All leader portraits

[Thorburne]

The Age of Exploration was less about settling unclaimed territory and more about discovering territory new to Europe and exterminating the people who lived there. The Americas, for example, weren't uninhabited in the least.

Actually, the Age of Exploration was started because the nations of Islam cut Europe off from the Asia (and, therefore, wealth opportunities). They began seeking different routes and found the Americas in the process (yes, I know that they Vikings found it first, but they had no clue what they had found and all but forgot about it).

 

[SMcM]

The Age of Exploration was less about settling unclaimed territory and more about discovering territory new to Europe and exterminating the people who lived there. The Americas, for example, weren't uninhabited in the least.

But the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa were more sparsely populated, and in many cases not by large confederations or empires (such as the Incas) but by individual tribes too small to be nations in a Civilization game (where each tile represents 10,000 square kilometres- about a third of the size of Belgium), and so if life were a game of Civilization, large chunks of the Americas and Africa would have been empty in this time.

 

[Thormodr]

But the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa were more sparsely populated, and in many cases not by large confederations or empires (such as the Incas) but by individual tribes too small to be nations in a Civilization game (where each tile represents 10,000 square kilometres- about a third of the size of Belgium), and so if life were a game of Civilization, large chunks of the Americas and Africa would have been empty in this time.

I've read a book called 1491 and they suggest that the population of the Americas was around 100-150 million. Hardly sparsely populated.

 

[Zaarin]

I've read a book called 1491 and they suggest that the population of the Americas was around 100-150 million. Hardly sparsely populated.

...You're aware that's half the current population of the United States alone spread across two continents, and much of the land between the Appalachians and the Rockies is still sparsely populated by Old World standards?

 

[elitetroops]

I've read a book called 1491 and they suggest that the population of the Americas was around 100-150 million. Hardly sparsely populated.

That would be a very generous estimate. Nobody can know for sure, but "by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for 100 million or more." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)

Assuming 50-100 million would mean an average population density of about 3-6 people/square mile.

 

[Thormodr]

...You're aware that's half the current population of the United States alone spread across two continents, and much of the land between the Appalachians and the Rockies is still sparsely populated by Old World standards?

Of course I am aware.

While it may be less densely populated than parts of the Orient and the Mediterranean, it still had significantly more people than people generally accept as historical fact. Represented in Civ terms, much of the Americas would have been claimed by the Middle Ages.

 

[Thormodr]

That would be a very generous estimate. Nobody can know for sure, but "by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for 100 million or more." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas)

Assuming 50-100 million would mean an average population density of about 3-6 people/square mile.

I would recommend reading 1491 as he makes credible arguments to back up his numbers.

However, this is off topic and not at all related to the revealed leaders so I will cease and desist.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, it's a game about civilization. And in this game civilization is defined by cities. So, settled land is a land with cities, unsettled land - without them.

So, using this definition, by the age of exploration, most of the territories of both North and South America didn't have civilizations - similarly to whole Australia, majority of Siberia and large parts of Africa.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, it's a game about civilization. And in this game civilization is defined by cities. So, settled land is a land with cities, unsettled land - without them.

So, using this definition, by the age of exploration, most of the territories of both North and South America didn't have civilizations - similarly to whole Australia, majority of Siberia and large parts of Africa.

Hence why the game also has barbarians/Tribal villages. They are still human, and not inferior as human beings....their society is just incapable of interacting with the civs in ways that don't just add a small boost/speed bump.

(It would be nice if "used" tribal villages stayed/regenerated like barb camps.)

When you colonize the area you can choose a number of ways to deal with them
Peaceful Integration-expensive, gives special boost to tile
Forced Integration-medium cost, gives pop boost to city/free improvement to tile
Extermination-cheapest, clears tile

 

[stealth_nsk]

Hence why the game also has barbarians/Tribal villages. They are still human, and not inferior as human beings....their society is just incapable of interacting with the civs in ways that don't just add a small boost/speed bump.

(It would be nice if "used" tribal villages stayed/regenerated like barb camps.)

When you colonize the area you can choose a number of ways to deal with them
Peaceful Integration-expensive, gives special boost to tile
Forced Integration-medium cost, gives pop boost to city/free improvement to tile
Extermination-cheapest, clears tile

That's totally different thing. The original point was - is it unrealistic to have large parts of the map to be unsettled by 1500 in Civilization game. The reply is - it's realistic, because "settled" in terms of Civilization means covered with cities and the real world had large areas not covered with cities by 1500. That's it.

The idea of native tribes, nomads and so on, so forth is a good thing for a mod. It doesn't fit the core civilization gameplay.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please can we get back on topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's totally different thing. The original point was - is it unrealistic to have large parts of the map to be unsettled by 1500 in Civilization game. The reply is - it's realistic, because "settled" in terms of Civilization means covered with cities and the real world had large areas not covered with cities by 1500. That's it.

The idea of native tribes, nomads and so on, so forth is a good thing for a mod. It doesn't fit the core civilization gameplay.

Well my point was, the game Already has the world "populated" by 4000 BC. Barbs are Everywhere, as are "Goody huts"...which in Civ6 are no longer ruins, but villages.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well my point was, the game Already has the world "populated" by 4000 BC. Barbs are Everywhere, as are "Goody huts"...which in Civ6 are no longer ruins, but villages.

Yeah, both points of view are valid and in both cases having areas without cities by 1500 is realistic

 

[retrocity5]

Harald Hadrada is the leader of Norway!

 

[SMcM]

I've read a book called 1491 and they suggest that the population of the Americas was around 100-150 million. Hardly sparsely populated.

Except that that is very sparsely populated. If something is very sparsely populated, it means its population is not very large considering its area. Even today, the United States is pretty sparsely populated when compared to a lot of countries. There are something like 40 people per km2 in USA (excluding Alaska), compared to over 500 in England.

The Americas span 42,549,000 km2. 150,000,000 divided by 42,549,000 gives us 3.5. That is 3.5 people per square kilometre- a lower population density than modern Canada (A country the size of China with a population lower than some Chinese cities).

For comparison, according to this Wikipedia article, England and Wales had 3.6 million people in the year 1500. England and Wales combined have a land area of 131,398 km2. 3,600,000 divided by 131,398= 27. So, when there were 3.5 people per km2 in the Americas, there were 27 in England and Wales. According to this just a century later the area that is now modern India was inhabited by 100 million people, but India is only 3,287,263 km2, compared to the 42,549,000 km2 of the Americas.

...You're aware that's half the current population of the United States alone spread across two continents, and much of the land between the Appalachians and the Rockies is still sparsely populated by Old World standards?

Exactly.

Edit: Just noticed the moderator instruction to end this conversation- sorry.

 

[retrocity5]

Greece has been announced and with Pericles. I still want a Greek split. I'm sure the More Civs team will port that mod over after working on the kinks.

 

[Josephias]

Greece has been announced and with Pericles. I still want a Greek split. I'm sure the More Civs team will port that mod over after working on the kinks.

Maybe it's time to drop Gorgo and start considering she may have been replaced by Tamar?

(that or the civilopedia entry was not correct )

 

[retrocity5]

Maybe it's time to drop Gorgo and start considering she may have been replaced by Tamar?

(that or the civilopedia entry was not correct )

I'd prefer that. I'd also prefer a Greek split.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe it's time to drop Gorgo and start considering she may have been replaced by Tamar?

If only.

 

[SMcM]

Which video was it where a leader icon with a turban was spotted? At this stage I suppose it has got to have been Saladin, but I wanted to have another look at that anyway.