Feedback: Civilizations

[Simon_Jester]

Glad to hear it- again, if you have to remove a single civ, I suggest the Hungarians; a second choice would be harder for me.

It's not that the Hungarians are inferior or anything, it's just that by and large their civilization's legacy is that of a nation, one country like many others, with limited impact beyond its own borders. For much of its history was a footnote to someone else's story.

The same is arguably true of a number of other non-European civs, but since Europe is already so much more heavily represented than any other continent, I think it can stand to lose one of its lower-impact cultures.

I might also advise dropping the Portuguese- they're worthy, and they did have a really noticeable impact in the Indian Ocean and in Brazil, but ultimately they played a lesser role than the other colonial powers, and much of their history is effectively shared with Spain. Also, the "cool seafaring civilization" niche has been taken by several other civs that get unique Caravel-based units, so you can probably remove them without too much cost.

Heck, you might replace the Portuguese with the Brazilians... It would be about as justified as having the "Turks" represent everything from the medieval-era horse archers of Central Asia to the mighty gunpowder empire of Mehmed the Conqueror to the highly civilized and modern nation-state founded by Mustafa Kemal.

 

[Eucalyptus]

As of HR1.16, the UB for Indonesia is the "Candi", a replacement for the Stadium.

However, a "candi" (pronounced "chan-dee") is in fact a temple, which in practice means a Hindu or Buddhist temple. So, Dharmasetu can build both (preferably Buddhist) Temples and Candis, but no Stadiums, and I imagine that this bothers him.

I presume that the existing Candi is a stopgap solution, as it's unreasonable that a UB be a replacement for a Temple. In any case there is nothing particularly special about temples in Indonesia that would warrant their use as a UB. What else is possible?

Something that seems to me to be unique to `Indonesia' is the enormous scale of the terracing of wet-rice on (volcanic) hillsides. This is the specific result of a being a rice-based culture in mountainous wet tropics. The water management requires cooperative efforts similar to those needed for Dutch dikes, and yields similar productivity improvements, although in food, not hammers.

This could be modelled by having the UB for Indonesia be a replacement Dike that could provide an additional +1 food on river tiles (as well as the usual +1 production). I'm not sure what to call it --- a "Terrace"?! An Indonesian word for paddy is "sawah", but this doesn't mean dike, and the word also appropriate for flatland paddy.


Aside: I'd actually rather that being a food producer were reflected in a Trait. In particular, the rice terraces make me think of the Civ 3 Agricultural trait. I note that Hayam Wuruk gets a food-production bonus via the Expansive trait (Dharmasetu isn't Expansive). Could the food-generating ability of Expansive instead be migrated to a new Agricultural trait? Perhaps Agricultural could have an ability such as being able to Irrigate (and Camp) hill tiles? (I don't have a problem if such a tile becomes someone else's property.) However, that doesn't answer the need for a UB, and I perhaps there are enough Traits already ...


The UW, the Borobudur

The Indonesian UW of the Borobudur is currently a replacement National Monument and thus requires Nationalism, which means that it is only available at an unhistorically late point in history. Moreover, the real Borobudur is actually a Buddhist stupa, thus a religious structure and has nothing to do with Nationalism. If it were instead a Royal Cemetery replacement, it would come at a more appropriate time, and sync better with Buddhism.

 

[Xyth]

Glad to hear it- again, if you have to remove a single civ, I suggest the Hungarians; a second choice would be harder for me.

It's not that the Hungarians are inferior or anything, it's just that by and large their civilization's legacy is that of a nation, one country like many others, with limited impact beyond its own borders. For much of its history was a footnote to someone else's story.

The same is arguably true of a number of other non-European civs, but since Europe is already so much more heavily represented than any other continent, I think it can stand to lose one of its lower-impact cultures.

I might also advise dropping the Portuguese- they're worthy, and they did have a really noticeable impact in the Indian Ocean and in Brazil, but ultimately they played a lesser role than the other colonial powers, and much of their history is effectively shared with Spain. Also, the "cool seafaring civilization" niche has been taken by several other civs that get unique Caravel-based units, so you can probably remove them without too much cost.

Heck, you might replace the Portuguese with the Brazilians... It would be about as justified as having the "Turks" represent everything from the medieval-era horse archers of Central Asia to the mighty gunpowder empire of Mehmed the Conqueror to the highly civilized and modern nation-state founded by Mustafa Kemal.

America is really the only other civ that bothers me with its inclusion, for reasons I've discussed before. The Dutch and the Portuguese are somewhat borderline but were vital players in the colonial era so they need to be there, despite their relative lack of earlier history that is clearly separate from other entities.

The Hungarians would possibly be better named as the Magyar, to better encompass their entire history. Making that change would necessitate the removal of Attila though. Attila as Hungarian precursor is already a stretch, Attila the Magyar is just not appropriate. Perhaps he should be replaced with Arpad?

With the optimisation changes I'm making in 1.17 I can raise the 'cap' a little on how many there can be in HR. As of 1.16 there are 18 leader trait combinations unused, meaning a absolute maximum of 58 civilizations (as I like every civ to have a minimum of 2 leaders and I'm not planning to add any more traits). Several existing civilisations could benefit from an additional leader though so I imagine the final total is more likely to be 54-56.

