Civ VII and Ships (and the water the sail in)

[Hellenism Salesman]

I don't think it's controversial to say Civ VI's depiction of navies, water, and sea travel is... flawed.

I think Civ VI's greatest flaws when it comes to seas are:

• Underdeveloped naval unit progression (First melee ship is in the ancient era and the next one is in Renaissance- shipbuilding didn't just stop developing for 1000 years...)
• Little acknowledgement of the limitations of ships (any ship- including a humble Galley- can circumnavigate the globe without ever having to stop)
• Little acknowledgement of the non-military boons of shipbuilding developments (Better ships help trade and exploration, too!)
• Naval combat is underdeveloped and uninteresting with oceans being flat, unchanging battle fields with little tile variation (Meanwhile, land has mountains, rivers, hills, floodplains, features, etc... it's not like there aren't variations in oceans that change how ships travel)
• Coastal city development is centralized around a single tile improvement (fishing boats) and a single district (harbor)
• Worst of all, naval/coastal play is always unreliable and map-dependent unless you cherry pick a map that makes it easily viable. This is the issue I want Civ VII to tackle most of all.

While these are just my personal issues, I'm sure each of you has your own problems with Civ VI's depiction of ships and water travel, and I'm curious to hear what systems and changes you would like to see in the next installment.

Tl;dr: Civ VII water thread.

 

[Zegangani]

All of that. Just One addition, trading Resources with a Civ should require a Trade Route between you an that Civ, which means a Sea Trade Route to Civs on the other Side of the Ocean.

 

[civac]

Counterpoint: Sea combat functions better than land combat between civs with large militaries because there is room to maneuver.

I don't understand the last point. Navies and sea travel won't play a role on map without water (highlands?). There is no reasonable way around that.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Counterpoint: Sea combat functions better than land combat between civs with large militaries because there is room to maneuver.

I partially agree with this- I still greatly prefer naval combat to land combat due to naval units' high movement and, as you mentioned, their space to maneuver. Still, I wish there was at least a little bit more variance and tactical thought involved in sea battles.

I don't understand the last point. Navies and sea travel won't play a role on map without water (highlands?). There is no reasonable way around that.

While sea travel can't play much of a role on a map without oceans, I think that Civ VII has other ways of making interacting with bodies of water more applicable to different map types. You're correct that we don't have any way of making that feasible with our current applications of navies, but what I'm suggesting is that Civ VII creates new ones. As an example, large rivers and lakes are traversable by real-world ships- why not make it like that in Civ? That way, navies would at least have some use on maps without seas, instead of absolutely none.

I don't know the exact way it should be done, but I don't think the polarizing gap between useful and useless maps for navies is inevitable.

(It just personally bothers me when map type is an on/off switch for a civ/unit's viability)

 

[dagriggstar]

I think (I don't actually know) I want (off the top of my head)
+ Superfast naval movement. Like, boats are much faster than horses....
+ I think naval unit zone of control should be more like surrounding 2 tiles, to make it actually possible to defend
+ If loyalty is back, some tweak where your cities founded across water still receive positive loyalty pressure from your "home" cities. Like, if loyalty pressure can extend 8 tiles over land, it should extend like 24 tiles over water (or something like this, maybe less extreme).
+ Cruise ships always made a lot more sense to me than rock bands for late game tourism

 

[mitsho]

Most of the above, but maybe also these additional points:

Ships need to be able to project force/control onto land, i.e. raid stuff, explore inland (goody huts), keep enemy land units away or disrupt their movement. As most of the game happens on land, using the sea to control the land seems only logical. In that sense, if the current scheme is kept, the first boat should be a ranged one - investing in an early boat should be rewarding, not crippling/useless against land barbarians.

Ports should act like airports, allowing you to beam over units over an existing trade route. This is about comfort. You still need to keep the trade route safe from pirates for it to work, but it would make controling a multi-continental or island based empire so much easier.

Maybe sea tiles can work differently from land tiles for the economy. Instead of building an infrastructure or district on every tile by the end, what if the whole sea were just one big tile (for the economy)? That means it's not pillageable, coastal cities can boom faster (more resources with fewer working citizens) and it makes the sea distinct from the land. It needn't be historical, but working gameplay-wise.

