View Full Version : New gods and kings civ formula


tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 06:43 AM
Hello, I have seen a lot of threads on this site that were trying to guess what civs should be added in the xpack. I decided to write a formula that calculates, not the most likely but the best civilizations to add.
Note: AGE means at greatest extent
(D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2)
D: Duration, time in years that the civ existed for
MB: Modern bonus, to account for the fact that civilizations that exist today won't magically disappear tomorrow it is equal to:
1: if civ does not exist in any form
1.33: if civ exists as a different country that is related to the original civ
1.67: if civ exists as the same country but with a different type of government
2: if civ exists in the same form (not the same land, just the same type of government, de facto same country) that it was AGE
C: number of current civs on the same continent
PC: modern population of continent in billions
CH: UNESCO heritage sites in civ AGE


Average score (use this as a reference for what's a "good" or "bad" civ): 1128 (w/o China or Rome)
Now in order of points
30. Texas: 5.6
29. New Zealand: 18
28. Zulu Empire: 49
27. Yugoslavia: 82
26. Australia: 100
25. Polynesian Empire: 117
24. Minoan Crete: 215
23. Finland: 225
22. Songhai: 389
21. Great Zimbabwe: 395
20. Canada: 429:cry:
19. Inuit Empire: 464
18. South Africa: 527
17. Argentina: 561
16. Tibet: 649
15. Mapuche: 757
14. Mali: 889
13. Brazil: 983
12. Kongo: 1,122
11. Serbia:1137
10. USA: 1,369
9. Sweden: 1662
8. Dutch Empire: 2,007
7. Denmark: 2154
6. Poland: 2,689
5. Mayan Empire: 3,321
4. Hungary: 3499
3. Holy Roman Empire: 6300
2. Rome: 17,514
1. China: 57,861

http://books.google.com/ngrams/chart?content=Zulu%2CPolynesia%2CYugoslavia%2CTibe t%2CBrazil%2CSerbia%2CHolland%2CInuit%2CPoland%2CM aya%2CNetherlands&corpus=0&smoothing=5&year_start=1700&year_end=2000

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 06:51 AM
feel free to add anything, the formula is still need improvement

Nyanko
Apr 06, 2012, 07:20 AM
So for Australia;
22,000,000 x 111 x 2 x 1.00
0/0.022
which equals...

infinity!
Problem with the math there.

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 12:28 PM
So for Australia;
22,000,000 x 111 x 2 x 1.00
0/0.022
which equals...

infinity!
Problem with the math there.
Good point, edited

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 01:27 PM
I decided to test it on 2 civs we already know are in the game.

Dutch: 15,680,000,000
Mayan: 5,148,000,000

I think the formula overrates having populous colonies and underrates culture, but I am impressed that the values of 2 very different empires are so close to eachother

Gucumatz
Apr 06, 2012, 01:46 PM
Population would be hard though. Several civs dont have any truly accurate population numbers at peaks.

The Maya are a good example of this because the estimates of populations are limited to a few cities and many cities don't have accurate population estimates. This probably goes with other civs as well (i.e. Huns, etc.)
Edit: Nvm read OP wrong

And its an interesting formula for sure... I calculated the Maya and got closer to 6 billion but still. Its harder to measure variables like culture, romantization, architecture, etc.

Edit2: Yep thanks for that typo find.

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 01:59 PM
Maya and got closer to 6 million but still. Its harder to measure variables like culture, romantization, architecture, etc.
I hope you mean 6 billion otherwise there's a big problem in my formula
I totally agree with the second part, I think that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites) might help for culture, architecture etc.. but I'm not sure if I should put it in yet, there might be a better way

Nyanko
Apr 06, 2012, 04:39 PM
Lets try Australia again

22,000,000 x 111 x 2 x 1.00
2/0.022

= 56,724,000

Is that good or bad?

Gucumatz
Apr 06, 2012, 04:40 PM
Fairly bad.

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 05:26 PM
The reason I am hesitant to add the UNESCO world heritage sites is that it would count sites that were built before/after the civilization existed. I want a 3rd party opinion please.

UNESCO heritage sites added to formula, yes or no?

Beefie
Apr 06, 2012, 06:09 PM
As it's as good as an approximation we have so far for a culture value, I'd say go for it.
Nice idea with the formula!

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 06:34 PM
As it's as good as an approximation we have so far for a culture value, I'd say go for it.
Nice idea with the formula!

Thank you, will add it.

tofofnts
Apr 06, 2012, 07:07 PM
revised dutch empire: 2007
revised mayan empire: 3321
revised polynesian empire: 59
YAY!!!! UNESCO heritage sites per capita works perfectly, showing that thanks to their significant culture the mayans are not 1/3 as important as the dutch but in fact 1.5x more important. I also am very glad that it gives me figures in the thousands not in the ten billions.

Pouakai
Apr 07, 2012, 03:34 AM
What we should do is work out the figures for all existing civilizations thus far, when compared to those in later DLC. I think the flaw here is civilizations like Polynesia which are fairly ambiguous.

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 07:20 AM
Polynesia will likely score low. Although, imo, they are towards the bottom of qualifying anyway. I do think, ultimately, an objective test will fail to include every possible factor. Polynesia has monuments, but they also had intangible achievements that I think factored into their inclusion.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 09:48 AM
Polynesia will likely score low.
Actually I have a feeling they will score very high, not because of a fault in the formula, but because UNESCO added a bazillion heritage sites to polynesia. They seem biased to small island countries
EDIT: they got 59 which is terrible

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 10:21 AM
Actually I have a feeling they will score very high, not because of a fault in the formula, but because UNESCO added a bazillion heritage sites to polynesia. They seem biased to small island countries
Just as I guessed, Polynesia has 9 heritage sites for a pop. of 6,274,742. will calculate points soon

EDIT: they only scored 59 which is quite low

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 10:28 AM
actually I was wrong Polynesia score is pathetic

59

crawf0rd
Apr 07, 2012, 10:40 AM
(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+1/P) for america would be
((311,000,000)*(236)*(2)/((3+2)/.528720588)*((21+1)/311,000,000)
Their score is 1098.
((110,000,000 + 81,799,600 + 38,186,860 + 45,888,000) * 700) / (9 / .739165030) * (4 / (110,000,000 + 81,799,600 + 38,186,860 + 45,888,000)) for the Huns
Their score is 230.
(34,804,000 * 86) / (6 / .528720588) * (16 / 34,804,000) for Canada
Their score is 121.
(50,586,757 * 55) / (4 / 1) * (2 / 50,586,757) for Zululand
Their score is 27.5.
So much fun!

Gucumatz
Apr 07, 2012, 10:53 AM
America's isnt bad. Huns is pretty bad. This formula is working fairly well.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 12:05 PM
This formula is working fairly well.

Thanks

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 01:36 PM
Just as I guessed, Polynesia has 9 heritage sites for a pop. of 6,274,742. will caluculate points soon

I don't think it'll change much, but what was the territory at greatest extent? I had the pop at 8 million but I essentially used Oceania minus Australia and Papua New Guinea.

CYZ
Apr 07, 2012, 03:37 PM
Polynesia should scory low I think. Let's be fair, if you asked 100 people here to name 10 civs deserving to be included before Polynesia was known as DLC... I doubt it would be named more than once to be honest.

I really wonder how no-brainer civs such as Persia, Greece, Rome, China, England and Japan rate. You'd expect them to score high but I'm not so sure. I'd expect Songhai and Siam to score relatively low.

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 04:09 PM
Songhai, at its height, was much of west Africa. That's a decent population size.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 04:55 PM
I don't think it'll change much, but what was the territory at greatest extent? I had the pop at 8 million but I essentially used Oceania minus Australia and Papua New Guinea.

It's hard to tell what "polynesia" really is, since they have Honolulu and Aotaeroa (New Zealand) as cities and there never has been a civ that controlled both, but the map on the background of the loading screen and the city names imply that polynesia is the polynesian triangle (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg/800px-Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg). After adding up the population of each country in polynesia (according to wikipedia) I got a bit over 6mil

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 04:58 PM
Polynesia should scory low I think. Let's be fair, if you asked 100 people here to name 10 civs deserving to be included before Polynesia was known as DLC... I doubt it would be named more than once to be honest.

I really wonder how no-brainer civs such as Persia, Greece, Rome, China, England and Japan rate. You'd expect them to score high but I'm not so sure. I'd expect Songhai and Siam to score relatively low.
Actually it did score low.
actually I was wrong Polynesia score is pathetic

59

GenjiKhan
Apr 07, 2012, 05:00 PM
Well,what would be the result of Brazil,considering two situations:

1)from Independence(1822) till the beginning of the Republic(1889);

2)From Independence(1822) till nowadays(2012);

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 05:13 PM
It's hard to tell what "polynesia" really is, since they have Honolulu and Aotaeroa (New Zealand) as cities and there never has been a civ that controlled both, but the map on the background of the loading screen and the city names imply that polynesia is the polynesian triangle (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg/800px-Pacific_Culture_Areas.jpg). After adding up the population of each country in polynesia (according to wikipedia) I got a bit over 6mil

There's been no organized state that controlled both, but they were both part of the Polynesian civilization. This is hard to fit in the formula. I calculated the 400-500 years of the Tui'Tonga empire for the duration. But it's clear that the entire Polynesian superculture is included as far as population, world heritage sites, etc.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 05:19 PM
Well,what would be the result of Brazil,considering two situations:

1)from Independence(1822) till the beginning of the Republic(1889);

2)From Independence(1822) till nowadays(2012);

1) 14,377!!!!!!
2)40,771!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!HOLY #*@$* :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek:

*gasps for air* As we can see Brazil is about 20 times as important as the netherlands

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 05:22 PM
There's been no organized state that controlled both, but they were both part of the Polynesian civilization. This is hard to fit in the formula. I calculated the 400-500 years of the Tui'Tonga empire for the duration. But it's clear that the entire Polynesian superculture is included as far as population, world heritage sites, etc.

Since there hasn't been a unified state, I used Kamehameha's state for the duration (since Kamehameha is the leader of the ingame civ) but the polynesian triangle for everything else

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 05:27 PM
I don't think Kamehameha is the ideal target period. Certainly, even the Hawaiian Kingdom lasted longer than he did.

As for Brazil, this does demonstrate a difficulty in separating time of existence from time of importance. Unfortunately, that's not an objective quality.

BTW, It would be great if you try Sumeria next (for a unified state, use either Sargon's empire or the Third Dynasty of Ur). I'm not sure how to get reliable numbers for the modern population of southern Iraq.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 05:29 PM
I don't think Kamehameha is the ideal target period. Certainly, even the Hawaiian Kingdom lasted longer than he did.


By that I meant the Hawaiian kingdom not him himself

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 05:32 PM
What was the duration number? If it was shorter than 300 years, use that one from Tonga (alternatively, you can go with 550 years to take the legends at their most generous).

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 05:44 PM
BTW, It would be great if you try Sumeria next (for a unified state, use either Sargon's empire or the Third Dynasty of Ur). I'm not sure how to get reliable numbers for the modern population of southern Iraq.

