Why your civ choices?

[Greywulf]

What factors do you consider when advocating for a particular civ to be included in the game? For example, do you advocate for a new civ because of 1) how historically influential or powerful they were, 2) how long they were in power for, 3) how much territory they occupied at their high of power, or 4) because they effectively conquered others, or 5) they effectively resisted being conquered, 6) that they had mighty warriors, 7) they discovered much scientifically, and they benefited humanity in a significant way, 8) they were culturally unique, they represent a region that is unrepresented, or 9) their nation is important to you for patriotic reasons, 10) they are a modern power, or 11) you personally just like the civ, or 12) that they will fill a niche and bring something fresh to the game, such as new mechanics, or a completely different strategy, or 13) is your choice a political statement, 14) for more awareness for a little-known about civ, or 15) because they are well known about to the point that they are iconic, or 16) even because it would make a stance against real world injustice/racism to include them, 17) wanting a particular leader in the game, or 18) some other reason?

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

It would have helped if this was a poll with all these choices

11), 13) and 14) are the main ones for me and to a lesser extent 1), 7), 8) and 15).

As for 18), another reason I tend to think of occasionally now with Civ VI is music. The soundtrack thus far has some jewels all over, so musical renditions of ethnic music from my favourites does make it a bit more special.

 

[Greywulf]

It would have helped if this was a poll with all these choices

11), 13) and 14) are the main ones for me and to a lesser extent 1), 7), 8) and 15).

As for 17), another reason I tend to think of occasionally now with Civ VI is music. The soundtrack thus far has some jewels all over, so musical renditions of ethnic music from my favourites does make it a bit more special.

Good point. Is it possible to make this thread into a poll?

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Plymouth]

Mostly 1, 8, 11, 12, 17 and (to a lesser extent) 15.

I personally think that a civ ought follow at least a few of these or else it doesn't deserve to be in the game.

 

[JamesFaith]

In my case probably 1), 8), 9) 12) and 14)

And I think you should add to point 14) notion about leader or made it stand-alone point. For many fans their preffered new civilization may be defined by one popular leader.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

1) and 8/12) above everything; how influential were they in their part of the world, and how unique would they be from a design/mechanical perspective? 1) is largely affected by 2) and 3), the geographical and temporal extent of their influence, although VI has been forcing me to accept an alternative definition that includes 5) and 7).

The rest I'm borderline indifferent about for various reasons. The only ones I'm actually against are 4) and 6); if being a military power is the only reason a civ is in the game, I think this enforces a deceptively simple idea of humanity, and only makes the game feel even more single-minded. I feel the same way about other aspects of civs: if all you can point to is a great leader or an exceptionally devout culture--things which generally only seem exceptional in vacuum and fairly commonplace in a global context--I'd never find your civ unique or dimensional enough to want to develop and/or play it. Same thing with 9) to a lesser extent; that has nothing to do with historical importance and everything to do with privilege and pandering.

 

[Greywulf]

In my case probably 1), 8), 9) 12) and 14)

And I think you should add to point 14) notion about leader or made it stand-alone point. For many fans their preffered new civilization may be defined by one popular leader.

I'll add wanting a specific leader to the list...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Definitely number 1and 15 are similar.
8 and 12 go hand in hand together for me as well,
Also 11 will sometimes go with 17.

 

[Amrunril]

My reasoning is that the point of having multiple civ options is to add variety to the game, so I like civs that can add variety in as many ways as possible. That generally ends up meaning civs that are good fits for interesting/novel mechanics and come from regions/cultural groups that are currently under-represented. In terms of the OP, this primarily translates into options 8 and 12.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think diversity is an important reason for inclusion, but also contributions to world history, and certainly what leader choices they have (how well substantiate their stories are, do we even know their names, etc). Modern politics plays some role too--we've seen Firaxis conspiciously avoid creating a Hebrew civ, whether titled "Judah" or "Israel" or just "Hebrews" for example. And Tibet also hasn't made an appearance. That being said, I mention modern politics to point out a common obstacle encountered with people advocate for a Jewish civ, for example. I take it into account when I advocate for them (if only to point out how silly it is to avoid including a civ for that reason).

More recently, I've been advocating for civs with notable female leaders (Mayans, Ashanti, Iroquois, etc), as I think that's an important thing to consider, even if it shouldn't be a factor that overrides other factors like geography and so on (happily, many African civs were led by powerful females, and Civ VI currently sucks at African representation).

 

[steveg700]

In Civ V, I always hoped that a new civ would introduce new mechanisms.

In Civ VI, civ abilities are pretty much entirely heavy-handed and devoid of cleverness. Flat discounts on building certain things. Flat bonus yields from certain tiles. I was playing Nubia last night, and it was just so boring to have a civ whose ability is just cheaper districts and cheaper/better ranged units. I was hoping the pyramids would yield to some emergent benefits, but really nothing changed in how I would play a vanilla game. It just made it easier in some ways. I guess the best thing about is that it made deserts a viable location (who needs arable land when you have a pyramid on sand?). Now, the interesting abilities are rolled into things like great persons, city-states, and governors. And I guess I can't blame the devs too much, because abilities that require timing and planning will tend to be written as weak when you can just play a "cheaper/better" civ. Can't even blame it on the casuals.

So, forgoing that, historical achievement should be a prime consideration. Did they bring something interesting into their part of the world? Did they have a metropolis? Were their people engineers or artisans? Were they credited with being early to the sciences? Did they have a golden age or a renaissance? Did they excel at war in war-torn times? Did they manage peaceful prosperity in war-torn times?

Don't really care about "inclusion". All-inclusiveness isn't a standard, it's the abandonment of standards. I'm that most reviled of things in this day and age, a meritocrat. Sorry to be such an elitist, but if a civ never made it to moving things with wheels or writing things down or never erected an edifice that can stand up to a good couple of kicks, then what criteria allows them to be deemed "civilized"? However, I do like to reflect diversity in climes and terrains. Any civ that ties itself to a terrain feature has my attention.