I do believe that many smaller adjustmeants will be enough to make them more viable again.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

We absolutely absolutely absolutely need to start seeing boats up rivers and a standard system for navy, and troop transportation, exerting control of land.

I don't think it's controversial to say Civ VI's depiction of navies, water, and sea travel is... flawed.

• Underdeveloped naval unit progression (First melee ship is in the ancient era and the next one is in Renaissance- shipbuilding didn't just stop developing for 1000 years...).

In a way, all the military unit types are like this, but it is bigger for the water, yes. Boris' proposal of having highly specific "applications" technologies, in this case with perks of unlocking things that a unit of some combat class can standardly outfit itself with, does come to mind here. For boats, we would be spending a research resource (which has opportunity cost of more peaceful economic innovations) to discover this or that method of improving our boating technology, creating maybe dozens of intermediate ship improvements between the landmark transformations of new eras.

It's quite the work to put all that design into the game though, and let's not understate the cost that would go into making it a veridical historical reference. One could make these "perks" unlocked by research, generic. Just better numbers, which you can steadily work on as you please to get an edge in that unit domain - in this case, the sea. But then of course it wouldn't fire up anyone's simulationist fun-receptors. A tough order.


Great thread.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the timing of the availability of naval/sea movement.

The Aegean islands, Cyprus and Crete all have evidence of human habitation back to 8000 BCE, and they did not get there by walking - sea travel by at least Civilian Units was possible long before Start of Game.

Earliest depiction of a sail on a boat not on a river (from the Persian Gulf area) dates back to 5000 BCE, so Sailing, at least in one instance, may also date to before Start of Game.

The earliest evidence of coastal galleys used to transport troops as well as cargo comes from Egypt around 2300 BCE - so naval movement of military Units is an Ancient Era Technology

The oldest known dock structure was a fired brick pier built before 2000 BCE at the end of the Harrapan/Indus Valley Culture - so Harbors are a lot earlier than they are in the game, also Ancient Era Technology.

Trade dates from long before Start of Game - even in the Americas, not generally considered to be at the cutting edge of human technology, Obsidian from an Oregon volcanic field was traded 4000 kilometers to Lake Huron by around 7000 BCE. Obsidian (which has the advantage that it can be tracked back to its volcanic origin and being mineral survives intact for 1000s of years) was also traded from across the Mediterranean to Mesopotamia, and from Anatolia to Egypt as far back as 12,000 - 8000 BCE. Trade Goods from the Indus and Bactrian bronze age civilizations have been found in Mesopotamia and vice-versa, so long distance land trade was also very, very early.

All of which means that access to boats/coastal sea travel of some kind is a Start of Game Technology in some specific instances, and early development of Trade by land or sea and infrastructure like Harbor facilities also developed very early. These features alone, added to the game, would increase the importance of ships, boats, and naval play considerably even if River movement and trade by boat is too much for the game design to handle.

 

[Aurelesk]

...

Before I start, I need to say I agree to almost everything you said.

« Little acknowledgement of the limitations of ships (any ship- including a humble Galley- can circumnavigate the globe without ever having to stop) »

To be fair, this is the case for all units in the game. My Scout in wandering in the ocean for some millennia by now. I understand that Boats need special care, but so do the Helicopters and Tanks.
Does this issue need to be addressed? I mean, do we need to add a special mechanic for this? A slow poison draining the Boat's HP meaning it cannot be too far from home would be absolutely tedious. Adding a "Lumber" strategic resource for maintenance purpose would feel kind of unnecessary.

But I like how Humankind managed to early units to be able to do some ocean exploration with the "Lost at Sea" mechanic. You are able to end a turn in the ocean, but the Naval unit is deleted if you also end your next turn in the ocean instead of coming back to the shore.


« Naval combat is underdeveloped and uninteresting with oceans being flat, unchanging battle fields with little tile variation (Meanwhile, land has mountains, rivers, hills, floodplains, features, etc... it's not like there aren't variations in oceans that change how ships travel) »

I agree. Ocean could be made more interesting with a Current system, a Wind system and maybe a Fog system that would allow to speed up / slow down exploration a bit. I imagine:

• Current could be represented as an Blue arrow on the water tiles. The Current will never change through the game. The movement consumption would be 0.5 if you entered by the arrow nock, 2 if by the arrow head, and 1 otherwise.
• Wind would be represent as a White arrow over the water tiles. Only Boats with Sails could enjoy from it. They could change direction through the game randomly. The movement consumption would be similar to the Current system, except the movement consumption would be 0.5 from nock, 1 from head, and 0.75 otherwise.
  • Climate change could make the Current and Wind system completely random every turns at some point, making crossing ocean a gamble.
• Fog would be an ocean "woods" from gameplay purposes. It would hide the view behind the tile, will turn units invisible inside the Fog tiles (except from adjacent units, or units with Radar abilities), and give +3 CS, like Reef.Combat Strength (like Woods).