This ones gonna be tough, as the akkadian empire (the sargon one), actually owned part of modern syria as well as Iraq, but I should get a rough statistic soon (rough because the iraqi provinces are quite large
EDIT: while akkadia is seperate from Sumer, it owned most of Sumer and is much easier to find data on. Hope it's good enough, not sure I will be able to find enough data to do it on the Sumer you wanted

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 05:49 PM
What was the duration number? If it was shorter than 300 years, use that one from Tonga (alternatively, you can go with 550 years to take the legends at their most generous).

It was less than 300, I'll update Polynesia when I am done Sumer

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 05:56 PM
Akkad was an outsider who conquered the area. Sumer has a fairly distinct area culturally that, even after it collapsed, people still referred to as Sumer. It's about half the size of the Akkadian Empire, but a rough estimate everywhere Baghdad and south would work.

Buccaneer
Apr 07, 2012, 06:05 PM
In my opinion, land area is much more important than population size. Most wars (and royal marriages) were about controlling the territory (and its resources, access, routes, etc.) regardless how many people populated it.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 06:06 PM
447 for Sumer, Ok, not great

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 06:07 PM
Population helps give an idea of economic sophistication of the civilization. Many modern civilizations are successful because of the base they inherited. The only complication are when other civilizations after were the ones to build it up (the Celts might be an example here).

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 06:12 PM
In my opinion, land area is much more important than population size. Most wars (and royal marriages) were about controlling the territory (and its resources, access, routes, etc.) regardless how many people populated it.

Canada has a greater area than USA. Kazakhstan has a larger area than the UK and France combined. Not all land is equal and it doesn't matter how many resources you have if you have no one to defend it or work it.

Compare this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_area
To this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

The first one is definitely more correlated to power.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 06:13 PM
Akkad was an outsider who conquered the area. Sumer has a fairly distinct area culturally that, even after it collapsed, people still referred to as Sumer. It's about half the size of the Akkadian Empire, but a rough estimate everywhere Baghdad and south would work.

Sorry,don't have time for Akkadia, so you'll have to calculate this yourself

Stefanskantine
Apr 07, 2012, 06:17 PM
Modern population of the area controlled at the civilization's height is not a good measure of importance. You should use percentage of the total world population at the time of the civilization's height.

The current population of the area controlled by Babylon, Sumer etc. is likely not too impressive. But as a percentage of the total world population in 3000 BC, it was probably quite significant.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 06:18 PM
It was less than 300, I'll update Polynesia when I am done Sumer
Done with 550, they scored 59, which is an improvement but still quite bad, as expected
(There is a reason people talk more about the glory of Rome than the glory of Polynesia :lol:)

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 06:19 PM
Modern population of the area controlled at the civilization's height is not a good measure of importance. You should use percentage of the total world population at the time of the civilization's height.

The current population of the area controlled by Babylon, Sumer etc. is likely not too impressive. But as a percentage of the total world population in 3000 BC, it was probably quite significant.
agreed, but data is almost always too hard to find, and these take long enough. Also I'd have to update everything, which would be a drag, considering how hard it would be to find the data on, say, the mayans.

Louis XXIV
Apr 07, 2012, 06:21 PM
Sorry,don't have time for Akkadia, so you'll have to calculate this yourself

Actually, I was trying to tell you to not do Akkadia, just Sumer. I've tried doing the numbers but I kept getting funky results.

I think the formula works much of the time, but probably wouldn't work all the time.

tofofnts
Apr 07, 2012, 06:58 PM
Actually, I was trying to tell you to not do Akkadia, just Sumer. I've tried doing the numbers but I kept getting funky results.

I think the formula works much of the time, but probably wouldn't work all the time.

Sorry I've been getting Sumer and akkadia mixed up, akkadia is the one that got 440ish Sumer is the one that I don't have enough info to do. If you are getting weird numbers, that propably means you are forgetting that continent population is in billions (I.E. Pop of a continent is actual contenent pop dividEd by 1000000000. I made this mistake even though I'm the one who wrote the formula.

qhash
Apr 08, 2012, 03:47 PM
cant get that formula working, tofofnts can you supply the exact numbers you have used to calculate the Dutch empire?

tofofnts
Apr 08, 2012, 04:18 PM
cant get that formula working, tofofnts can you supply the exact numbers you have used to calculate the Dutch empire?

Lost most of them, other than that I was using 250,000,000 as an approximation of there pop. (remember they controlled indonesia)

As I said to someone else, remember to divide the continent pop. by 1 billion. I also recommend google calculator. If you need help post what you've done and I can see what you've missed.

Are you sure you are remembering to use the overseas parts of south america, India and indonesia they controlled?

Also since a lot of it is approximation don't expect an identical result

qhash
Apr 08, 2012, 04:36 PM
you are right I have divided by million not billion, now I got your number.
Also for Poland it is 17272

Gucumatz
Apr 08, 2012, 04:43 PM
you are right I have divided by million not billion, now I got your number.
Also for Poland it is 17272

Something seems severely wrong with that number.

qhash
Apr 08, 2012, 05:34 PM
P 38
D 1030
MB 2
C 47
PC 0,711
CH 13

The data is taken from 2010.

For Germany I get 94400

Gucumatz
Apr 08, 2012, 05:42 PM
You messed it up somehow. When I do Poland I get a score of 1456. Less than the Netherlands or Maya.

According to the Formula it is less important than the Netherlands and the Maya

==========

Let me explain. Modern Population is the full population. not "38"

MB is also not 2, it is 1.67 Gov't Style is now different than AGE.

C is also wrong. Its not countries its Civs in game.

PC is also wrong. Its now higher closer to .83

CH is 13 yes.

Krzowwh
Apr 09, 2012, 01:30 AM
Don't the two P's in the formula cancel out?

qhash
Apr 09, 2012, 05:59 AM
Nope, beacuse you have P/2 actually as a part of the sum with CH, so it will not cancel.

tofofnts
Apr 09, 2012, 12:12 PM
Don't the two P's in the formula cancel out?

We can try it using random variables
(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2/P)
P=7
D=5
MB=2
C=9
PC=4
CH=6
(7*5*2)/((9+2)/4)*(6+2/7) = 160
now we do the same without the two P's to see if they cancel each other out
(5 * 2) / ((9 + 2) / 4) * (6 + 2) = 29.0909091
so, no they don't, the reason is because of the bracket placement.

Good question though, I was worried for a second

Shiav
Apr 15, 2012, 01:50 AM
We can try it using random variables
(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2/P)
P=7
D=5
MB=2
C=9
PC=4
CH=6
(7*5*2)/((9+2)/4)*(6+2/7) = 160
now we do the same without the two P's to see if they cancel each other out
(5 * 2) / ((9 + 2) / 4) * (6 + 2) = 29.0909091
so, no they don't, the reason is because of the bracket placement.

Good question though, I was worried for a second

They, um, do cancel. Just thought you should know. Tested it. Essentially you can break it up into terms, giving you:
7, 5, 2 and (6+2) on the top, and ((9+2)/4) and 7 on the bottom.

To further test this I did the Roman Empire, first using your formula then using it without both of the populations. Both turned out to 21,411.936

Polar Bear
Apr 15, 2012, 03:28 AM
Hello, I have seen a lot of threads on this site that were trying to guess what civs should be added in the xpack. I decided to write a formula that calculates, not the most likely but the best civilizations to add.
Note: AGE means at greatest extent
(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2/P)
P: Modern population of civ AGE (i.e for Rome it would be how many people currently live in what used to be Rome at it's greatest extent)
D: Duration, time in years that the civ existed for
MB: Modern bonus, to account for the fact that civilizations that exist today won't magically disappear tomorrow it is equal to:
1: if civ does not exist in any form
1.33: if civ exists as a different country that is related to the original civ
1.67: if civ exists as the same country but with a different type of government
2: if civ exists in the same form (not the same land, just the same type of government, de facto same country) that it was AGE
C: number of current civs on the same continent
PC: modern population of continent in billions
CH: UNESCO heritage sites in civ AGE

dutch empire: 2007
mayan empire: 3321
polynesian empire: 59

Could you help me with the formula for the Inuit?

About 85% of the people of Nunavut are Inuit. I believe their population at their greatest extent is 150,000. I do not know how many people live in North America all together. The Inuit origins date back about 5000 years, however their movement across the North American Arctic only goes back about one thousand years. The other civilizations representing North America are America, Iroquois, Aztec and Mayans.


I have a thread discussing the Inuit for all who are interested. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11173421#post11173421

Truronian
Apr 15, 2012, 03:38 AM
Don't the two P's in the formula cancel out?

Yes they do. I suspect the OP is using order of operations incorrectly... nothing an extra set of brackets wouldn't fix.

SalmonSoil
Apr 15, 2012, 04:07 AM
Is this equation for deciding what Civs should be in the game or predicting which Civs will be in the game.

If its for predicting which Civs will be added to your game I think you're missing an important concept, which is flavour. Civs like Polynesia, Iroquois, Siam and Songhai aren't there because their empires expansive or populous or cultured. They are there because they provide a Polynesian Civ, a Southeast Asian civ, a West African Civ and a Native American Civ. This gives the game more flavour than an endless procession of European Civs. It seems like Songhai and Siam may have been chosen specifically because they were not Mali and Khymer, Civs from those regions which have been used before. You might need to add something to your calculation that accounts for empty regions of the Earth, you have the continent counter but that doesn't really work. Siam are an Asian Civ but they were likey still added mostly because they fill in South East Asia.

Something else that needs to be remembered is that the Civs picked for the game will be based solely off of their appeal to players. That's why the flavour Civs are there. That's why most civ games have featured Zulu (who I assume will score low). The Civs which appeal to players will sometimes be related to the size of their empires and their cultural relics, because that contributes to their fame.

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 05:26 AM
Is this equation for deciding what Civs should be in the game or predicting which Civs will be in the game.



I decided to write a formula that calculates, not the most likely but the best civilizations to add.

(I am writing this because my message needs to be at least 5 characters)

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 05:29 AM
Yes they do. I suspect the OP is using order of operations incorrectly... nothing an extra set of brackets wouldn't fix.

OP here, I doubt google calculator uses order of operations incorrectly. If you don't believe me, set the variables to random numbers(make sure the 2 "P"s are the same) copy and paste it into google, then do it again but delete the 2 "P"s
edit: with 2 different people I am worried it does, I'll try to fix it

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 05:44 AM
The formula can be shortened to this
(P*X)/Y*(Z/P)
Which can be shortened to this
(P*X/Y)*(Z/P)
Which can be shortened to this
(P*A)*(Z/P)
Which can be shortened to this
(P*A*Z)/P
Which can be shortened to this
(P*B)/P
So, yes the 2 Ps cancel each other out. But I am going to remove P from the formula instead of trying to fit it in because: the number of cultural heritage sites made are a reflection of not only the culture, but the population as well (i.e. Rome built more cultural heritage sites than the Pitcairn Islanders for a reason).