The Anasazi and the Kongo will be 2 of those, so 3-5 slots open. And 1 more if I ever cut America. I'm in no great hurry to determine or fill those though.

As of HR1.16, the UB for Indonesia is the "Candi", a replacement for the Stadium.

However, a "candi" (pronounced "chan-dee") is in fact a temple, which in practice means a Hindu or Buddhist temple. So, Dharmasetu can build both (preferably Buddhist) Temples and Candis, but no Stadiums, and I imagine that this bothers him.

I presume that the existing Candi is a stopgap solution, as it's unreasonable that a UB be a replacement for a Temple. In any case there is nothing particularly special about temples in Indonesia that would warrant their use as a UB. What else is possible?

Yeah, I'm not particularly happy with the Candi as a UB for the reasons you describe.

Something that seems to me to be unique to `Indonesia' is the enormous scale of the terracing of wet-rice on (volcanic) hillsides. This is the specific result of a being a rice-based culture in mountainous wet tropics. The water management requires cooperative efforts similar to those needed for Dutch dikes, and yields similar productivity improvements, although in food, not hammers.

This could be modelled by having the UB for Indonesia be a replacement Dike that could provide an additional +1 food on river tiles (as well as the usual +1 production). I'm not sure what to call it --- a "Terrace"?! An Indonesian word for paddy is "sawah", but this doesn't mean dike, and the word also appropriate for flatland paddy.

The Inca already have a Terrace UB, which replaces the granary. Not a bad idea though, I'll have to have a think about that.

Aside: I'd actually rather that being a food producer were reflected in a Trait. In particular, the rice terraces make me think of the Civ 3 Agricultural trait. I note that Hayam Wuruk gets a food-production bonus via the Expansive trait (Dharmasetu isn't Expansive). Could the food-generating ability of Expansive instead be migrated to a new Agricultural trait? Perhaps Agricultural could have an ability such as being able to Irrigate (and Camp) hill tiles? (I don't have a problem if such a tile becomes someone else's property.) However, that doesn't answer the need for a UB, and I perhaps there are enough Traits already ...

I don't wish to add any more traits to HR, 18 is plenty. Food bonuses are very powerful so it would be quite difficult to develop a balanced trait based on them. I think Expansive fills the role fine and is a bit more versatile.

The Indonesian UW of the Borobudur is currently a replacement National Monument and thus requires Nationalism, which means that it is only available at an unhistorically late point in history. Moreover, the real Borobudur is actually a Buddhist stupa, thus a religious structure and has nothing to do with Nationalism. If it were instead a Royal Cemetery replacement, it would come at a more appropriate time, and sync better with Buddhism.

That makes sense. Borobudur is actually one UW I would like to see promoted to full world wonder status, though I'm not entirely sure what to use as the Indonesian UW in it's place.

There are several UWs that appear too late or too early due to the positioning of the national wonder they replace. The Phoenician's War Harbour and the Roman's Circus Maximus are two other examples. I'm not quite sure how to best tackle the problem. Being available early could become an additional bonus alongside the triggered golden age, but that would apply unevenly to different civilizations.

 

[Simon_Jester]

America is really the only other civ that bothers me with its inclusion, for reasons I've discussed before. The Dutch and the Portuguese are somewhat borderline but were vital players in the colonial era so they need to be there, despite their relative lack of earlier history that is clearly separate from other entities.

Dropping America would greatly alienate me from the mod.

Partly that's provincialism, I guess, but it's also a question of how "beyond the sword" the mod really goes at heart. Virtually all the civilizations you've added to the game reached and passed their glory days before the introduction of gunpowder. Having them in, for the diversity, and to give other continents as broad a representation as Europe, is a laudable goal. I'm all for it.

But removing one of the few civilizations in the game that was more significant in the modern era than it was in earlier times strikes me as taking the tilt of the mod too far- pushing the balance of civilizations in HR too much in favor of medieval and pre-medieval elements of the game, at the expense of the modern ones.

Also, if you define civilizations by culture and shared history, I think you may be underestimating the cultural differences between the US and Britain. Issues of race, geography, settlement patterns, immigration, and so on have driven the US into a very divergent position compared to the 'stock' British culture, as different in many ways as France is from Germany or Poland from Russia, even if there's a common language and some shared roots.

So the justification I recall you saying, that "America" was rightly an offshoot of the English civilization (and, implicitly, the Latin American nations are Spanish offshoots, with Brazil as a Portuguese offshoot) doesn't fly very well in my opinion.

The Hungarians would possibly be better named as the Magyar, to better encompass their entire history. Making that change would necessitate the removal of Attila though. Attila as Hungarian precursor is already a stretch, Attila the Magyar is just not appropriate. Perhaps he should be replaced with Arpad?

Perhaps- but I do think historical impact should be one of the criteria by which we judge whether something belongs in the game as a civilization, especially on a continent which is still very well represented (nearly every place in Europe corresponds to one or more of the civilizations in BtS/HR, whereas no other continent can say the same).

On historical impact, nations like the Byzantine Empire and the United States make a pretty good case for outweighing the Magyars.

There are several UWs that appear too late or too early due to the positioning of the national wonder they replace. The Phoenician's War Harbour and the Roman's Circus Maximus are two other examples. I'm not quite sure how to best tackle the problem. Being available early could become an additional bonus alongside the triggered golden age, but that would apply unevenly to different civilizations.