With those three things, it may make the Ocean more interesting to explore... or more tedious.


« Coastal city development is centralized around a single tile improvement (fishing boats) and a single district (harbor) »

Yes. Even it is less dull with Fisheries, Oil, Water Parks, Offshore Wind and Seasteads, it is still limited. Fisheries should be available with a Technology and be the Sea farms, instead being locked being a Governor. Polder could be a some sort of project that allows to transform a Water tile into Land tile.
"Sukritact's Oceans" and "Albro's More Maritime: Seaside Sectors" mods allow to further increase the maritime side of the game. Even if not perfect, those are a great evolution for the game.


« Worst of all, naval/coastal play is always unreliable and map-dependent unless you cherry pick a map that makes it easily viable. This is the issue I want Civ VII to tackle most of all. »

One way to make Naval units more interesting would be to be able to use them inland. As said by @HorseshoeHermit maybe we will have 2 types of river in the next game:

• Shallow rivers: the same as currently in the game.
• Deep rivers: a tile being both land and water, eligible to either land or maritime improvement (including Harbor). It is navigable by Naval units, and Land units need embarkation to cross it.

If deep rivers are a thing in the next game, it also means you could have an Harbor city inland. After all, London was the biggest Port-city in the world, and it wasn't a Coastal one. With the trend of being able to put Canal to join two bodies of water, maybe you will be able to join two deep rivers together in order to cross a continent inland! We can only hope...

The distinction between Melee and Ranged naval unit feels quite dumb. Why a Caravel is able to capture a city, but not a Missile Cruiser? Shouldn't all Naval units works like the Immortel or the GDR: able both Ranged and Melee damage, therefore shoot and capture? I just wonder...

In the Pirate scenario, every ships have a crew. Maybe Naval units should be able to have a Crew for shore exploration and limited combat experience. Or even better: allow Exploration units (like Caravel) to act like a Settler in future games.

Last words: Land units in formation inherit the Movement of the Naval units. Weird it is not the case.


In brief:

• Add a Current, Wind and Fog system to make Ocean navigation and exploration more interesting.
• Add more freedom to early Navigation with the "Lost at Sea" feature from Humankind.
• Add a new type of River: deep Rivers. They are navigable by Naval units, and eligible for both Water improvement (Harbor...) or Land improvement (Farms...).
• Add new resources, mechanics, and districts for coastal cities like a sea-Encampment (Arsenal), a sea-Commercial Hub (Harbor), and a sea-Neighborhood.
• Abolish the Melee/Ranged split from Naval units, or make all Ranged units eligible to capture city.
• Add new mechanic to Naval unit to be interesting on land. For example: a Crew unit à la Pirate scenario, or make (Melee) Naval units able to settle city on the Coast.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

sea travel by at least Civilian Units was possible long before Start of Game.

You're forgetting the very, very earliest evidence! There is no way, even in very low sea levels, to walk from Eurasia to Australia. Humans (and their dogs) arrived via the sea, and models that have people being swept away and surviving via tsunami are not terribly realistic. The earliest Aborigines got there via boat, around 50,000 years ago. What the other details about this travel are, it's too far back to really tell, but boats are the best explanation (dogs - dingoes - arrived much later, but still 8000 or so years ago).

Trade dates from long before Start of Game

Absolutely. Remember that it's not far at all from Bactria or Indus civilization to Mesopotamia - just a jump across Persia and you're there. The thing that always gets me are Roman votive figures found in Vietnam. This doesn't mean that the Romans sent a ship to Vietnam, but rather that little curiosities like that (as well as major goods like silk) changed hands from Rome to India, from India to Southeast Asia, etc. And the obsidian you mention, too, was important in e.g. making the fortunes of Teotihuacan and influencing the Classical Maya. I remember, too, in the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark there's a lovely site about Bronze Age Danish trade routes to Greece; just another sign that in those areas outside of "civilization" there are a ton of people with trade, politics, religion, languages (though rarely written) moving around doing trade, sharing stories, farming, etc.