Truronian
Apr 15, 2012, 07:04 AM
OP here, I doubt google calculator uses order of operations incorrectly. If you don't believe me, set the variables to random numbers(make sure the 2 "P"s are the same) copy and paste it into google, then do it again but delete the 2 "P"s
edit: with 2 different people I am worried it does, I'll try to fix it

I'm a maths teacher. :)

Google calculator does use order of operations correctly, my only guess is that what you're typing into the calculator doesn't match your code.

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 08:41 AM
I'm a maths teacher. :)

Google calculator does use order of operations correctly, my only guess is that what you're typing into the calculator doesn't match your code.

I think when I highlited the formula to copy and paste it I left out a bracket. :blush:

stfoskey12
Apr 15, 2012, 01:13 PM
You should add land area with more than x people per square mile to account for sparsely populated regions.

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 01:31 PM
You should add land area with more than x people per square mile to account for sparsely populated regions.

That will give Canada and Russia huge bonuses for owning useless tundra in northern Canada and siberia.

stfoskey12
Apr 15, 2012, 02:03 PM
That will give Canada and Russia huge bonuses for owning useless tundra in northern Canada and siberia.

Yes, that's why only areas above a certain population density would be counted. By to account for sparsely populated areas, I meant to account for them being otherwise overrated. Of course, for many things, you would have to estimate.

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 04:34 PM
Yes, that's why only areas above a certain population density would be counted. By to account for sparsely populated areas, I meant to account for them being otherwise overrated. Of course, for many things, you would have to estimate.

Good idea, but this data would be tough to find

stfoskey12
Apr 15, 2012, 04:59 PM
Yes, except for modern-day civilizations who have regular censuses.

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 05:24 PM
Yes, except for modern-day civilizations who have regular censuses.

Unfortunately, not every civ is a modern day one with regular censuses

Polar Bear
Apr 15, 2012, 07:56 PM
tofofnts, can you explain to me how to calculate your formula properly? I am having trouble with it.

tofofnts
Apr 15, 2012, 08:31 PM
tofofnts, can you explain to me how to calculate your formula properly? I am having trouble with it.

If you give me the data I can probably help

Polar Bear
Apr 15, 2012, 08:54 PM
If you give me the data I can probably help

I posted earlier that I want to work out the formula for the Inuit.

Population at their greatest extent is 150,000. About 1000 years.


For more information. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11173421#post11173421

Gucumatz
Apr 15, 2012, 09:07 PM
Population at GE is now out of the formula due to canceling out. And it was never at greatest extent before; just the population of the region now which they inhabited.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 07:36 AM
2318.4 is the score for the inuit, the reason it did so well is that inuits have been living in denmark for quite a lot of time

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 07:38 AM
I think I will do the 3 most recommended civs,
zulu
poland
tibet

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 07:45 AM
zulu empire has 48.6

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 07:55 AM
polish empire is 2689

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 08:04 AM
tibet is 649

AbsintheRed
Apr 16, 2012, 10:26 AM
I don't think your calculation is too accurate, some of those multipliers are just out of thin air
Nevertheless, I did Hungary for fun

Hungary = 6057
D=1117 (895-2012 in the Carpathian-basin)
MB=1.67
C=8 without GK, additional 5 with GK - wasn't sure what did you use for other European civs
PC=0.74
CH=24 if only counting the ones which were under hungarian rule for at least a couple hundred years (under modern borders: 8 Hungary, 5 Slovakia, 1 Ukraine, 5 Romania, 5 Croatia)
Additional 16 if you really count AGE - mostly from eastern Austria, Bohemia, Silezia and the Bosnia-Serbia region (under Matthias Cornivus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_wars_of_Matthias_Corvinus_of_Hungary_%281 458-1490%29.png))
One could even argue that Hungary ruled Poland and a couple other countries in a personal union on several occasions - most notably under Louis I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_role.jpg) - but I don't think it's wise to get into personal unions and vassals, it would only mess things up even more. Anyway, if that's the AGE, in that case it would be even more:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/The_wars_of_Matthias_Corvinus_of_Hungary_%281458-1490%29.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Louis_role.jpg

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 12:09 PM
I don't think your calculation is too accurate, some of those multipliers are just out of thin air
Nevertheless, I did Hungary for fun

Hungary = 6057
D=1117 (895-2012 in the Carpathian-basin)
MB=1.67
C=8 without GK, additional 5 with GK - wasn't sure what did you use for other European civs
PC=0.74
CH=24 if only counting the ones which were under hungarian rule for at least a couple hundred years (under modern borders: 8 Hungary, 5 Slovakia, 1 Ukraine, 5 Romania, 5 Croatia)
Additional 16 if you really count AGE - mostly from eastern Austria, Bohemia, Silezia and the Bosnia-Serbia region (under Matthias Cornivus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_wars_of_Matthias_Corvinus_of_Hungary_%281 458-1490%29.png))
One could even argue that Hungary ruled Poland and a couple other countries in a personal union on several occasions - most notably under Louis I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_role.jpg) - but I don't think it's wise to get into personal unions and vassals, it would only mess things up even more. Anyway, if that's the AGE, in that case it would be even more:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/The_wars_of_Matthias_Corvinus_of_Hungary_%281458-1490%29.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Louis_role.jpg
don't ant to offend anyone, but are you sure you count Hungary as having survived continuously from 895-2012? I mean, I know Austro-Hungary definitely wasn't Austria (like some people believe) but it also wasn't Hungary.

Louis XXIV
Apr 16, 2012, 12:27 PM
Yeah, the idea time period should be the Kingdom of Hungary, so ending in 1300 or 1400.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 12:43 PM
Yeah, the idea time period should be the Kingdom of Hungary, so ending in 1300 or 1400.

Wouldn't Hungary's fall be 1867, I mean though it suffered a huge split and during the renaissence it technically only fell in 1867

Louis XXIV
Apr 16, 2012, 12:44 PM
It wasn't really effectively in charge for a long time. If anything, 1867 represented a rise in influence even if it wasn't independent.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 12:45 PM
It wasn't really effectively in charge for a long time. If anything, 1867 represented a rise in influence even if it wasn't independent.

Ok, so I'll set it's fall to 1538 and add it to the OP

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 12:51 PM
2951 is the updated Hungary result, I think I'll do Serbia or Yugoslavia next due to my creepy obsession with the Western Balkans.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 01:04 PM
82 for Yugoslavia :( oh well
1137 for Serbia, YAY

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 01:18 PM
Just did a huge edit on OP to celebrate that 10 civs have been calculated

AbsintheRed
Apr 16, 2012, 02:35 PM
don't ant to offend anyone, but are you sure you count Hungary as having survived continuously from 895-2012? I mean, I know Austro-Hungary definitely wasn't Austria (like some people believe) but it also wasn't Hungary.

Yeah it's a difficult question
De jure there was a separate Kingdom of Hungary under the Habsburgs too ("The Kingdom of Hungary was a country in Central Europe covering what is today Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia (except Istria), Transylvania (now part of Romania), Carpatho Ruthenia (now part of Ukraine), Vojvodina (now part of Serbia), Burgenland (now part of Austria), and other smaller territories surrounding present-day Hungary's borders. The kingdom existed for almost one thousand years (1000-1918 and 1920-1946) and at various points was regarded as one of the cultural centers of the Western world."), and the Habsburg emperors had to be elected kings of Hungary
De facto Hungary wasn't separate at all from Austria, and it was far from a personal-union

I can live with counting them as continuous entity only until somewhere in the 16th century
But I'm really curios then, what did you use for medieval Poland's "lifespan"?
And what did you use for Serbia? It seems a little much for them at first glance...
Also, why did you leave out Hungary from your OP?

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 02:55 PM
why did you leave out Hungary from your OP?

Did I? will update now

AbsintheRed
Apr 16, 2012, 02:57 PM
Also, how an earth did you got 40000 for Brazil?
Duration=190 (1822-2012)
Modern Bonus=2 (but maybe 1.67 is more accurate)
Civs on continent=1
Population of continent=0.387
World Heritage=18 (this is only the modern number, so may be a little more on Brazil's greatest extent, but not by much)

Brazil=190*2/3*0.387*20=980

AbsintheRed
Apr 16, 2012, 02:59 PM
Can you share with us your calculation on Poland and Serbia?
I'm really curious what was the Duration you used for them

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 03:00 PM
Yea I am pretty sure Brazil's numbers are off too.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 03:25 PM
Also, how an earth did you got 40000 for Brazil?
Duration=190 (1822-2012)
Modern Bonus=2 (but maybe 1.67 is more accurate)
Civs on continent=1
Population of continent=0.387
World Heritage=18 (this is only the modern number, so may be a little more on Brazil's greatest extent, but not by much)

Brazil=190*2/3*0.387*20=980

You are right, something is wrong, just as a fyi I use Latin America as a continent and USA/Canada as another because the reason I have continents in the formula at all is that I want to represent as many different cultures as possibe, and culturally mexico is closer to colombia than canada

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 03:26 PM
You are right, something is wrong, just as a fyi I use Latin America as a continent and USA/Canada as another because the reason I have continents in the formula at all is that I want to represent as many different cultures as possibe, and culturally mexico is closer to colombia than canada

Lets just use the North America/South America Definition.

Panama upwards is North America. South of Panama is South America. Easier and accepted by most people.

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 03:31 PM
983 for brazil, guess I screwed up with brackets, nice catch absinthered

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 03:33 PM
Lets just use the North America/South America Definition.

Panama upwards is North America. South of Panama is South America. Easier and accepted by most people.
Sorry, I would but I'd have to revise a bunch of civ's score, if people want they can use this, though I agree these are continents geographically I'm sticking to my latin america

Gucumatz
Apr 16, 2012, 03:53 PM
Sorry, I would but I'd have to revise a bunch of civ's score, if people want they can use this, though I agree these are continents geographically I'm sticking to my latin america

Alright, but for future ones I would use the continents. And besides as a half Guatemalan its not like we don't identify ourselves as North American. (We do if that wasn't clear).

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 04:04 PM
And besides as a half Guatemalan its not like we don't identify ourselves as North American. (We do if that wasn't clear).

But, to be fair I'm half brazilian, which is probably why I didn't double check brazil for so long :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Liex
Apr 16, 2012, 04:56 PM
A small revision for Brazil:

Duration: 123 (Republic); 190 (Empire); 512 (Colony).
Modern Bonus: 2 (Republic); 1,67 (Empire); 1,33 (Colony).
Civs in the same continent: 1
Modern population in the continent: 387mi
UNESCO heritage sites: 18 + 1 (Colônia do Sacramento; I believe it's the only one outside modern Brazil)

So we'd have: 666 (Republic); 859 (Empire); 1844 (Colony).

tofofnts
Apr 16, 2012, 05:02 PM
A small revision for Brazil:

Duration: 123 (Republic); 190 (Empire); 512 (Colony).
Modern Bonus: 2 (Republic); 1,67 (Empire); 1,33 (Colony).
Civs in the same continent: 1
Modern population in the continent: 387mi
UNESCO heritage sites: 18 + 1 (Colônia do Sacramento; I believe it's the only one outside modern Brazil)

So we'd have: 666 (Republic); 859 (Empire); 1844 (Colony).

you used south america, I used latin america, you got 859, I got 983 I'll stick with my way you stick with yours

Polar Bear
Apr 17, 2012, 12:24 AM
2318.4 is the score for the inuit, the reason it did so well is that inuits have been living in denmark for quite a lot of time

Thank you. I think you mean Greenland, not Denmark, but it is good to see their results.

