New gods and kings civ formula

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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
tofofnts, can you work out the score for these? Texas, South Africa, Australia, Argentina, Mapuche, Tupi, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, Songhai, Mali, Scythia, Chola.
 
/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:
 
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 and many Brazilians have a Native Ancestor) .
 
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 and many Brazilians have a Native Ancestor) .

Texas may just be fun to have a number to compare with.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
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
 
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
 
Maaaaadness :p
 
Top Bottom