I don't think that's too big a problem. You're never going to get the civilizations perfectly balanced- some civs have very potent unique units while others have less impressive ones, different maps favor different leader traits and strategies, and so on. Besides, there's fifty of the things, they can't all be identically good.

So making a few specific unique wonders available early would probably do more for the flavor than it would detract from the balance. Especially since... frankly, unique wonders aren't that powerful aside from their Golden Age feature. The national wonders are important but don't change the game entirely, so making one available to a civilization early on won't make it hopelessly strong.

 

[Xyth]

I'm not likely to cut America, don't worry. It just bugs me since it doesn't quite fit in with everything else. It's not that I consider America merely an offshoot of the English, or Brazil an offshoot of the Portuguese, etc. It's just that the rise of nationalism and European colonization drastically changed the way in which civilizations arose and evolved, more so than any other events in history. Right from the outset I wanted to avoid determinism and the 'nation-states as civilizations' trap' that I feel too many mods fall into, so I used the age of colonization as the cutoff for inclusion in HR. America is the only civ that falls on the other side of that cutoff but it's not doing any harm remaining in the mod, other than irritating any slight OCD tendencies I might have

I'm going to need to think about this some more because I still don't know what I want to do about South America, which desperately needs more representation. Maybe I should bite the bullet and use most of those last free slots to include more colonial civilizations? That works fine for that continent but it creates tricky situations I'm not sure I want to deal with elsewhere.

I don't think that's too big a problem. You're never going to get the civilizations perfectly balanced- some civs have very potent unique units while others have less impressive ones, different maps favor different leader traits and strategies, and so on. Besides, there's fifty of the things, they can't all be identically good.

So making a few specific unique wonders available early would probably do more for the flavor than it would detract from the balance. Especially since... frankly, unique wonders aren't that powerful aside from their Golden Age feature. The national wonders are important but don't change the game entirely, so making one available to a civilization early on won't make it hopelessly strong.

The only thing to be careful of is whether the National Wonder's normal effect becomes too powerful if available too early on. Obvious ones like the Ironworks aren't a problem since no civ currently has a UW based on it. None of the others strike me as being too problematic, at first glance at least. Should be workable. I could also use reduced hammer cost as a perk for those civs whose UW doesn't get shifted forward significantly - or needs to get shifted later (not sure if there are any cases of this, would have to check).

 

[Eucalyptus]

Borobudur is actually one UW I would like to see promoted to full world wonder status, though I'm not entirely sure what to use as the Indonesian UW in it's place.

I don't feel that the Borobudur ranks as an international world wonder and I don't think that Indonesia has produced anything greater than it. So I'm happy with its status as a UW.

There are several UWs that appear too late or too early due to the positioning of the national wonder they replace.

I personally find early Golden Ages a lot less powerful than later ones, but it's up to the player to decide when to build that Royal Cemetery.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I'm going to need to think about this some more because I still don't know what I want to do about South America, which desperately needs more representation. Maybe I should bite the bullet and use most of those last free slots to include more colonial civilizations? That works fine for that continent but it creates tricky situations I'm not sure I want to deal with elsewhere.

Indeed. This line of reasoning ends up with Australia being described as a `civilization'.

Why should any of the modern nation states of South America be added? The mod covers the continent very well with the several existing native civilizations and, in contrast to the USA, the modern colonial nations have no special features.

The USA is a justified exception to the rule of not including colonial civilizations because it is the only colonial state to have achieved genuinely new things in history. I think of it in HR as "What might have been able to develop if the political ideas defining the USA were available in 4000BC".

 

[Simon_Jester]

I'm going to need to think about this some more because I still don't know what I want to do about South America, which desperately needs more representation. Maybe I should bite the bullet and use most of those last free slots to include more colonial civilizations? That works fine for that continent but it creates tricky situations I'm not sure I want to deal with elsewhere.

Brazil (name it what you wish) is probably a good candidate- you had the idea of having the native civilization represent them up until the gunpowder era, then portray them merging with the colonialists. Which is really no more off-kilter than portraying "English" civilization as a single thread even though it involves Celts getting invaded and Romanized, and the Romano-Britons then getting invaded and Anglo-Saxonized, and the Anglo-Saxons then getting invaded and partly Vikingized, and the somewhat Norseish-Anglo-Saxons then getting invaded and partly Normanized.

Or representing the major civilizations of northern India as a single continuous thread despite repeated invasions and cultural reformations dating back to the Indo-European Völkerwanderungen if not earlier.

These things are not unreasonable, but then, I would argue that making a Latin American-type civilization that features the native population mingling with the conquerors as a continuous thread isn't unreasonable either.


Other continents, though... honestly, I think they're pretty fairly represented. The only region that's definitely overrepresented compared to its size is Europe- again, I question the decision to have both Hungarian and Polish civilizations, because they represent the "civilization as nation-state" trap to me, and neither of them ever had much impact on any major center of civilization far from their borders. The Dutch and Portuguese wouldn't belong, either, if it wasn't for the impact their colonization and exploration had on the rest of the world- and neither Hungary nor Poland ever did anything like that.

Maybe one or the other, but both? For crying out loud, they even have the same unique-unit replacement...

Hm. Enough of my whining.