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 04:18 AM
Thank you. I think you mean Greenland, not Denmark,

:blush::blush: You're absolutely right. Also you're welcome, I thought you'd be glad to know that, out of all the civs that haven't been confirmed that I tested, only Hungary (which almost definitely won't be released in the same xPack as Austria) and Poland beat it.

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 04:34 AM
I was bored, decided to add a graph showing the volume of the usage of all the civ's names in books

http://books.google.com/ngrams/chart?content=Zulu%2CPolynesia%2CYugoslavia%2CTibe t%2CBrazil%2CSerbia%2CHolland%2CInuit%2CPoland%2CM aya%2CNetherlands&corpus=0&smoothing=5&year_start=1700&year_end=2000

SalmonSoil
Apr 17, 2012, 05:13 AM
Where did you find that data on books?

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 05:23 AM
Where did you find that data on books?

ngrams.googlelabs.com

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 05:23 AM
For the Inuit, what did you use for Duration?
There wasn't any 'Inuit Empire" at all
Also there is no government, and never were. They don't really get a modern bonus. Maybe 1.33 for still existing
And there are at top 3 UNESCO Heritage sites on at least partly Inuit populated lands
Also, there are already 4 civs on their continent
So I can't figure out how did you get more than 2000 for them, at first glance they should be lower than Brazil...

Even when counting them for 1000 years - which is very generous, when you compare it how you counted Duration for other civs - the result is:
1000*1.33/6*0.529*5=586

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 05:29 AM
For the Inuit, what did you use for Duration?
There wasn't any 'Inuit Empire" at all
Also there is no government, and never were. They don't really get a modern bonus. Maybe 1.33 for still existing
And there are at top 3 UNESCO Heritage sites on at least partly Inuit populated lands
Also, there are already 4 civs on their continent
So I can't figure out how did you get more than 2000 for them, at first glance they should be lower than Brazil...

Even when counting them for 1000 years - which is very generous, when you compare it how you counted Duration for other civs - the result is:
1000*1.33/6*0.529*5=586

There have been inuits in greenland for way longer than 1000 years, about 5000, I don't see why to penalize them for not establishing a state. also, as I said a bazillian times I use latin america as a continent so usa and canada is another one. I only gave them X1 mb, also there are 4 UNESCO the people who lived in greenland are inuits

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 05:39 AM
There have been inuits in greenland for way longer than 1000 years, about 5000, I don't see why to penalize them for not establishing a state. also, as I said a bazillian times I use latin america as a continent so usa and canada is another one. I only gave them X1 mb, also there are 4 UNESCO the people who lived in greenland are inuits

What are you talking about?
"Inuit are the descendants of what anthropologists call the Thule culture, who emerged from western Alaska, after crossing the land bridge from Asia, around 1000 AD and spread eastwards across the Arctic. They displaced the related Dorset culture, the last major Paleo-Eskimo culture (in Inuktitut, called the Tuniit). Inuit legends speak of the Tuniit as "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit"

Even the Thule culture (proto-Inuits) didn't develop until 1000 AD
Also the Inuits spread to Greenland in the 13th century :crazyeye:
Actually you should use even less than 1000 years, somewhere around 800

And my main point: even if Inuits were around Greenland for 5000 years (which is obviously not true), how could you really count with 5000 Duration for them?
While you only counted Hungary until 1538 - it even had a separate Parliament under the Habsburgs for god's sake; I guess you also counted Poland only when they were a totally separate kingdom/grand duchy, and only counted Brazil for 190 years...
I don't want to hurt your opinions on this at all, but this seems very unfair :/

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 05:52 AM
What are you talking about?
"Inuit are the descendants of what anthropologists call the Thule culture, who emerged from western Alaska, after crossing the land bridge from Asia, around 1000 AD and spread eastwards across the Arctic. They displaced the related Dorset culture, the last major Paleo-Eskimo culture (in Inuktitut, called the Tuniit). Inuit legends speak of the Tuniit as "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit"

Even the Thule culture (proto-Inuits) didn't develop until 1000 AD
Also the Inuits spread to Greenland in the 13th century :crazyeye:
Actually you should use even less than 1000 years, somewhere around 800

And my main point: even if Inuits were around Greenland for 5000 years (which is obviously not true), how could you really count with 5000 Duration for them?
While you only counted Hungary until 1538 - it even had a separate Parliament under the Hagsburgs for god's sake, I guess you also counted Poland when they were a totally separate kingdom/grand duchy, and only counted Brazil for 190 years...
edit:changed mind, keeping it as inuit, revising data

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 06:28 AM
Btw, you used both Holland and Netherlands in your books graph ;)
Was it intentional?

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 06:30 AM
Interestingly enough, according to my calculations using the formula, Sweden would easily outweigh Denmark as a Civilization to be added, should Denmark not already be in the game.
The values I got were as follows:
Denmark: 808
Sweden: 1810

C-value used (6) is civs prior to G&K, not including Denmark. Duration used for Denmark is 1047, beginning from the reign of Harald Bluetooth and duration for Sweden is 489, beginning from the reign of Gustav Vasa.

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 06:34 AM
Interestingly enough, according to my calculations using the formula, Sweden would easily outweigh Denmark as a Civilization to be added, should Denmark not already be in the game.
The values I got were as follows:
Denmark: 862
Sweden: 1810

C-value used (6) is civs prior to G&K, not including Denmark. Duration used for Denmark is 1047, beginning from the reign of Harald Bluetooth and duration for Sweden is 489, beginning from the reign of Gustav Vasa.

Seems reasonable
But I used 8 civs for the other European civs
So maybe those values should be slightly lower if we want to keep it in line with them

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 06:39 AM
I used 8 civs for the other European civs


I used 10, I counted ottoman empire and russia as 1/2 european and counted dlc civs
edit: I use 8 not 10

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 06:40 AM
Seems reasonable
But I used 8 civs for the other European civs
So maybe those values should be slightly lower if we want to keep it in line with them
Well, I forgot to count Russia, so that's probably it :P
With a C-value of eight the values are as follows:
Denmark: 646
Sweden: 1448
The Denmark value is of course corrupt, because C=8 means that the value is the weight of Denmark added, though it's already in the game.

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 06:42 AM
Actually, for Denmark I counted 13 World Heritage sites (with Norway, Iceland and Greenland)
For Sweden 21 sites (With Finland, Estonia and Latvia).
Those easily fit into the greatest extent IMO
Also, using only 7 European civs for Denmark

If duration is 1047 for Denmark and 489 for Sweden like you said:
Denmark: 1047*1.67/9*0.739*15=2154
Sweden: 489*2/10*0.739*23=1662

The result looks pretty reasonable

EDIT: updated Denmark

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 06:42 AM
Btw, you used both Holland and Netherlands in your books graph ;)
Was it intentional?

yes, I didn't want to put one in because for most of the time holland beats netherlands, but in modern times its the opposite, so I wanted to show how much it was used both a while ago and now
If that makes any sense

http://books.google.com/ngrams/chart?content=Holland%2CNetherlands&corpus=0&smoothing=3&year_start=1800&year_end=2000

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 06:49 AM
Actually, for Denmark I counted 12 World Heritage sites (with Norway and Iceland)


forgot greenland

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 06:51 AM
If duration is 1047 for Denmark and 489 for Sweden like you said:
Denmark: 1047*1.67/9*0.739*15=2154
Sweden: 489*2/10*0.739*23=1662

The result looks pretty reasonable

Yea, that looks correct, I actually forgot to add the UNESCO sites of Norway for Denmark, so that's what made my value for Denmark to be off so much...
I agree with your values, except not quite sure of the MB of 2 for Sweden. Wouldn't 1.67 be more appropriate?

EDIT: Actually, there's one UNESCO site in Norway and one in Russia that fall to the AGE of Sweden, so the last multiplier should be 25.
EDIT 2: And two more in Germany, so 27.
EDIT 3: So in my opinion the value for Sweden should be
Sweden: 489*1.67/10*0.739*27=1629

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 06:52 AM
forgot greenland

Already updated it a couple minutes ago ;)

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 06:54 AM
I agree with your values, except not quite sure of the MB of 2 for Sweden. Wouldn't 1.67 be more appropriate?

IMO Sweden is close enough to got a 2
Otherwise almost none of the civs could get a 2
But I can live with 1.67 too

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:01 AM
Added sweden and denmark to OP

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 07:11 AM
I don't think your calculation is too accurate, some of those multipliers are just out of thin air
Nevertheless, I did Hungary for fun

Hungary = 6057
D=1117 (895-2012 in the Carpathian-basin)
MB=1.67
C=8 without GK, additional 5 with GK - wasn't sure what did you use for other European civs
PC=0.74
CH=24 if only counting the ones which were under hungarian rule for at least a couple hundred years (under modern borders: 8 Hungary, 5 Slovakia, 1 Ukraine, 5 Romania, 5 Croatia)
Additional 16 if you really count AGE - mostly from eastern Austria, Bohemia, Silezia and the Bosnia-Serbia region (under Matthias Cornivus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_wars_of_Matthias_Corvinus_of_Hungary_%281 458-1490%29.png))
One could even argue that Hungary ruled Poland and a couple other countries in a personal union on several occasions - most notably under Louis I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_role.jpg) - but I don't think it's wise to get into personal unions and vassals, it would only mess things up even more. Anyway, if that's the AGE, in that case it would be even more:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/The_wars_of_Matthias_Corvinus_of_Hungary_%281458-1490%29.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Louis_role.jpg

Revised Hungary with the way you use your attributes:
Duration should count until 1570 - that's when the Hungarian King resigned from his claims of the western parts of the country, thus creating the Principality of Transylvania from the eastern parts.
Effectively that's the start of the real Habsburg dominance in Royal Hungary

So:
D=675 (895-1570)
MB=1.67
C=8
PC=0.739
CH=24+16
Hungary=3499

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 07:14 AM
Did a quick count on the value of the Holy Roman Empire.
Ended up with a whopping value of 6300!
This is mostly due to the huge amount of UNESCO sites in the area.
I'll add the values used after I get the amount of UNESCO sites accurately calculated.

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:17 AM
Revised Hungary with the way you use your attributes:
Duration should count until 1570 - that's when the Hungarian King resigned from his claims of the western parts of the country, thus creating the Principality of Transylvania from the eastern parts.
Effectively that's the start of the real Habsburg dominance in Royal Hungary

So:
D=675 (895-1570)
MB=1.67
C=8
PC=0.739
CH=24+16
Hungary=3499
will update

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:17 AM
Did a quick count on the value of the Holy Roman Empire.
Ended up with a whopping value of 6300!
This is mostly due to the huge amount of UNESCO sites in the area.
I'll add the values used after I get the amount of UNESCO sites accurately calculated.

