If a bunch of free cities on another continent is predominantly your own ethnicity and rebels, it could spawn a post-colonial nation. (If they are predominantly from another ethnicity that has been wiped out it should respawn that Civ instead.)
Similar in CIV4. Would be great to get back this role of culture instead of pure late game great works, tourism and rock bands :crazyeye:
Also religion again as a relevant part of culture would add to civs like Arabia and Spain for bonus that convert the culture of their conquered lands through religion.
 
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?
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.
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 culture is 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.
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.

Sure, I would like it if several free cities rebelling could spawn post-colonial nations.

Just a rough idea:

Maybe every citizen should have an ethnic background that is controlled by the culture system like in civ 3. Each citizen has a cultural 'memory', so that they will consider themselves ethnic members of the previous civilization until they are assimilated into their new occupying civilization. If a bunch of free cities on another continent is predominantly your own ethnicity and rebels, it could spawn a post-colonial nation. (If they are predominantly from another ethnicity that has been wiped out it should respawn that Civ instead.)
I'd like something like this to replace the loyalty system.
 
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.
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.

Do we really need Brazil in every civ game?

Don't get me wrong, I really like Brazil as a civ (in civ5 it was one of my fabourite civilizations in general), I just don't think it is that super important in the bigger picture that it should be the obligatory recurring Latin America representative at the expense of many other absent nations (because let's be honest I'd be surprised if we got three Latin American civs next game).

Overall Mexico has been arguably somewhat more globally influential Latin American country (or at least comparable enough to appear interchangeably with Brazil), and then there is also Argentina which had the economy comparable with Brazil for many decades. Brazil only industrialized and became culturally prominent on a global scale across like past 50 years. I'm not denying it should visit series often, bc it should it is a great modern culture, but it isn't some sort of Goddess of Latin America which has to be an eternal staple due to its enormous global prominence. You could just as well make a game with only Mexico, or only Argentina, or Argentina and Cuba etc etc and it wouldn't be some grave sin, just like Poland or Indonesia or Nigeria don't have to return every game just because they are the biggest nation of their respective cultural region of the world.

Although my pro - Mexican approach is also helped by the fact I don't give a smallest damn about the notion of rejecting any civ ever just because it is "unlucky" to share the geographic spot with somebody else, and therefore Nauru should appear in game earlier than Renaissance Italy, Al-Andalus, Mughals, Mexico, Islamic Egypt etc etc some of the richest cultures to ever exist
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.

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?
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.
Currently, the effort for colonization comes from just a few policy cards and a wonder, but it needs a lot more than that.
 
I mean to say Australia and Canada doesn't have unique culture is kind of unfair.
So, who is closer to America or England culture...
A) Australia B) Hungary C) Somalia
In the same way we can look between all the cultures in CIV6 and the closer would still be the other Anglo countries, anything different would be more unique in relation to them.
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 dare you to put an average Spaniard, Mexican and Chilean in the same room and say this :lol:
For any group there will always be differences inside it, but their similarities are what turn them in a group in the first place.
 
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.
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.
In the same way we can look between all the cultures in CIV6 and the closer would still be the other Anglo countries, anything different would be more unique in relation to them.
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. :p

I do agree with you that Australia, Canada and Scotland on top of America and England was a little too much. I personally still don't mind keeping Australia because I do believe it is unique enough for geographical reasons, and fun to play at least in Civ 6, at least. Give us Haiti instead of Canada, opening up room for at least another North American tribe, and have a more Celtic designed Ireland than Scotland for Civ 7. :)
 
Do we really need Brazil in every civ game?

Don't get me wrong, I really like Brazil as a civ (in civ5 it was one of my fabourite civilizations in general), I just don't think it is that super important in the bigger picture that it should be the obligatory recurring Latin America representative at the expense of many other absent nations (because let's be honest I'd be surprised if we got three Latin American civs next game).

Overall Mexico has been arguably somewhat more globally influential Latin American country (or at least comparable enough to appear interchangeably with Brazil), and then there is also Argentina which had the economy comparable with Brazil for many decades. Brazil only industrialized and became culturally prominent on a global scale across like past 50 years. I'm not denying it should visit series often, bc it should it is a great modern culture, but it isn't some sort of Goddess of Latin America which has to be an eternal staple due to its enormous global prominence. You could just as well make a game with only Mexico, or only Argentina, or Argentina and Cuba etc etc and it wouldn't be some grave sin, just like Poland or Indonesia or Nigeria don't have to return every game just because they are the biggest nation of their respective cultural region of the world.

Although my pro - Mexican approach is also helped by the fact I don't give a smallest damn about the notion of rejecting any civ ever just because it is "unlucky" to share the geographic spot with somebody else, and therefore Nauru should appear in game earlier than Renaissance Italy, Al-Andalus, Mughals, Mexico, Islamic Egypt etc etc some of the richest cultures to ever exist
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.
 
Top Bottom