I might recommend here David Graeber's "the Dawn of Everything." He bogs down a bit when talking about Rousseau, whom I think he misrepresents, but it's otherwise pretty fantastic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You're forgetting the very, very earliest evidence! There is no way, even in very low sea levels, to walk from Eurasia to Australia. Humans (and their dogs) arrived via the sea, and models that have people being swept away and surviving via tsunami are not terribly realistic. The earliest Aborigines got there via boat, around 50,000 years ago. What the other details about this travel are, it's too far back to really tell, but boats are the best explanation (dogs - dingoes - arrived much later, but still 8000 or so years ago).

Didn't forget it, but my understanding (from some years ago now) is that what 'enabled' the rafting or boating from the islands of the Indonesian group to Australia was that during the last glaciation when the Aboriginal Ancestors arrived, the coasts (and islands) were extended enough that you could see where you were heading all the way to the northern coast of Aussieland - no boating "into the blue". Also, when the sea levels rose as the ice melted (up to 200 feet in places) that contact was lost and Australia remained relatively isolated during most of the historical period.

By contrast, Cyprus and Crete were also 'visible' from other shores (Crete not any more, but before 1600 BCE or so the mountain island of Thera was over 2000 meters high and provided a visible 'stepping stone' from the Aegean Islands in the north to Crete, and those islands formed a chain of visible shores all the way to mainland Greece or Anatolia) not only occupied by humans, they also got agriculture and domestic animals (and managed to raft/boat animals as large as cattle from the mainland) between 8000 and 6000 BCE, and also managed to maintain contact with the mainland civilizations and groups, including regular trade - which, obviously, was by boat.

[QUOTE="Andrew Johnson [FXS] Absolutely. Remember that it's not far at all from Bactria or Indus civilization to Mesopotamia - just a jump across Persia and you're there. The thing that always gets me are Roman votive figures found in Vietnam. This doesn't mean that the Romans sent a ship to Vietnam, but rather that little curiosities like that (as well as major goods like silk) changed hands from Rome to India, from India to Southeast Asia, etc. And the obsidian you mention, too, was important in e.g. making the fortunes of Teotihuacan and influencing the Classical Maya. I remember, too, in the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark there's a lovely site about Bronze Age Danish trade routes to Greece; just another sign that in those areas outside of "civilization" there are a ton of people with trade, politics, religion, languages (though rarely written) moving around doing trade, sharing stories, farming, etc.

I might recommend here David Graeber's "the Dawn of Everything." He bogs down a bit when talking about Rousseau, whom I think he misrepresents, but it's otherwise pretty fantastic.[/QUOTE]

The scope and variety of traded items between widely separate groups continues to amaze, and it seems like every other issue of one of the Archeological journals has another report on new evidence of long distance trade/contact.
My latest favorite: Turquoise blue glass beads manufactured in Venice were found in Sheshalik, Alaska, dated from context to 1440 - 1488 CE (i.e., at least 4 years Pre-Columbus) and apparently traded across Central Asia, Siberia and the Bering Strait by various tribal/pastoral 'middle-men'. At over 10,000 kilometers of pretty extreme land and sea climate/terrain, that's my current winner of the Pre-Industrial Long Distance Trade contest . . .

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

One way to make Naval units more interesting would be to be able to use them inland. As said by @HorseshoeHermit maybe we will have 2 types of river in the next game:

Several people have discussed river size being added to the game ontology in the last 6 months, but none of them me.

The distinction between Melee and Ranged naval unit feels quite dumb. Why a Caravel is able to capture a city, but not a Missile Cruiser? Shouldn't all Naval units works like the Immortel or the GDR: able both Ranged and Melee damage, therefore shoot and capture? I just wonder...