Will add

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:21 AM
I'm doing Rome, just so we can see a huge score

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 07:24 AM
HRE should count as Germany
For China:
221 BC (first unified by Qin) - 2012
I think we can even count the disunified periods between the different dinasties in this case
So:
D= 2233
C= 9
CH= 44
China=2233*1.67/11*3.879*44=57861

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:32 AM
rome got
17,514
theres alot of heritage sites

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 07:36 AM
HRE should count as Germany
Well, I used this pic as a reference for the borders. The value was acquired as follows:
Holy Roman Empire: 844*1.33/10*0.739*107= 8876

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 07:36 AM
rome got
17,514
theres alot of heritage sites

Yeah, looks more or less right
For China maybe we shouldn't count duration for 2200 years? :confused:

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 07:41 AM
Well, I used this pic as a reference for the borders. The value was acquired as follows:
Holy Roman Empire: 844*1.33/10*0.739*107= 8876

Look's good
I would still use that value for Germany (representing the AGE of Germany), I don't think the HRE suits as a civilization or nation at all

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 07:41 AM
For China maybe we shouldn't count duration for 2200 years? :confused:
Well, I don't really see a problem with China having such a huge score. It just shows China's longevity and important place in world history.
However, maybe the civs already in the game should be separated to a different list than the ones that aren't in (yet).

I would still use that value for Germany (representing the AGE of Germany), I don't think the HRE suits as a civilization or nation at all
Well, considering that the Landsknecht is a German unique unit, you're probably right, HRE will probably not be a civ in CiV.
And the duration and MB would have to be altered if the value would be used for Germany.

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 07:45 AM
There have been inuits in greenland for way longer than 1000 years, about 5000, I don't see why to penalize them for not establishing a state. also, as I said a bazillian times I use latin america as a continent so usa and canada is another one. I only gave them X1 mb, also there are 4 UNESCO the people who lived in greenland are inuits

Just physical presence wasn't supposed to be what we're counting. Otherwise, the Polynesians would spike up. We used one of two empires for Polynesia (either Tongan or Hawaiian) and limited the number to 200 or 300 years. It gets a dramatically skewed result if you just count any existence in an area - especially the Inuit who were free from any outside influence so their culture never had to compete to stay intact.

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 07:53 AM
There's been no organized state that controlled both, but they were both part of the Polynesian civilization. This is hard to fit in the formula. I calculated the 400-500 years of the Tui'Tonga empire for the duration. But it's clear that the entire Polynesian superculture is included as far as population, world heritage sites, etc.

What was the duration number? If it was shorter than 300 years, use that one from Tonga (alternatively, you can go with 550 years to take the legends at their most generous).

So polynesia should be 550?
9 heritage sites
550*1.33/2*0.029*11=117

What duration would you use for the Inuits?

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 08:01 AM
I probably would use 300, but, either way, it's going to be a relatively low number. While I'm willing to credit Tongan legends, I recognize they're distorted. People throughout history have a tendency to extend the length of their empire longer than it actually existed based on distorted foundation myths. But even if you gave them an extra 250 years, it isn't going to dramatically improve them in this formula.

The biggest thing I have for Polynesia is something that's not represented at all and that's their achievement in Pacific expansion. They invented new technologies and were very impressive. It's reflected in the game and it's their most fun feature, but it's not tangible enough to be in the formula. Unfortunately, I think there has to be a recognition that, while the formula might be right 90% of the time, some will slip through the cracks.

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 08:04 AM
With 300 years it's 64, so the value in the OP is reasonable
What duration would you use for the Inuits?

Unfortunately, I think there has to be a recognition that, while the formula might be right 90% of the time, some will slip through the cracks.

Of course, this is only for fun
The formula works to some extent - surprisingly well in a few cases - but doesn't really have any real statistical or factual reasons why to use exactly those attributes and constants

MARDUK80
Apr 17, 2012, 08:12 AM
I'm curious to know what kind of score would Finland get? :D

Perhaps duration should be from ~1 AD (could be earlier : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Neolithic , but guess later would be more appropriate).

I do not have the time to count this right now, but perhaps someone else could get the score? :cool:

EdwardB
Apr 17, 2012, 08:19 AM
I'm curious to know what kind of score would Finland get? :D
Well, if we consider the duration to begin from 1809 (granted, the country was under Russian rule, but had autonomy, so I think it to be an appropriate year) the score would be as follows:

Finland: 203*1.67/10*0.739*9 = 225

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 08:23 AM
I'm curious to know what kind of score would Finland get? :D

Perhaps duration should be from ~1 AD (could be earlier : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Neolithic , but guess later would be more appropriate).

I do not have the time to count this right now, but perhaps someone else could get the score? :cool:

Finland could count at earliest from 1809, but even that's a huge exaggaration when you compare it to other civs:
"On 29 March 1809, having been taken over by the armies of Alexander I of Russia in the Finnish War, Finland became an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian Empire until the end of 1917. In 1811 Alexander I incorporated Russian Vyborg province into Grand Duchy of Finland. During the Russian era, the Finnish language began to gain recognition. From the 1860s onwards, a strong Finnish nationalist movement known as the Fennoman movement grew. Milestones included the publication of what would become Finland's national epic—the Kalevala—in 1835, and the Finnish language's achieving equal legal status with Swedish in 1892."

Even then (with 1809-2012) it would score relatively low:
203*1.67/10*0.739*9=225

EDIT: :lol: EdwardB just ninja'd me :)

MARDUK80
Apr 17, 2012, 08:27 AM
Well, if we consider the duration to begin from 1809 (granted, the country was under Russian rule, but had autonomy, so I think it to be an appropriate year) the score would be as follows:

Finland: 203*1.67/10*0.739*9 = 225


Thanks. Though, I think more suitable starting year could be 1150 AD the year of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Swedish_Crusade and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Finnish_wars. Ancient "Capital" - most important city - Vanaja was destroyd in 1311 AD gues that could be one important year as well. I would start from 1000 AD perhaps.. :)

AbsintheRed
Apr 17, 2012, 08:31 AM
Actually 203 years for duration is already very generous
We used numbers where the civs were at least partly separate

CMKMStephens
Apr 17, 2012, 09:52 AM
New Zealand (not a serious attempt to convince anyone):

1.67*172/3*.0044*5

....2.1.

Lets pretend Australasia is a continent :D

1.67*172/25*.038*5

....2.2

Dammit.

Screw those islands! Only the closest six!

1.67*172/9*.0291*5

.....4.64 - THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN 'BOUT.

At least the Ngram is good.

http://i.imgur.com/BlF1Z.png

CTH
Apr 17, 2012, 12:52 PM
I am not sure that I agree with the age of sweden, sure that it was a bit mixed up now and then with norway and denmark before Gustav Vasa but there was definitely an independent sweden long before that. For example the first (known) king of sweden Erik the Victorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Segers%C3%A4ll who became king 1042 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden for some other possible starting dates.
Gustav Vasa becoming king is a very important part of swedish history but sweden did exist before that (how else could Gustav Vasa take BACK sweden from the occupying danes if it did not exist before that).

with same numbers as used before but a earlier start date Sweden: 1042*2/10*0.739*23=3542

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 06:21 PM
Just physical presence wasn't supposed to be what we're counting. Otherwise, the Polynesians would spike up. We used one of two empires for Polynesia (either Tongan or Hawaiian) and limited the number to 200 or 300 years. It gets a dramatically skewed result if you just count any existence in an area - especially the Inuit who were free from any outside influence so their culture never had to compete to stay intact.

I know I know I changed this when absinthered actually did research, not just blindly search throuh wikipedia like I do

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:00 PM
What duration would you use for the Inuits?

Sorry, I really can't remember what I used and IMHO you are much more reliable of a source than I am

Of course, this is only for fun
The formula works to some extent - surprisingly well in a few cases - but doesn't really have any real statistical or factual reasons why to use exactly those attributes and constants
Exactly, right now my main goal is to make it as good as possible, i.e. add more variable so feel free to suggest any

Also, a huge thanks to AbsintheRed, you seem to spend hour straight fact checking instead of just lazily using a combination of wikipedia and guessing like I do :lol: I'm thinking of making a graph comparing points and google search results, just for the lulz

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:03 PM
New Zealand (not a serious attempt to convince anyone):

1.67*172/3*.0044*5

....2.1.

Lets pretend Australasia is a continent :D

1.67*172/31*.038*5

....1.76

Dammit.

Screw those islands! Only the closest six!

1.67*172/9*.0291*5

.....4.64 - THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN 'BOUT.

At least the Ngram is good.

http://i.imgur.com/BlF1Z.png
2.1 is probably an amazing score compared to canada, where i'm from :lol:

tofofnts
Apr 17, 2012, 07:25 PM
Graph comparing score with google search results

http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj618/tofofnts/chart_1.png
Same as above, but without Germany, China or Rome

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0Au_sEiH6sh2BdDNmcWduTDgzZS13Yk93cHVDbmlx ZVE&oid=2&zx=1zr0nh3m2j5e

Polar Bear
Apr 17, 2012, 09:46 PM
For the Inuit, what did you use for Duration?
There wasn't any 'Inuit Empire" at all
Also there is no government, and never were. They don't really get a modern bonus. Maybe 1.33 for still existing
And there are at top 3 UNESCO Heritage sites on at least partly Inuit populated lands
Also, there are already 4 civs on their continent
So I can't figure out how did you get more than 2000 for them, at first glance they should be lower than Brazil...

Even when counting them for 1000 years - which is very generous, when you compare it how you counted Duration for other civs - the result is:
1000*1.33/6*0.529*5=586

1000 years is not being generous at all. The Inuit started their conquest of the North American Arctic (a humongous region of the world, and one of the most difficult to survive in) which includes Greenland. It is estimated that they originate about 5000 years ago. 1000 years is not too much to ask.
Considering the amount of land they conquered - yes, conquered, how long they have been around for, the fact that they consist of around 85% of the population of the North American Arctic, if not more, the fact that they are doing better than any other northern Native American group, own a country-sized piece of land, and have kept their own language and culture, I would put them above the county of Brazil without question.

Louis XXIV
Apr 17, 2012, 11:22 PM
I don't think conquered is an accurate word. Tamed, perhaps, although, even then they didn't adapt the landscape to serve them, they adapted to use the landscape. Either way, the formula seems designed to deal with organized states instead.

GenjiKhan
Apr 17, 2012, 11:34 PM
About Inuit,I have some questions:

Who would be their leader?
Which UU/UB/UI they would have?
And Which UA they would have and how their history influence in the choose of their UA?
And if they were released as a dlc,which scenario they would fit?

Pouakai
Apr 17, 2012, 11:39 PM
Polar Bear had a very detailed proposal of them at 2K forums, including how the leader screen would look, strategy and city lists

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 03:59 AM
About Inuit,I have some questions:

Who would be their leader?
Which UU/UB/UI they would have?
And Which UA they would have and how their history influence in the choose of their UA?
And if they were released as a dlc,which scenario they would fit?