Africa is adequately represented, I think- the civilizations in Africa don't represent every inch of the continent, but I'm not sure it would be desirable to arrange things that way- we shouldn't necessarily be able to draw world maps in 500 AD or 1500 AD and say that every inch of land on the planet belonged to a 'civilization' that must be in the mod.

Asia in general, I think, is adequately represented- roughly a quarter of all civilizations in the game are 'oriental' (as 19th century Europeans would have called them), and since two of those civilizations represent huge regions of the world that together have probably contained 30 to 40 percent of the human race since the dawn of recorded history, there's not much more you can do to increase diversity.

Australia/Oceania simply never supported large city-building cultures, and aside from the rather generic Polynesians I don't think there's much room for expansion there. It would be lovely if the Aborigines had come up with something like Norte-Chico levels of settlement, I'd be all for including them then, but... well.

The big gaps are in the Americas, where you run into the settlement pattern problem again. Logical candidates would be Brazil, a Caribbean-native civilization (Taino/Arawak), a Mound Builder or Cherokee civilization to complement the Iroquois, or something to indicate the natives of the Pacific Northwest.

Note that if you take the Pacific Northwest, you should so give them the totem pole. Those were a Pacific Northwest custom and are about as out of place among the Lakota (Sioux) as giant stone obelisks carved with hieroglyphics would be in Babylon of the Amorites.

The only thing to be careful of is whether the National Wonder's normal effect becomes too powerful if available too early on. Obvious ones like the Ironworks aren't a problem since no civ currently has a UW based on it. None of the others strike me as being too problematic, at first glance at least. Should be workable. I could also use reduced hammer cost as a perk for those civs whose UW doesn't get shifted forward significantly - or needs to get shifted later (not sure if there are any cases of this, would have to check).

That might work.

Also, there aren't that many unique wonders that need to be moved up- so consider it case by case.

 

[Xyth]

Indeed. This line of reasoning ends up with Australia being described as a `civilization'.

Australia/Oceania simply never supported large city-building cultures, and aside from the rather generic Polynesians I don't think there's much room for expansion there. It would be lovely if the Aborigines had come up with something like Norte-Chico levels of settlement, I'd be all for including them then, but... well.

There's actually a decent amount of art I could use to make an Aboriginal civilization. They would have to have a 'what-if' post-Renaissance era though (shared art with one of the African civs), as it would be grossly inappropriate to have them represented by colonial Australia. Their lack of any urbanisation or centralized politics would rule them out if they were anywhere else in the world; is this an exception worth making?

Why should any of the modern nation states of South America be added? The mod covers the continent very well with the several existing native civilizations and, in contrast to the USA, the modern colonial nations have no special features.

Brazil (name it what you wish) is probably a good candidate- you had the idea of having the native civilization represent them up until the gunpowder era, then portray them merging with the colonialists.

These things are not unreasonable, but then, I would argue that making a Latin American-type civilization that features the native population mingling with the conquerors as a continuous thread isn't unreasonable either.

Been doing some more reading on this. Brazil is unique in that its population was (and is) significantly more mixed raced when compared to other colonial nations in the Americas. Almost 50% of the current population are descended from Amerindians such as the Tupi and Guarani apparently. I don't define a civilization on ethnicity alone of course, and I realize that it's a bit controversial, but I think including an all-era Brazilian civilization is reasonable and interesting.

I have a UU in mind, any suggestions for UB or UW? Leaders?

Which is really no more off-kilter than portraying "English" civilization as a single thread even though it involves Celts getting invaded and Romanized, and the Romano-Britons then getting invaded and Anglo-Saxonized, and the Anglo-Saxons then getting invaded and partly Vikingized, and the somewhat Norseish-Anglo-Saxons then getting invaded and partly Normanized.

Well to be fair, with the exception of the Romans, all of the mentioned peoples were Germanic, and geographical neighbours. Brazil is a mix of unrelated peoples from three different continents.

Other continents, though... honestly, I think they're pretty fairly represented. The only region that's definitely overrepresented compared to its size is Europe- again, I question the decision to have both Hungarian and Polish civilizations, because they represent the "civilization as nation-state" trap to me, and neither of them ever had much impact on any major center of civilization far from their borders. The Dutch and Portuguese wouldn't belong, either, if it wasn't for the impact their colonization and exploration had on the rest of the world- and neither Hungary nor Poland ever did anything like that.

Maybe one or the other, but both? For crying out loud, they even have the same unique-unit replacement...

People wanted more civs in Eastern Europe and those two were easy to add due to a wealth of art being available. Hungarians in particular are very active in the modding community, I think there might be more Hungarian leaderheads available than for any other civilization! Anyway, they're there now and Europe sets a standard for us to lift the over regions to.

Agree about the UUs though. Poland's couldn't be anything else but I should see if there are any suitable alternatives for Hungary, perhaps one from their earlier nomadic history. Incidentally there is a good quality Arpad leaderhead being made so odds are I'm going to remove Attila from the mod. He's fun, but just doesn't fit.

Africa is adequately represented, I think- the civilizations in Africa don't represent every inch of the continent, but I'm not sure it would be desirable to arrange things that way- we shouldn't necessarily be able to draw world maps in 500 AD or 1500 AD and say that every inch of land on the planet belonged to a 'civilization' that must be in the mod.