Now here's something I have said. The combat form of a bombard attack is one thing, and it's an intrinsically powerful ability for besieging any target with no exposure to counterfire; and especial strength when "comboing off" during your turn, where enemy units are passive. However, the bombard ability does not have to be equivalent to the game recognizing a difference between Melee combat class and Archery or Gunnery combat class, for the purpose of having combat resolution rules or further applying rules to zone of control or city attacks.
Being "ranged" could just be a tag on a unit, while such an archer still, actually, engages with enemy units and has a counterattack, like everything else who cannot measure their effectiveness in miles. In this system, bombards would be a special feature of the siege line, and Navy cannons when we get there.

I'm further impressed by the idea of having combat resolved by leaving "standing orders" for a Rules of Engagement kind of thing, which tells the force how to make tactical decisions during the next turn, which would interact with, well, the enemy's tactics to produce effects different for you on the Strategic (Theatre) level. It could even be a intransitive mechanics situation (rock paper scissors -> also like handling raids in Six Ages / King of Dragon Pass, for example). I came upon this idea independently from Boris (for once), though I never posted about it on the forum.
With a standing orders system for engagements, the power level of bombards would be even more clearly distinguished from 'Melee' - the kinds of attacks that let the enemy units do something - but perhaps at the same time, bombards could be reigned in, in power, by still being integrated to the standing orders system (so you bombard... in the Action phase after your Orders phase on your turn, and await results of how that goes, committing to more decisions instead of having perfect clarity every time).


I can see current having a point but I don't see wind having a point. It's just factors that create terrain "texture" for naval maneuvering, and what would matter is foreknowledge of what it will look like, + any technology to ignore it.

I think that Hidden Allegiance should come back to the game for Privateers, it was already in the game just do it again, it was cool.
And a mechanic from Caveman2Cosmos, give some units 0 vision, the effect of which is that you cannot order a unit to move into a tile you cannot see. Anything with 0 vision is a thoroughly civilian unit that cannot be taken outside familiar territory (incl. the intrinsic sight on civilized territory). They did this for some literal "boat" units which are transports, and work boats, so that you can't become Carlyle "Buckaroo" Magellan from turn 7.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Also, when the sea levels rose as the ice melted (up to 200 feet in places) that contact was lost and Australia remained relatively isolated during most of the historical period.

Ah, I see. I remember this debate (the "boating into the blue") from some of my early anthropology classes, but when I started working on contemporary cultural issues I moved away from prehistory questions.

The beads are fascinating. I didn't know about them, either, but it clearly makes sense. Trans-Arctic movements look terrifying on a Mercator projection, but the Inuit clearly did fine with it. If we think about continents, too, it gets daunting, rather than an interconnected series of Arctic shores, between Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, etc...

Thanks!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ah, I see. I remember this debate (the "boating into the blue") from some of my early anthropology classes, but when I started working on contemporary cultural issues I moved away from prehistory questions.

The beads are fascinating. I didn't know about them, either, but it clearly makes sense. Trans-Arctic movements look terrifying on a Mercator projection, but the Inuit clearly did fine with it. If we think about continents, too, it gets daunting, rather than an interconnected series of Arctic shores, between Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, etc...

Thanks!

I only took a couple of courses in archeology/anthropology in college, but my sister has her PhD in Geography and pushed me into taking some courses in Cultural and Political Geography, which have made me take a hard look at the geographical elements of people contact and movement on the globe and the map. It's also come in very handy in my military history writing - you cannot understand how and why things happened unless you also understand the physical geography they were dealing with and with the technology they had available at the time.

 

[Phrozen]

There needs to be a natural harbor terrain that is incredibly lucrative. If you look at all the major cities in the world the vast majority of them are port cities either on the coast themselves or on a river that is navigable to the sea.

 

[dagriggstar]