Polar Bear had a very detailed proposal of them at 2K forums, including how the leader screen would look, strategy and city lists

I have an even more detailed list here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448438

GenjiKhan, when you have read through the thread, tell me your views.

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 04:03 AM
I don't think conquered is an accurate word. Tamed, perhaps, although, even then they didn't adapt the landscape to serve them, they adapted to use the landscape. Either way, the formula seems designed to deal with organized states instead.

Conquered is exactly the word that should be used. They won their land through bloody violence. They had adapted to that environment long before also.

If the Zulu, Celts, Polynesia, and the Huns are good enough for this formula, and for the game, then most definitely are the Inuit as well. It is no longer an argument on whether or not they are worthy of being in the game.

AbsintheRed
Apr 18, 2012, 05:11 AM
1000 years is not being generous at all. The Inuit started their conquest of the North American Arctic (a humongous region of the world, and one of the most difficult to survive in) which includes Greenland. It is estimated that they originate about 5000 years ago. 1000 years is not too much to ask.

I'm really curious what are your sources
AFAIK Inuits first appeared around 1000 years ago - and to be honest, I even find that 1000 years too much to use as duration for these calculations
Maybe 7-800 years, when they first appeared on Greenland, but even that seems strange when you look what we used for other civs

Btw, if you do link some sources, please don't get to me that their ancestors first appeared 5000 years ago
I know about pre-Dorset cultures, but it's totally irrelevant here. We are talking about the Inuit
If you count ancestors, than what number should we use for all the other civs? :crazyeye:

Cía
Apr 18, 2012, 05:43 AM
I am not sure that I agree with the age of sweden, sure that it was a bit mixed up now and then with norway and denmark before Gustav Vasa but there was definitely an independent sweden long before that. For example the first (known) king of sweden Erik the Victorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Segers%C3%A4ll who became king 1042 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden for some other possible starting dates.
Gustav Vasa becoming king is a very important part of swedish history but sweden did exist before that (how else could Gustav Vasa take BACK sweden from the occupying danes if it did not exist before that).

with same numbers as used before but a earlier start date Sweden: 1042*2/10*0.739*23=3542

I agree on this age of sweden. When it comes o civ and sports, I think its ok to be a bit nationalistic... But nonetheless, sweden was independent for more than 200 years before the Kalmarunion, and on paper sweden didnt became independant again before Gusat Vasa. But in reality the union didnt last, sweden, norway and denmark had different kings and the power was shifting all the time.

GenjiKhan
Apr 18, 2012, 05:52 AM
I have an even more detailed list here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448438

GenjiKhan, when you have read through the thread, tell me your views.

I find them too restrictive to Ice biomes . In Hot maps or in maps where Tundras/Ice tiles are scarce,they have more disadvantages than other civs . Russia,which is also a Civilization that explored Tundras,doesn't have any problem with Hotter maps,unlike Inuits . Beyond that,I'd like to ask what is the connection between their history and these suggestions of UA(without this,any other Ice based civ could claim that this UA fits them better than Inuit)?




Considering the amount of land they conquered - yes, conquered, how long they have been around for, the fact that they consist of around 85% of the population of the North American Arctic, if not more, the fact that they are doing better than any other northern Native American group, own a country-sized piece of land, and have kept their own language and culture, I would put them above the county of Brazil without question.

I don't get it about why Inuit would have more points than Brazil .

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 08:20 AM
I'm really curious what are your sources
AFAIK Inuits first appeared around 1000 years ago - and to be honest, I even find that 1000 years too much to use as duration for these calculations
Maybe 7-800 years, when they first appeared on Greenland, but even that seems strange when you look what we used for other civs

Btw, if you do link some sources, please don't get to me that their ancestors first appeared 5000 years ago
I know about pre-Dorset cultures, but it's totally irrelevant here. We are talking about the Inuit
If you count ancestors, than what number should we use for all the other civs? :crazyeye:

Some Internet sources.
http://www.itk.ca/publication/5000-years-inuit-history-and-heritage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Cultural_history
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/northamerica/before1500/history/inuit.htm

The 1000 years marks the time when the Inuit started their conquest of the North American Arctic, including Greenland. This is what I am focusing on. We cannot time this to just when they appeared in Greenland, which was after the Vikings. That was just part of their conquest. If you shorten the 1000 years you are ignoring history for your own view.

Louis XXIV
Apr 18, 2012, 08:25 AM
Calling it a conquest does a disservice to actual conquests. Alexander conquered, Genghis Khan conquered. The Inuit moved into an area and adapted to live there.

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 08:36 AM
I find them too restrictive to Ice biomes . In Hot maps or in maps where Tundras/Ice tiles are scarce,they have more disadvantages than other civs . Russia,which is also a Civilization that explored Tundras,doesn't have any problem with Hotter maps,unlike Inuits . Beyond that,I'd like to ask what is the connection between their history and these suggestions of UA(without this,any other Ice based civ could claim that this UA fits them better than Inuit)?

I don't get it about why Inuit would have more points than Brazil .

All maps have ice tiles on the edges, and the ability includes movement over these ice tiles. Other civilizations have abilities that are contingent on certain objects being on the map. Germany makes use of barbarians, Spain makes use of natural wonders, Mongolia makes use of horses, Polynesia makes use of water tiles. There can be conditions and map generations that lack these things.

Brazil has not been around for near as long as the Inuit. Brazil is a colony of Portugal, and was assisted greatly by Portugal in its development, and in the deconstruction of existing pre columbian cultures in the region. The Inuit have never had that extreme advantage, and succeeded on their own, defeating other tribes as well as Europeans. Then they managed to survive European colonization - unlike most other Native Americans, including the particularly impressive civilizations, such as the Mayans and Inca. The Inuit preserved their culture and language, and still dominate the population by far, and won back a humongous region of their original land. Brazil is yet to be tested to this degree.

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 08:39 AM
Calling it a conquest does a disservice to actual conquests. Alexander conquered, Genghis Khan conquered. The Inuit moved into an area and adapted to live there.

This shows your lack of understanding of Inuit history. The Inuit used violence to defeat their enemies, and even wiped out some of them. There is evidence of them warring with the Vikings, aiding to the Vikings abandoning their settlements in Greenland. The Vikings were not the type to simply give up without a fight, and they were good fighters, yet the Inuit prevailed.

Louis XXIV
Apr 18, 2012, 09:27 AM
Vinland failed because it was supplied by another colony that was barely self-sustaining. Greenland is the aforementioned barely self-sustaining colony. Also keep in mind we were in a mini-ice age. Once water levels rose, it became more difficult to reach these areas. Such Scandinavian settlements declined at the same time the so-called Viking age ended anyway. The natives they encountered were not the most significant factor.

Grubnessul
Apr 18, 2012, 09:42 AM
The mini ice-age actually killed of the Vikings on Greenland who relied on their cattle and were too proud to switch to a fish based diet.* While I do not doubt the war prowess of the Inuit, kicking a few half starved Vikings back into the ocean cannot be compared to the empire building of other civs.

*NRC Next 16/04/2012

Eagle Pursuit
Apr 18, 2012, 09:44 AM
And the "Vikings" in Greenland were agriculturalists not the raiders that pillaged coastal Europe. And once the climate shifted they were way out of their element and at the end of a very tenuous supply line to their native country. Hostile natives certainly contributed to the demise of the colonies, but it was not the greatest factor.

EdwardB
Apr 18, 2012, 03:05 PM
I am not sure that I agree with the age of sweden, sure that it was a bit mixed up now and then with norway and denmark before Gustav Vasa but there was definitely an independent sweden long before that.
That is true. However, in this thread there's already a precedent of a similiar situation with Hungary, where the duration was clipped because it became part of the Austro-Hungary. Also, quoting Wikipedia, "History now views Gustav I as the father of the modern Swedish nation.", which seems to me as a pretty good reason to start the duration count from the reign of Gustav.

stfoskey12
Apr 18, 2012, 04:16 PM
HRE should count as Germany
For China:
221 BC (first unified by Qin) - 2012
I think we can even count the disunified periods between the different dinasties in this case
So:
D= 2233
C= 9
CH= 44
China=2233*1.67/11*3.879*44=57861

I would suggest not counting when China was conquered by the Mongols, because according to this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/PremongolEurasia.png, it looks like China became split, and was then invaded by the Mongols. If Hungary's break is conted, shouldn't China's be too?

stfoskey12
Apr 18, 2012, 04:19 PM
Graph comparing score with google search results

http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj618/tofofnts/chart_1.png
Same as above, but without Germany, China or Rome

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0Au_sEiH6sh2BdDNmcWduTDgzZS13Yk93cHVDbmlx ZVE&oid=2&zx=1zr0nh3m2j5e

Where'd you get that?

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 04:21 PM
Where'd you get that?

Google docs

AbsintheRed
Apr 18, 2012, 04:31 PM
I would suggest not counting when China was conquered by the Mongols, because according to this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/PremongolEurasia.png, it looks like China became split, and was then invaded by the Mongols. If Hungary's break is conted, shouldn't China's be too?

Yeah, this is a valid point
What do you suggest to use as "duration" for China?

stfoskey12
Apr 18, 2012, 04:31 PM
America seems to get 936, a very low number. I suggest maybe 1292 AD, when Gengis Khan's empire split.

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 04:33 PM
Yeah, this is a valid point
What do you suggest to use as "duration" for China?

Maybe you could do China before mongols and china after mongols

Louis XXIV
Apr 18, 2012, 04:39 PM
Yeah, China is a "resurrected" civ in many ways. Not sure how that should be factored in.

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 04:45 PM
I got 1,368.8 for USA which is definitely more realistic (did you count USA when you were calculating "C" and did you remember to include the hawaiian sites?)

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 04:50 PM
Canada got 429 :cry::cry::cry:

thadian
Apr 18, 2012, 05:02 PM
Egypt existed over many dynasties, has been conquered, obliterated and rebuilt by different people - how do they rate?

Germany has transitioned different forms of government, and liberated itself from the soviet bloc recently (at least on terms of modernity, recently). How do they factor?

This "formula" would be interesting, if used to generate 30 civ's to determine what should be initial civ's and not just for later DLC additions, what would be the "30 civ's" then i wonder...

I am making these nations a point because both are mainstay civ's that are in every civ game, and your model includes china - also a mainstay civ, and rome - a mainstay. Therefore, i feel adding these 2 civ's to the model gives me more comparative work -

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 05:06 PM
British Empire got 30469

Xichael
Apr 18, 2012, 05:09 PM
Canada confirmed for next xpack? :lol:

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 05:13 PM
Egypt existed over many dynasties, has been conquered, obliterated and rebuilt by different people - how do they rate?

I'm assuming you are talking about ancient egypt. Duration would be from 3150 to around cleopatra's rule and get a 1.33 modern bonus

Germany has transitioned different forms of government, and liberated itself from the soviet bloc recently (at least on terms of modernity, recently). How do they factor?

Different governments, same country

This "formula" would be interesting, if used to generate 30 civ's to determine what should be initial civ's and not just for later DLC additions, what would be the "30 civ's" then i wonder...