I'm pretty pleased with HR's coverage of Africa. Once Kongo is in, the only 'gaps' I see are Zimbabwe and a civilization in the area of Nigeria: the Hausa, or Kanem-Bornu. Benin is fascinating but really more a city state than a civilization.

Asia in general, I think, is adequately represented- roughly a quarter of all civilizations in the game are 'oriental' (as 19th century Europeans would have called them), and since two of those civilizations represent huge regions of the world that together have probably contained 30 to 40 percent of the human race since the dawn of recorded history, there's not much more you can do to increase diversity.

Burma is probably the only major oriental civilization that isn't represented in some form. Maybe the Malay, but they're somewhat covered by the broad scope I've given to Indonesia. Theoretically I could split Indonesia into Srivijaya (Malay) and Majapahit (Javan), but there's not enough material to justify that at this stage. A case could possibly be made for having some sort of 'South China' civilization, distinct from the Han dominated north, but I'd need to learn more about Chinese history to know if there's any basis for that or not. Beyond that, there are cultures such as the Cham and the Ainu that have or had distinct cultures and history at times but are really too minor to warrant their own civilization in HR.

There's plenty of other Central Asian civs that could be considered but it starts getting ridiculous having multiple civs with effectively the same city list. It gets even messier if you start considering dynasties such as the Timurids and the Mughals as civs - which I do not. The region is currently covered by the Kushan, Persians, Mongols and Turks. The latter 3 need to have their citylists reviewed still but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of Central Asia is covered (geographically, ethnically and culturally) by those four civs. The Khazars and the Uighurs are the pretty much the only groups I can think of where there might be some scope left for their inclusion.

Or representing the major civilizations of northern India as a single continuous thread despite repeated invasions and cultural reformations dating back to the Indo-European Völkerwanderungen if not earlier.

What would/could you separate Northern India into? At times it was ruled by the Persians, Greeks, Kushan, Mughals, or British, but none of those signified a separate civilization as such. Just different dynasties ruling over the same people - who were often united by various dynasties of their own. Other than the Indus civilization (which I don't consider part of the civ as the genesis of Northern India is really with the Mahajanapadas) and perhaps Bengal, the peoples of Northern India seem far too intertwined, culturally and politically, to seperate into different civilizations.

Sinhala (Sri Lanka) isn't currently represented.

The big gaps are in the Americas, where you run into the settlement pattern problem again. Logical candidates would be Brazil, a Caribbean-native civilization (Taino/Arawak), a Mound Builder or Cherokee civilization to complement the Iroquois, or something to indicate the natives of the Pacific Northwest.

I'm excited about the Anasazi going in, I've been working hard on them and have put together together some decent unit art for them, their leaders look great and they're going to have a fantastic custom made UW. UB is sorted, I just need to work out a UU and they're done.

I actually started working on the civ as the Mississippians but decided that what I had suited the Anasazi much better. I'd like to revisit the Mississippians some day though.

Note that if you take the Pacific Northwest, you should so give them the totem pole. Those were a Pacific Northwest custom and are about as out of place among the Lakota (Sioux) as giant stone obelisks carved with hieroglyphics would be in Babylon of the Amorites.

As far as I'm aware there were no cultural groups in the Pacific Northwest that developed urban centres or centralised political systems along similar lines to the already included Native American civs. I agree about the totem pole though, I've left it with the Sioux until I eventually find something more suitable.

 

[Xyth]

Below is a summary list of candidates for new civilizations. Colonial and modern nation states are purposely not included as they do not fit the definition I use for civilizations. The ones marked with a * are definitely happening at some point. Whether any of the others see the light of day depends primarily on art resources available and other such factors.

Europe
• Bulgars

Mediterranean
• Minoans

Africa
• Benin
• Hausa/Yoruba/Kanem-Bornu/Nigeria
• Kongo*
• Zimbabwe

West Asia
• Urartu/Armenia
• Saba/Yemen

Central Asia
• Khazar
• Uighur

South Asia
• Bengal
• Sinhala/Sri Lanka
• Burma

Oceania
• Aborigines

Americas
• Anasazi*
• Mississippi
• Brazil*​

Feel free to nominate favourites or additions but be aware that I don't wish to determine a finalized list at this time.

 

[Simon_Jester]

There's actually a decent amount of art I could use to make an Aboriginal civilization. They would have to have a 'what-if' post-Renaissance era though (shared art with one of the African civs), as it would be grossly inappropriate to have them represented by colonial Australia. Their lack of any urbanisation or centralized politics would rule them out if they were anywhere else in the world; is this an exception worth making?

If you've got spare civ slots without dispossessing anyone, sure.

Been doing some more reading on this. Brazil is unique in that its population was (and is) significantly more mixed raced when compared to other colonial nations in the Americas. Almost 50% of the current population are descended from Amerindians such as the Tupi and Guarani apparently. I don't define a civilization on ethnicity alone of course, and I realize that it's a bit controversial, but I think including an all-era Brazilian civilization is reasonable and interesting.

The idea of continuity is important- also, there's a clearly defined 'ancient' history for that civilization, with indications of riverine civilizations along the Amazon that were wiped out by epidemics before Europeans saw much of them.

