Context: The “Civilized” mechanic in Victoria 2 won’t be coming back in 3. It was an arbitrary system which gave “uncivs” (countries that haven’t westernized) maluses and an inability to access the normal research “tree”.
Instead, the countries in question will be modeled after their actual circumstances that put them at a disadvantage to Western powers (agrarian society, decentralization, no infrastructure, poor literacy, etc). You know, a materialistic approach that’s in line with the rest of the game.
Also, white chuds won’t shut up about some capeshit that came out years ago and it’s hilarious.
Don't get me wrong I agree with the overall sentiment that this mechanic was bad and this is a step in the right direction. It is more about the nuance and context that PDX isn't good at making weak nations interesting without resorting to blobbing mechanics. The OP picture is nonsense of course because "wakanda" is no less ahistorical than a Ulm world conquest. Nobody actualy gives a shit about that.
I do think there is a discussion to be had about how PDX has resorted to DLCs and blobbing in order to for example sell you "Europa Universallis" at release and then slowly make it into "Rest of the World Universallis". Shit we need to have at release will surely be chopped away for a future DLC so we shouldn't be praising them blindly for making the rest of the world relevant on release day, I mean I should expect that to be the case and not have to wait 2 years for a DLC that makes Africa relevant.
That reminds me of what a pleasant surprise it was when CK3 released with a bunch of content and concepts from CK2's DLCs integrated into the core game, and generally how it decoupled systems from completely bespoke cultures and religions into more generic systems that mean for the most part anywhere you look you're working with a full-featured set of tools instead of how vanilla CK2 only had the Catholics as playable and fleshed out and every CK2 religion was a bespoke and idiosyncratic system with special mechanics.