Economy wise, a few thoughts
+ Could add a new feature - Ria - which are drowned river valleys that typically form natural harbors. I did have to google natural harbor to come up with this, so like to a casual player they might see a "Ria" on a map and have no idea what it is. Logically a harbor built in a Ria would give like +100% ship production to building naval units and probably heal in one turn. You might not actually add the feature and just say Harbors generate +1 production per adjacent land tile too.
- Not using population points on water tiles is tricky balance wise. I felt like buildings that just grant say +1 food for every water tile the city has, like those yields would get too high. Equally, +1 food per adjacent water tile doesn't make sense to me, as the best harbors are sheltered and that type of mechanic favours (greatly) unsheltered harbors.
+ I thought about say, +1 food per water tile per specialist. Which seems better, since you are investing a population point and also specialist slots in every game so far are limited. But also, I don't think specialist slots should be limited and now we are getting derailed lol. Also if Harbor specialist yields are based on what tiles the city controls then intuitively all specialists should function the same way. Not necessarily a bad thing, but given the treatment (they barely exist) of specialists in 6, I suspect firaxis thinks they are too complex for new players to grasp or something.
+ You could go for a fishing village improvement, buildable on a coast tile with at least 3 adjacent land tiles (again, going for sheltered spots). +1 food from each adjacent water tile. Something like this. Have the art appear on the coast.
+ If you build a lighthouse near a fishing village, the fishing village gains +1 food from water tiles within a range of 2.
Really I want to get away from having districts, putting tile improvements on an entire tile and buildings on the corners around a tile. So we don't have a limit of how many lighthouses you can build, for instance. Then each lighthouse is being put on a corner of a tile, so it can extend the range of a fishing village by max 2 tiles, rather than 5.

Combat wise - would it be crazy if Naval combat functioned more like air combat ? Like naval units have to be docked in harbors ? Land units can travel across water you "control" in one turn (waterlift lol) ? Not sure how to handle exploration and colonising, maybe a dedicated unit civilian unit like a navigator or cartographer or something

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Then again.
1. Game should begins at 10,000 BC ,
2. Checking with Humankind. there's a pre-sailing tech called 'Fishing' that allows construction of harbors but not embarkment. When did the first uses of sails appear? and what are the fist known dedicated seagoing combat vessels?
3. More fluid ship classes as in HK. Melee and Ranged ships are nonsensual.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Then again.
1. Game should begins at 10,000 BC ,
2. Checking with Humankind. there's a pre-sailing tech called 'Fishing' that allows construction of harbors but not embarkment. When did the first uses of sails appear? and what are the fist known dedicated seagoing combat vessels?
3. More fluid ship classes as in HK. Melee and Ranged ships are nonsensual.

Earliest evidence of Sails is on rock art drawing from Egypt showing a boat with both sails and oars, dated to around 6000 BCE. BUT this is probably a river boat - the Nile has the useful feature that the current flows north while the prevailing winds blow south, so you can use the wind and a sail to go south against the current.

Earliest confirmed non-river craft with a sail is shown on a painted disc from Kuwait (Persian Gulf) dated to 5500 - 5000 BCE

Earliest picture of a warship is from Egypt around 2300 BCE, which shows oared galleys with sails on the coast (non-river) carrying both armed warriors and cargo. The earliest warships were all simply galleys carrying warriors, because the iron or bronze Ram that made the ship itself a weapon wasn't invented until around 750 BCE, about the same time as the first 2-banked galley, the Phoenician Bireme.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ This means ship classes in HK is more sensual actually. despite that Classical Carthaginians and Roman Polyremes were considered 'capitol ships.', their tactical focus was boarding. Even with transitions towards sailers.

So the first confirmed uses of sailers in warfare? Battle of Sluys or Yuan invasion of Japan? or anywhere during famous Chinese Three Kingdoms Era? (Though 'Battle of Red Cliff' where Combined Liu Bei and Sun Quan's factions had defeated numerically superior Cao Cao's forces, the 'naval battle' itself was riverine. did you count the Red Cliff amongs 'naval battle' too?)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Absolutely. Remember that it's not far at all from Bactria or Indus civilization to Mesopotamia - just a jump across Persia and you're there. The thing that always gets me are Roman votive figures found in Vietnam. This doesn't mean that the Romans sent a ship to Vietnam, but rather that little curiosities like that (as well as major goods like silk) changed hands from Rome to India, from India to Southeast Asia, etc. And the obsidian you mention, too, was important in e.g. making the fortunes of Teotihuacan and influencing the Classical Maya. I remember, too, in the Moesgaard Museum in Denmark there's a lovely site about Bronze Age Danish trade routes to Greece; just another sign that in those areas outside of "civilization" there are a ton of people with trade, politics, religion, languages (though rarely written) moving around doing trade, sharing stories, farming, etc.

I might recommend here David Graeber's "the Dawn of Everything." He bogs down a bit when talking about Rousseau, whom I think he misrepresents, but it's otherwise pretty fantastic.

And your opinions on a roman lamp found in a vicinity of Kanchanaburi Province?