Although you might consider integrating the Caribbean native societies, or some elements of Latin American civilization outside Brazil, depending on how you feel about it. It wouldn't give you clearly delineated nation-state boundaries in the modern world, but it would make for more flexibility and give you a few more options when it comes to unique building choices and whatnot.

Well to be fair, with the exception of the Romans, all of the mentioned peoples were Germanic, and geographical neighbours. Brazil is a mix of unrelated peoples from three different continents.

The Celts weren't Germanic; the Vikings were at best peripherally Germanic and had some considerably different customs from the Anglo-Saxons. The Normans were somewhat different from both and remained a distinct French-speaking aristocracy for centuries after their invasion.

Brazil is, racially, more stirred up- my point is that calling the native peoples' pre-Columbian history and the European-African-Indian-mestizo/mulatto culture of post-Columbian history a unified "Brazil" makes sense, in a way that doing the same thing for the US does not.

People wanted more civs in Eastern Europe and those two were easy to add due to a wealth of art being available. Hungarians in particular are very active in the modding community, I think there might be more Hungarian leaderheads available than for any other civilization! Anyway, they're there now and Europe sets a standard for us to lift the over regions to.

Okay, but if we have to delete civilizations, I think deleting Poland or Hungary would make more sense than deleting America.

Deleting America does to the 'modern' representativeness of the game what deleting Rome would do to its 'classical' representativeness.

Agree about the UUs though. Poland's couldn't be anything else but I should see if there are any suitable alternatives for Hungary, perhaps one from their earlier nomadic history. Incidentally there is a good quality Arpad leaderhead being made so odds are I'm going to remove Attila from the mod. He's fun, but just doesn't fit.

It wouldn't actually fit quite right historically, but can you find the 'war wagons' most famously associated with the Hussites? Still a Cuirassier replacement, but you could make them very different tactically, in a number of ways.

Just a thought.

What would/could you separate Northern India into? At times it was ruled by the Persians, Greeks, Kushan, Mughals, or British, but none of those signified a separate civilization as such. Just different dynasties ruling over the same people - who were often united by various dynasties of their own. Other than the Indus civilization (which I don't consider part of the civ as the genesis of Northern India is really with the Mahajanapadas) and perhaps Bengal, the peoples of Northern India seem far too intertwined, culturally and politically, to seperate into different civilizations.

You misunderstood my point. What I was saying in the quote you responded to is that calling northern India India, a distinct civilization in spite of the fact that it was repeatedly invaded and conquered by foreigners who spread a light overlay of their own culture onto the strong, enduring Indian substrate... that makes sense. It's fine.

Which is further justification-by-analogy for doing the same kind of thing with Brazil. The fact that a civilization spent large chunks of its history ruled by foreigners doesn't make it not-a-civilization, in and of itself. Not as long as it has a strong legacy of cultural distinctness and respectable periods of self-rule in between waves of conquerors.

Sinhala (Sri Lanka) isn't currently represented.

Though to some extent their history is tied up with that of the Tamils, unless I am badly mistaken.

I'm excited about the Anasazi going in, I've been working hard on them and have put together together some decent unit art for them, their leaders look great and they're going to have a fantastic custom made UW. UB is sorted, I just need to work out a UU and they're done.

Hmmm. How about looking at the legacy of societies like the Comanches and Apaches, who had excellent light cavalry and skirmishers? Granted, the Comanches dominated a somewhat different area and were as different from the Anasazi as the Mongols were from the Chinese, but the Apaches are arguably a better fit- they did live in much the same region of the American Southwest.

Giving them a powerful 'skirmishing' unique unit to replace the Musketeer, Grenadier, or Rifleman would be interesting. It would also break the trend of all the Native American civilizations getting their UB/UU/UWs early in the game and thus 'peaking' in ancient times.

 

[Packherd2]

Just some thoughts on the Mississippi Culture.

They'd require lots of speculation, of course, but how about
UB: Palisade or staked fort (castle)
UW: Snake Mound (Royal Cemetery)
Leader: Tuskaloosa
UU: No idea what to call them, but here's a great quote from DeSoto

Many were armed, walking upon it, with their bodies, legs, and arms painted and ochred, red, black, white, yellow, and vermilion in stripes, so that they appeared to have on stockings and doublet. Some wore feathers, and others horns on the head, the face blackened, and the eyes encircled with vermilion, to heighten their fierce aspect. So soon as they saw the Christians draw nigh they beat drums, and, with loud yells, in great fury came forth to meet them.

 

[Simon_Jester]

I think that in Europe and Asia, you've pretty much saturated the market. Guys like the Bulgars, Uighurs, and Armenians just don't add all that much: they never occupied much land, won great victories, or achieved any great heights of economic or cultural glory. They spent their history in the shadow of other empires, so what's the point? And they'd overlap in flavor with other such civilizations: the Bulgars with the other Eastern European civs, the Uighurs with the Mongols and Kushans, and so on.

Minoans could be interesting, except that they'd overlap very closely with the Phoenician civilization in terms of flavor- same problem.

I really think you should concentrate any further civilization-creation on Africa, the Americas, and possibly the Australian aborigines. The rest of the world is covered well enough that the new choices you're coming up with don't feel... new anymore.

The Mississippians might also get tie-ins with the Cherokee and other 'civilized tribes' of the American southeast- this might let you use a leader-head from Colonization to give them a second leader.