Good question, unfortunately with a big number like 30, it would take a lot of calculations, as there are about 100 civs that could make the top 30

I am making these nations a point because both are mainstay civ's that are in every civ game, and your model includes china - also a mainstay civ, and rome - a mainstay. Therefore, i feel adding these 2 civ's to the model gives me more comparative work -

We've already done the Holy Roman Empire, which gives you the idea of the ballpark that Germany is in

For Egypt, I might do it later, or you could do it now

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 05:15 PM
Canada confirmed for next xpack? :lol:

They almost beat the mighty... Tibetians :lol: with a score liek that how could they not make it

I mean, it's a bit more than a tenth of the mayan's score

Xichael
Apr 18, 2012, 05:17 PM
They almost beat the mighty... Tibetians :lol: with a score liek that how could they not make it

I mean, it's a bit more than a tenth of the mayan's score
Well at ~7 civs per xpack there is still hope, perhaps adding the CN tower was a sign! :D

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 05:19 PM
Well at ~7 civs per xpack there is still hope, perhaps adding the CN tower was a sign! :D

Or away to make us canadians shut up :lol:

Xichael
Apr 18, 2012, 06:18 PM
Or away to make us canadians shut up :lol:

/sigh

I am inclined to agree :(

Too bad Civ will never add such a game-breaking Civ as Canada, I guess we are just too awesome for them to implement correctly so they just avoid the issue and give us the tower... :lol:

Louis XXIV
Apr 18, 2012, 07:13 PM
I'm assuming you are talking about ancient egypt. Duration would be from 3150 to around cleopatra's rule and get a 1.33 modern bonus

Why do you stop it when the Romans conquered them but not when the Assyrians, Persians, or Greeks conquered them instead? They never really existed entirely independently after that. The Greeks divided up the Persian empire and a Greek ruled Egypt, but that's not really the same as an Egyptian state.

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 07:18 PM
Vinland failed because it was supplied by another colony that was barely self-sustaining. Greenland is the aforementioned barely self-sustaining colony. Also keep in mind we were in a mini-ice age. Once water levels rose, it became more difficult to reach these areas. Such Scandinavian settlements declined at the same time the so-called Viking age ended anyway. The natives they encountered were not the most significant factor.

The mini ice-age actually killed of the Vikings on Greenland who relied on their cattle and were too proud to switch to a fish based diet.* While I do not doubt the war prowess of the Inuit, kicking a few half starved Vikings back into the ocean cannot be compared to the empire building of other civs.

*NRC Next 16/04/2012

I am well informed as to the situation the Viking settlers had found themselves in, and the Little Ice Age definitely played a role in the abandonment of their settlements, however evidence shows that the Inuit at first traded peacefully with the Vikings, and the Vikings had a chance to learn from the Inuit and get enough supplies to for their settlements to last, however at some point the peace ended and the two groups started to war with each other. Without that trade of food and information the Vikings had little hope of lasting. Both the Little Ice Age and the Inuit had a big impact on whether or not the Vikings would stay.

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 07:37 PM
tofofnts, can you work out the score for these? Texas, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Mapuche, Tupi, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, Songhai, Mali, Scythia, Chola.

tofofnts
Apr 18, 2012, 07:38 PM
/sigh

I am inclined to agree :(

Too bad Civ will never add such a game-breaking Civ as Canada, I guess we are just too awesome for them to implement correctly so they just avoid the issue and give us the tower... :lol:

Exactly, Rome might be known as one of the most influential civilizations ever, but did they invent the zipper? :lol:

GenjiKhan
Apr 18, 2012, 09:56 PM
tofofnts, can you work out the score for these? Texas, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Mapuche, Tupi, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, Songhai, Mali, Scythia, Chola.

Are you serious with Texas and with Tupi?


Tupi is just a way that the Portuguese found to name the tribes who lived where is Brazil now and happen to share the same language and a fairly similar culture,although it wasn't uncommon for them to fight with each other,even before Portuguese sailed in Brazilian coast . And unlike their Northern American counterparts,they haven't united themselves to resist to Portuguese Invasion(in fact,they even helped the Portugueses to populate their colony and they left their legacy in the Vocabulary of Brazilian Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Portuguese)and many Brazilians have a Native Ancestor) .

Gucumatz
Apr 18, 2012, 10:37 PM
Are you serious with Texas and with Tupi?


Tupi is just a way that the Portuguese found to name the tribes who lived where is Brazil now and happen to share the same language and a fairly similar culture,although it wasn't uncommon for them to fight with each other,even before Portuguese sailed in Brazilian coast . And unlike their Northern American counterparts,they haven't united themselves to resist to Portuguese Invasion(in fact,they even helped the Portugueses to populate their colony and they left their legacy in the Vocabulary of Brazilian Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Portuguese)and many Brazilians have a Native Ancestor) .

Texas may just be fun to have a number to compare with.

Liex
Apr 18, 2012, 10:41 PM
When we're calculating, let's say, Rome's score, should we take into account every single UNESCO World Heritage Site under its greatest extent? I mean, from Westminster to Abu Simbel and beyond?

CMKMStephens
Apr 18, 2012, 10:46 PM
When we're calculating, let's say, Rome's score, should we take into account every single UNESCO World Heritage Site under its greatest extent? I mean, from Westminster to Abu Simbel and beyond?

I think there needs to be a lot of recalculation. If it's for a historical civ, it should only be the UNESCO sites relevant to that historical civ. In the case of Rome vs. Italy, Rome would include any UNESCO sites build under it's reign across Europe. If it's Italy as a modern inheritor, it should include all the UNESCO sites in Italy from all time periods.



Minoan Crete:

Duration: Either 2480 for the long timeframe, or just 730 for 'Palatial' timeframe
Modern Bonus: 1 We can't even read Linear A - I wouldn't say that modern Crete-Greece is related to the 'Minoans'
Current Civs: 4 - If we go by their relevant area grouping/trade networks at 1500BC, that would give us Greeks, Hittites, Egyptians. Could also include Assyria to bring it to 5.
Modern Population: This is the hardest one, and not sure what to do here. Should I just use the modern total pop of Turkey+Greece+Egypt? That would give 167 million. With Assyria (shove in modern Syria, Lebanon/Iraq), this would bring it to 224m
UNESCO: 1

2480*1/6*.167*3

Which throws out 208

+ Assyria: 2480*1/7*.224*3

Which throws out 238

Australia

Duration: 224
Modern Bonus: 1.67
Again, we'll do solo and region like NZ.
Current Civs: 1 / 2 / 23 / 29
Modern Population: 22.88 / 38 / 403
UNESCO: 19

Solo Australia: 224*1.67/3*.0229*21 = 59.7
Aborigene as second Civ: 224*1.67/4*.0229*21 = 45
Regional Grouping Oceania: (inclu Aborigenees as Civ): 224*1.67/26*.038*21 - 11.5
Regional Grouping Wider Oceania (inclu Aboriginees, adds huge populations of Indonesia, Philipenes etc): 224*1.67/32*.403*21 - 98.9

Polar Bear
Apr 18, 2012, 11:04 PM
Texas may just be fun to have a number to compare with.

Exactly. I would like to see a more extensive list of civilizations with their scores.

CMKMStephens
Apr 18, 2012, 11:30 PM
BTW. I think I am proving how hilariously arbitrary these scores are :P

As I said above, I think other people's calculations need lots of scrutiny.

GenjiKhan
Apr 18, 2012, 11:31 PM
Does anyone calculated the score of Majapahit yet? Since their government is too different from the actual government,thanks to the Islam's Spreading there,they would have a Modern bonus of 1.33 .

smallfish
Apr 18, 2012, 11:40 PM
Come on, no Saxton Hale as Australian leader?

That's asking for a Steam DLC btw, and given that G&K will be mainly released through Steam, it'll be a good way to tie into Valve's franchise.

EdwardB
Apr 19, 2012, 06:21 AM
Texas may just be fun to have a number to compare with.
Well, here's the score for Texas

Duration: 10 years (Republic of Texas)
Modern Bonus: 1.33
C-value: 3 (USA, Iroquois, Aztec)
Continent population: ~529 million
UNESCO sites located in AGE: 2

Which gives Texas a score of 5.6 points.
So, I guess we won't be seeing Texas around anytime soon :P

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 07:58 AM
I think there needs to be a lot of recalculation. If it's for a historical civ, it should only be the UNESCO sites relevant to that historical civ.


I was thinking about this but

1. It would make this already hard to calculate formula much harder to calculate
2. What about natural UNESCO heritage sites? No one built them but they still helped the culture of civilizations
3. What about heritage sites built after the civilization fell. The reason a lot of important heritage sites were built in modern Italy is that; in a way the spirit of Rome lives on today.
4. What about heritage sites built before the civ, you can't deny that the pyramids haven't helped inspire Egypt
5. Cultural heritage sites were not supposed to purely represent culture. It's also a way of representing land and population. The reason I don't have land in this formula is that if I did, Russia and Canada would get a huge bonus they don't deserve, because a lot of the land they own is uninhabitable. Cultural heritage sites work perfectly because there are a lot more UNESCO heritage sites in Italy, than the Canadian North or Siberia
6. I would have to recalculate every single one :cry:

CMKMStephens
Apr 19, 2012, 08:03 AM
Hah, completely misread and bollocked up all my numbers, I was taking C for 'Civs on continent' rather than number of in-game civs existing (DERP).

This would make it:

New Zealand

C - Just Polynesians

Just New Zealand: 1.67*172/3*.0044*5 - 2.1
Oceania: 1.67*172/3*.038*5 - 18
Wider Oceania: 1.67*172/3*.403*5 = 192.9

Australia

C - Just Polynesians

Just Australia: 224*1.67/3*.0229*21 = 59.7
Oceania: 224*1.67/3*.038*21 = 99.5
Wider Oceania: 224*1.67/3*.403*21 = 1055

Minoan Crete

Due to its location, still have to fudge the 'Modern continent population' numbers and just go with the relevant surrounding countries:

C - Greece, Egypt, Ottomans, Persia

2480*1/6*.174*3 = 215

Should probably take the 'Oceania' as continent numbers, giving NZ 18, Australia 99.5, and Minoans 215

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 08:12 AM
Hah, completely misread and bollocked up all my numbers, I was taking C for 'Civs on continent' rather than number of in-game civs existing (DERP).

This would make it:

New Zealand

C - Just Polynesians

Just New Zealand: 1.67*172/3*.0044*5 - 2.1
Oceania: 1.67*172/3*.038*5 - 18
Wider Oceania: 1.67*172/3*.403*5 = 192.9

Australia

C - Just Polynesians

Just Australia: 224*1.67/3*.0229*21 = 59.7
Oceania: 224*1.67/3*.038*21 = 99.5
Wider Oceania: 224*1.67/3*.403*21 = 1055

Minoan Crete

Due to its location, still have to fudge the 'Modern continent population' numbers and just go with the relevant surrounding countries:

C - Greece, Egypt, Ottomans, Persia

2480*1/6*.174*3 = 215

Should probably take the 'Oceania' as continent numbers, giving NZ 18, Australia 99.5, and Minoans 215
Updated

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 08:16 AM
south africa got 527

CMKMStephens
Apr 19, 2012, 08:22 AM
Maaaaadness :P

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 08:22 AM
561 for Argentina

Liex
Apr 19, 2012, 08:51 AM
I was thinking about this but

2. What about natural UNESCO heritage sites? No one built them but they still helped the culture of civilizations
3. What about heritage sites built after the civilization fell. The reason a lot of important heritage sites were built in modern Italy is that; in a way the spirit of Rome lives on today.
4. What about heritage sites built before the civ, you can't deny that the pyramids haven't helped inspire Egypt


I think that's fair, but I just think we should be careful to not simply include every single heritage site that is inside the civ's maximum extension into account. The pyramids may have helped to inspire Egypt, and they still inspire us today, but should we include them in any calculation other than the Egypt's? If we're doing this, a lot of civs will get a great score thanks to things they didn't build and are not related to in any way.