 

[davidtylr]

I think there needs to be a pre tutors leader for england. Somebody like Henry II or William the conqueror.

 

[Simon_Jester]

That's a good idea- but a bit tricky to implement. Elizabeth and Victoria are iconic leaders of England during two of its golden ages; Churchill is associated with what will probably become the most legendary and well-regarded of its wars. Add a fourth? I'm all for it, but who, and what traits?

Richard the Lionheart? William I? Edward I?

 

[Eucalyptus]

There's actually a decent amount of art I could use to make an Aboriginal civilization. They would have to have a 'what-if' post-Renaissance era though (shared art with one of the African civs), as it would be grossly inappropriate to have them represented by colonial Australia. Their lack of any urbanisation or centralized politics would rule them out if they were anywhere else in the world; is this an exception worth making?

No it isn't worth making, and worse, doing so could be considered as mockery.

The technological level of the Australian Aborigines at the time of first European contact was Neolithic, and lagged a long way behind that of, for instance, New Guinea, which isn't represented in the game. There were few (any?) permanent settlements, no agriculture and no domesticated animals (OK, dogs), no stonework (possibly pottery, but not brickwork) so no buildings, no archery and no use of metals. There was, in HR1.16 terms: Hunting, Carving and Fishing.

Such a Civilization would have no identifiable unique units (boomerang thrower?), or buildings, let alone wonders. Moreover, the word "Aboriginal" is more of an adjective than the formal name of anything. The Australian Aborigines consist(ed) of hundreds of distinct tribal groups, each of which had a name for itself.

 

[davidtylr]

That's a good idea- but a bit tricky to implement. Elizabeth and Victoria are iconic leaders of England during two of its golden ages; Churchill is associated with what will probably become the most legendary and well-regarded of its wars. Add a fourth? I'm all for it, but who, and what traits?

Richard the Lionheart? William I? Edward I?

I would probably go with William the conqueror. The reason being that the history of England and the world would be completely different if William didn't invade or was unsuccessful.

The technological level of the Australian Aborigines at the time of first European contact was Neolithic, and lagged a long way behind that of, for instance, New Guinea, which isn't represented in the game. There were few (any?) permanent settlements, no agriculture and no domesticated animals (OK, dogs), no stonework (possibly pottery, but not brickwork) so no buildings, no archery and no use of metals. There was, in HR1.16 terms: Hunting, Carving and Fishing.

Such a Civilization would have no identifiable unique units (boomerang thrower?), or buildings, let alone wonders. Moreover, the word "Aboriginal" is more of an adjective than the formal name of anything. The Australian Aborigines consist(ed) of hundreds of distinct tribal groups, each of which had a name for itself.

The aboriginals didn't get into farming or animal training because they were a race always on the move. Because of the harsh australian climate the whole tribe moved from place to place. They never really settled anywhere permanent. The aborigines were said to be the first to develop tools and some of the worlds oldest paintings and carving are in Australia.

 

[Xyth]

It wouldn't actually fit quite right historically, but can you find the 'war wagons' most famously associated with the Hussites? Still a Cuirassier replacement, but you could make them very different tactically, in a number of ways.

That would be brilliant but I suspect that there isn't any suitable art. Shall look though.

You misunderstood my point. What I was saying in the quote you responded to is that calling northern India India, a distinct civilization in spite of the fact that it was repeatedly invaded and conquered by foreigners who spread a light overlay of their own culture onto the strong, enduring Indian substrate... that makes sense. It's fine.

Ah oops, misinterpreted you. Sorry!

Though to some extent their history is tied up with that of the Tamils, unless I am badly mistaken.

The Sinhalese were originally from Bengal and migrated to the island of Sri Lanka in classical times, displacing the Tamil there. The two cultures have pretty much been at war ever since ><

Giving them a powerful 'skirmishing' unique unit to replace the Musketeer, Grenadier, or Rifleman would be interesting. It would also break the trend of all the Native American civilizations getting their UB/UU/UWs early in the game and thus 'peaking' in ancient times.

The Iroquois UU is a Musketman replacement. Point taken though.

Just some thoughts on the Mississippi Culture.

They'd require lots of speculation, of course, but how about
UB: Palisade or staked fort (castle)
UW: Snake Mound (Royal Cemetery)
Leader: Tuskaloosa
UU: No idea what to call them, but here's a great quote from DeSoto

The Mississippians might also get tie-ins with the Cherokee and other 'civilized tribes' of the American southeast- this might let you use a leader-head from Colonization to give them a second leader.

I've requested Snake Mound from hrochland, who has made many building and wonder models over the years. He just made an awesome model of the Cliff Place at Mesa Verde for me and several other pieces too. Hopefully he'll be interested. I have a palisade graphic and also a Cahokia-style mound graphic. So we have options there.

UU and unit art will be trickier, though they could probably share much of the Anasazi art with a bit of reskinning. I think someone has made Tuskaloosa before and I reckon it's entirely appropriate to add a Cherokee/Choctaw/Seminole/etc leader in the second slot. So I definitely think there is enough scope and material to add the Mississipians.

With their eventual inclusion I think we can consider North America sufficiently covered. I'm not aware of any other similarly advanced cultures on the continent.

I think that in Europe and Asia, you've pretty much saturated the market. Guys like the Bulgars, Uighurs, and Armenians just don't add all that much: they never occupied much land, won great victories, or achieved any great heights of economic or cultural glory. They spent their history in the shadow of other empires, so what's the point? And they'd overlap in flavor with other such civilizations: the Bulgars with the other Eastern European civs, the Uighurs with the Mongols and Kushans, and so on.

The Armenians intrigue me as they're a culture that has been around since the Bronze Age (Urartu) in a region where most of their neighbours have vanished or absorbed into one of many, many empires. They had a small empire of their own for a while in the Iron Age but nothing since. There's a bit of art that's been made for them too, so they'd be relatively easy to implement. We've covered that region very well though so I prefer to hold off for now and see if we have any space left later.

The Bulgars I know very little about but there's little to no art available and they'd feel much like another Hungary. I think the Khazar are probably the more interesting choice, and could provide a territorial foe to Russia, not to mention an actual empire that had Judaism as its state religion (one reason why I'm also interested in adding Saba/Yemen). Shall see.

I think there needs to be a pre tutors leader for england. Somebody like Henry II or William the conqueror.

That's a good idea- but a bit tricky to implement. Elizabeth and Victoria are iconic leaders of England during two of its golden ages; Churchill is associated with what will probably become the most legendary and well-regarded of its wars. Add a fourth? I'm all for it, but who, and what traits?

Richard the Lionheart? William I? Edward I?

I agree that England needs a medieval leader, I just haven't found any art that I like enough yet. I'm sure there's something decent out there though, so which leader we go with is probably best determined by who the art resembles most.

No it isn't worth making, and worse, doing so could be considered as mockery.

The technological level of the Australian Aborigines at the time of first European contact was Neolithic, and lagged a long way behind that of, for instance, New Guinea, which isn't represented in the game. There were few (any?) permanent settlements, no agriculture and no domesticated animals (OK, dogs), no stonework (possibly pottery, but not brickwork) so no buildings, no archery and no use of metals. There was, in HR1.16 terms: Hunting, Carving and Fishing.

Such a Civilization would have no identifiable unique units (boomerang thrower?), or buildings, let alone wonders. Moreover, the word "Aboriginal" is more of an adjective than the formal name of anything. The Australian Aborigines consist(ed) of hundreds of distinct tribal groups, each of which had a name for itself.

Yeah, I'm struggling to come up with even a framework for such a civilization, everything quickly turns to the realm of fantasy. As you mention, even naming the civ is taught with difficulty. Amazing culture and people but just too far outside the scope of the game to include, despite their geographical niche.

 

[davidtylr]

I did a little bit of research. I think William The Conqueror is the best. There are some good art work on him. Tell me what you think.

William the conqueror
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=13923

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=13458

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=11807

Harold Godwinson
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=11713

Arthur (I don't like it but here it is)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=12238

Henry IIIV (not the era we want but the art work is pretty good.)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=9183

 

[Keinpferd]

Below is a summary list of candidates for new civilizations. Colonial and modern nation states are purposely not included as they do not fit the definition I use for civilizations. The ones marked with a * are definitely happening at some point. Whether any of the others see the light of day depends primarily on art resources available and other such factors.

Europe
• Bulgars

Mediterranean
• Minoans

Africa
• Benin
• Hausa/Yoruba/Kanem-Bornu/Nigeria
• Kongo*
• Zimbabwe

West Asia
• Urartu/Armenia
• Saba/Yemen

Central Asia
• Khazar
• Uighur

South Asia
• Bengal
• Sinhala/Sri Lanka
• Burma

Oceania
• Aborigines

Americas
• Anasazi*
• Mississippi
• Brazil*​

Feel free to nominate favourites or additions but be aware that I don't wish to determine a finalized list at this time.

• The Minoans, for your personal idiosyncrasy!
• Bulgars, Romanians: easily to be derived from one south-eastern European stock in scenarios.
• Africans should be diverse going by the amount of UUs, UBs and differing unit art available. Maybe they should be looked at more in the way like Brazil for their importance and distinctness today. It would be interesting to play a modern African scenario featuring all the religious, ethnic and political antagonisms, that a commercial video game must avoid. Xyth, for you as a modder it's never regarded a faux pas to go into the political and religious, firstly because we players wouldn't like the mod less because of suggested "personal opinions" you would "impose" upon us, and secondly it's rather unlikely that you would seriously annoy anybody with being too heavy on values. It's rather a great opportunity to make the game more interesting, as you're not under the confinements, as said, of a commercial company.
• Brazil and South America: Perhaps one or two stock civs, and in scenarios they will appear as Brazil, Chile, and especially Venezuela. – It would be great to have a mechanism, that kind of secures, that on all realistic world maps, that involve continents, the U.S. or Brazil would spawn, after two of the initial civs died, assuming the full eighteen starting. As much as George Washington invading with war elephants is a one time joke in the ancient game period, as much you are missing the U.S., if they're not represented in modern times.
• Aborigines: Would be charming to include them as a family member, that just stayed in neolithicum and refused to accept the rules of the game. This would reduce the often over-accentuated what-if-thought of the Civ game to absurdum. Which is good. But then, who would ever play the Aborigines, if they can't really participate?
• Is it at all necessary to dismiss one civ to include the other? Does this still matter, after the total size of a mod has grown above a certain threshold?