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 09:00 AM
Mapuche: 757
Kongo: 1,122
Great Zimbabwe: 395
Songhai: 389
Mali: 889
Scythia: 9301 (I must admit I wasn't expecting that)
Chola: 4337

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 09:33 AM
I think that's fair, but I just think we should be careful to not simply include every single heritage site that is inside the civ's maximum extension into account. The pyramids may have helped to inspire Egypt, and they still inspire us today, but should we include them in any calculation other than the Egypt's? If we're doing this, a lot of civs will get a great score thanks to things they didn't build and are not related to in any way.


5. Cultural heritage sites were not supposed to purely represent culture. It's also a way of representing land and population. The reason I don't have land in this formula is that if I did, Russia and Canada would get a huge bonus they don't deserve, because a lot of the land they own is uninhabitable. Cultural heritage sites work perfectly because there are a lot more UNESCO heritage sites in Italy, than the Canadian North or Siberia

CMKMStephens
Apr 19, 2012, 10:09 AM
Mapuche: 757
Kongo: 1,122
Great Zimbabwe: 395
Songhai: 389
Mali: 889
Scythia: 9301 (I must admit I wasn't expecting that)
Chola: 4337

Lol Scythia?! I presume you counted the whole of Asia and its billions in the PC resulting in the score? The geographic area included in the PC serves to push up the score rather considerably (Like Australia as a continent in its own right getting 50-something versus including the surrounding region shoving it up to well over 1000)

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 11:40 AM
Lol Scythia?! I presume you counted the whole of Asia and its billions in the PC resulting in the score? The geographic area included in the PC serves to push up the score rather considerably (Like Australia as a continent in its own right getting 50-something versus including the surrounding region shoving it up to well over 1000)
The main reason it did so well is it's hugeness and the huge amount of cultural heritage sites in that area (but I think I screwed something up, can someone double check this please

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png

Louis XXIV
Apr 19, 2012, 11:58 AM
That's probably, at best, a rough estimation. The Scythians are not that well-known. It's not entirely clear if they referred to one group of people, an alliance of tribes, or if it was just a generic term for people in the area.

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 12:02 PM
That's probably, at best, a rough estimation. The Scythians are not that well-known. It's not entirely clear if they referred to one group of people, an alliance of tribes, or if it was just a generic term for people in the area.

Yeah, that's why I felt weird about doing them at all, I think I'll remove them for now as well as Chola

GenjiKhan
Apr 19, 2012, 12:07 PM
Can this formula be changed to give bonus to Civilizations based on the region where they are . I think these bonus can be like this:

- If the Civilization is/was located in a region that have been never represented in Civ series,multiply their result by 2;
- If the Civilization is/was located in a region that isn't represented in Civ5,multiply their result by 1,5;
- If the Civilization is/was located in a region represented by only 1 Civilization in Civ5,multiply their result by 1;
- If the Civilization is/was located in a region represented by 2 or more civs in Civ5,multiply their result by 0,5;

Guess these numbers can be changed . What do you think?

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 12:18 PM
Can this formula be changed to give bonus to Civilizations based on the region where they are . I think these bonus can be like this:

- If the Civilization is/was located in a region that have been never represented in Civ series,multiply their result by 2;
- If the Civilization is/was located in a region that isn't represented in Civ5,multiply their result by 1,5;
- If the Civilization is/was located in a region represented by only 1 Civilization in Civ5,multiply their result by 1;
- If the Civilization is/was located in a region represented by 2 or more civs in Civ5,multiply their result by 0,5;

Guess these numbers can be changed . What do you think?

Good idea, this is what I had in mind with the C/PC part of the formula. I think the /PC is important because Asia deserves more civs than Oceania. Do you have an idea for what the smaller regions could be?

GenjiKhan
Apr 19, 2012, 02:00 PM
Perhaps something like this:


For American Continent:

- Eastern North America ;
- Western North America
- Central America;
- Western South America,mainly represented by Andes;
- Eastern South America;

For European Continent,it can be:

- Western Europe;
- Scandinavia;
- Eastern Europe;
- Mediterranean,which also includes civilization from Middle East which happens to have their capital on Mediterranean Border;

For Africa,it can be:
- Saharan Africa;
- The transition area between Saharan Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa;
- Horn of Africa;
- Central Africa(which includes all the Civilizations which happens to have a Non-coastal Capital) ;
- Western Coast of Africa
- Eastern Coast of Africa;
- Southern Africa;

For Asia,it can be:

- Middle East side(which don't include Israel and Lebanon because they are consider Mediterranean)
- Indian Sub Continent;
- Central Asia;
- Inland Southern Asia;
- Malay Archipelago;
- Far East;
- Siberia;

These divisions are hard to make and it's quite easy to make mistakes . Any suggestion and fixs are welcome .

Liex
Apr 19, 2012, 06:15 PM
- The transition area between Saharan Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa;


Sahel is the word you're looking for. Also, I'd say Africa is too subdivided.


- Indian Sub Continent;
- Inland Southern Asia;
- Malay Archipelago;


Perhaps it would work better as "Southern Asia" (~Indian Subcontinent) and "Southeast Asia" (~Myanmar to Indonesia).

It's a nice idea, by the way.

Gucumatz
Apr 19, 2012, 06:22 PM
I would like to know the numbers you used for the Chola. Seems excessive.

tofofnts
Apr 19, 2012, 06:53 PM
I would like to know the numbers you used for the Chola. Seems excessive.

Which is why I removed it from OP

GenjiKhan
Apr 19, 2012, 09:40 PM
Sahel is the word you're looking for. Also, I'd say Africa is too subdivided.

Thanks . If Africa is too divided,then I think I could remove Southern Africa,because their frontier with Central Africa is too confusing and also removing the Eastern coast of Africa . With these Changes,the division of Africa is like this:

- Saharan Africa;
- Sahel;
- Horn of Africa;
- Central Africa(also includes Eastern Coast of Africa);
- Western Coast of Africa;

I guess it's better now .



Perhaps it would work better as "Southern Asia" (~Indian Subcontinent) and "Southeast Asia" (~Myanmar to Indonesia).

It's a nice idea, by the way.

Thanks . I think it'd be better to keep with Indian Subcontinent,because they aren't so much in the south as Malay Archipelago .

tofofnts
Apr 20, 2012, 07:32 AM
I feel like everything is way too divided. If we keep it like this almost every region will have 0 or 1 civs on it.

tofofnts
Apr 20, 2012, 08:05 AM
How does this look to you guys (UN subregions)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/United_Nations_geographical_subregions.png/800px-United_Nations_geographical_subregions.png

Edit: Melanesia, Polynesia, Micronesia, Australia and New Zealand should be combined to one region also, Central America and carribean

Louis XXIV
Apr 20, 2012, 08:09 AM
That works for me, pretty much what I had. A few changes, though. I would move Iran to the Middle East and, for historical purposes, the Asian part of Russia should be with Central Asia (I don't think this will matter much, though).

tofofnts
Apr 20, 2012, 08:12 AM
That works for me, pretty much what I had. A few changes, though. I would move Iran to the Middle East and, for historical purposes, the Asian part of Russia should be with Central Asia (I don't think this will matter much, though).

I would agree with you, but Wikipedia already has an article on the regions as they are, so I would leave it as it is to make everything easier.

tofofnts
Apr 20, 2012, 08:14 AM
A much bigger map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/United_Nations_geographical_subregions.png)

GenjiKhan
Apr 20, 2012, 08:41 AM
With this division,the only areas that were never represented in Civ series are Caribbean,Central Asia,Eastern Africa and probably Middle Africa . And the simplicity can easily generate longer discussions,because there are plenty of civs which wouldn't receive 100% and 50% bonus because they represent a forgotten region .

tofofnts
Apr 20, 2012, 01:09 PM
With this division,the only areas that were never represented in Civ series are Caribbean,Central Asia,Eastern Africa and probably Middle Africa . And the simplicity can easily generate longer discussions,because there are plenty of civs which wouldn't receive 100% and 50% bonus because they represent a forgotten region .

Are you saying I should split it up more or less?

GenjiKhan
Apr 20, 2012, 01:38 PM
I'm just saying that with this simple division it's easier to forget a huge areas of the world . Take Malay Islands for example . With your idea,they shouldn't need to be represented by a civilization like Majapahit,because Khmer and Siam are enough to represent those islands,even if Inland Southeast asia is culturally different from Malay Archipelago .

tofofnts
Apr 20, 2012, 01:46 PM
I'm just saying that with this simple division it's easier to forget a huge areas of the world . Take Malay Islands for example . With your idea,they shouldn't need to be represented by a civilization like Majapahit,because Khmer and Siam are enough to represent those islands,even if Inland Southeast asia is culturally different from Malay Archipelago .

But then will keep drawing lines with no satisfaction. Eventually the world will look like this if we seperate every single zone with a different culture, every civ will be by itself.

stfoskey12
Apr 20, 2012, 09:00 PM
Mapuche: 757
Scythia: 9301 (I must admit I wasn't expecting that)
Chola: 4337

Who were Mapuche, Scythia, and Chola?

stfoskey12
Apr 20, 2012, 09:08 PM
I think Central America and the Carribean should be merged because of how small they are.Take Malay Islands for example . With your idea,they shouldn't need to be represented by a civilization like Majapahit,because Khmer and Siam are enough to represent those islands,even if Inland Southeast asia is culturally different from Malay Archipelago . Some cultures did fewer things that seem important to us and are less likely to be included. Because of the geography in Indonesia, they had less interactions with other civilizations, so they seem less important.

tofofnts
Apr 21, 2012, 11:58 AM
Who were Mapuche, Scythia, and Chola?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola

tofofnts
Apr 21, 2012, 12:02 PM
I think Central America and the Carribean should be merged because of how small they are.
Agreed. Will fix

Polar Bear
Apr 22, 2012, 02:21 AM
Interesting results. And what score do the Celts get?

tofofnts
Apr 22, 2012, 05:18 AM
Interesting results. And what score do the Celts get?

Gah... I can't find a decent guess on when the celts started.

Polar Bear
Apr 22, 2012, 07:05 AM
Gah... I can't find a decent guess on when the celts started.

The Greeks started writing about them about 750 BC.

I would like to see the score for the Aztecs as well.