Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

[Guandao]

Not sure if this suggestion will be any bit popular. But Nanzhao? There is no other Sinosphere Nations on the list for me to vote for and Nanzhao does seem to have been a distinct civilization for a while and may be interesting.

How about the Tanguts (Western Xia), Khitans, or Xiongnu?

 

[Zaarin]

I would love Harrapan (the Indus Valley Civ) to be in the game. They could be a great trade Civ. And since the developers have made clear they're willing to go with semi-mythological leaders (Dido for Carthage, Gilgamesh for Sumeria), they could always consult experts on pulling a name from one of the official seals or coinage. Or see if the experts refer to any of the humans on the coin by any name (IIRC, there's a seal with a man and a tiger that is suspected to be a ruling figure).

And definitely agree with the last suggestion.

Except for a few inscriptions in cuneiform, the Harrapan language(s) is undeciphered. We don't know what they called themselves or their leaders. Same problem as Minoans and Olmec. Even the theory that they spoke Proto-Dravidian is based purely on geography, and some scholars believe that another group preceded the Dravidians in India.

 

[Manifold]

Mali is much better than Ashanti.
More known, richer, cooler and ......better for sale.

 

[God of Kings]

As I said numerous times, Canada should be included.

For the third round, we could use the top ten from the first round and the top ten from the second round, like an "All-Stars" round.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Argentines
Benin/Dahomey
Benin/Nigeria
Berbers/Tuareg
Bulgarians/Romanians/Other Balkans
Canadians
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA
Cubans/Haitians/Other Caribbean
Etruscans
Gauls/Britons
Georgians
Gran Colombia/Other Colonial SA
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA
Irish/Scottish
Kushans/Bactrians
Lydians/Pontus/Other Anatolians
Maori/Other Polynesians
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Nepalese
Timurids/Khazars/Other Central Asia

...Are they not?

 

[Phrozen]

Czech\Kingdom of Bohemia. Amenities ( read Beer) and religion focused civ. UB could be Brewery and UU could be the Hussite War Wagon.

 

[luigilime]

Add Tuscany please

 

[Liufeng]

Argentines
Benin/Dahomey
Benin/Nigeria
Berbers/Tuareg
Bulgarians/Romanians/Other Balkans
Canadians
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA
Cubans/Haitians/Other Caribbean
Etruscans
Gauls/Britons
Georgians
Gran Colombia/Other Colonial SA
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW NA
Irish/Scottish
Kushans/Bactrians
Lydians/Pontus/Other Anatolians
Maori/Other Polynesians
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Nepalese
Timurids/Khazars/Other Central Asia

This is, for me, a little bit oversimplified and mashed up. Some of civs are on the same slot while the only thing they have in common is geographical proximity and totally elude historical and cultural differences.
More precisely, romanians are not in the Balkans but in the Carpates, they're language is a roman one while Bulgarian is slavic, and they descend from dacians while bulgarians from the Bulgars, from central Asia. I'd prefer to see that slot divided into three : Romania, Bulgary and Serbia, which had a powerful empire under the Dusans and is the best representative for the Balkans.
Same goes for cubans and haitians. Cubans started their independance movement in the momentum given by the liberation wars in Latin America, and is 90% inhabitated by white creoles or mixed descent, Haiti started their revolution out of frustration of the french hard colonial rule, which makes the only succeded slave rebellion, and making the island inhabitated mostly by african descent people. So I'd rather have these two also separated.
Irish and scottish is also a bit cringy, but you're far more expert than me on the british isles history, so I'll leave it under you're appreceation.
Finally, Timurids and Khazars only have their geographical proximity in common, because in culture, time, warfare and diplomatic relation, they have nothing in common. I wouldn't like Timur because he just reenacted the arabo-mongol rule, and his empire was simply too short lived. Khazaria, on the other hand, lasted for some centuries before its collapse, and wasthe only «jewish» empire outside Israel at some point and was on par with the Byzantine empire during its height.
In the end, I'd rather have a third thread more precise and thoughtful, than only a second too much mashed up.

 

[Orange1861]

Except for a few inscriptions in cuneiform, the Harrapan language(s) is undeciphered. We don't know what they called themselves or their leaders. Same problem as Minoans and Olmec. Even the theory that they spoke Proto-Dravidian is based purely on geography, and some scholars believe that another group preceded the Dravidians in India.

Yep, although the Indus Valley Civilization was the greatest of the early civilizations, we don't have a leader to represent them.

 

[The Kingmaker]

@Liufeng: By combining multiple options on the same slot, I'm not saying these different options are the same civ. I know several of them only share rough geographical proximity.

I'm just trying to give people multiple options here, since we are limited in both time and space, ie. it's not good to make the list super-long, and it's not good for forum elimination threads to drag on forever, as people will lose interest.

The slash marks can be considered to represent the word "or" here.

Also, Romania does get lumped into the Balkans as a region. It's not just about the mountains. Check out this map for example.

https://goo.gl/images/nt19Br

 

[Liufeng]

@Liufeng: By combining multiple options on the same slot, I'm not saying these different options are the same civ. I know several of them only share rough geographical proximity.

I'm just trying to give people multiple options here, since we are limited in both time and space, ie. it's not good to make the list super-long, and it's not good for forum elimination threads to drag on forever, as people will lose interest.

The slash marks can be considered to represent the word "or" here.

Also, Romania does get lumped into the Balkans as a region. It's not just about the mountains. Check out this map for example.

https://goo.gl/images/nt19Br

I know it's problematic, and I understand you wish to avoid multiplying the threads or make lists a tad too long. But I feel it is a bit wrong to do that way ...

 

[The Kingmaker]

Now that we're starting to include a lot of smaller and lesser known groups, I felt that we had two choices: between inclusivity or exclusivity, and between specificity and generality.

We could always make a list like this:

a Balkan civ
a medieval/modern Gaelic civ
a classical Celtic civ
a Pacific NW Native American civ
a Central Asian civ
etc.

I was just trying to find a balance between sufficient inclusivity for people to find an option that meshed with the option they want (ie. somebody who really wants Montenegro could vote for Bulgaria/Romania/other Balkans without us having to list every last tiny group) and sufficient specificity that people can at least relate to the few more major names that are listed.

Especially considering that any Round 3 would likely just be a tie-breaker between the top 10 from each of the first two rounds, I had to resist the tendency to list out every possible option and generalize a bit. It is a bit of a sacrifice, I know.

Given the rapidly multiplying elimination threads filling up the forums, we just can't drag this on past a potential Round 3.

 

[Xandinho]

The list seems ok to me, and I think there are enough civs that we can leave for a third round.

 

[Morningcalm]

Why don't we do a poll with many options (so separate entries for Pontus and Lydians, for example) so people can vote on the civs they like most, and we can select the top ones to enter an elimination game?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Why don't we do a poll with many options (so separate entries for Pontus and Lydians, for example) so people can vote on the civs they like most, and we can select the top ones to enter an elimination game?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that we have an elimination game (of sorts) to decide who gets featured in the elimination game?

 

[Morningcalm]

Polls are less fast paced than elimination games, but less unwieldy, and we can get results fast if we allow people to choose more than one civ to upvote in the poll.

 

[The Kingmaker]

However, the results would probably be redundant with the game's. We wouldn't need to play the game, because we'd already know who everybody wanted most.

 

[Xefjord]

Actually really like the idea of the Tanguts (Western Xia) and Khitans. Especially sense they are around the same time period as each other and would work well with a Song Dynasty Chinese Alternate leader

 

[Morningcalm]

However, the results would probably be redundant with the game's. We wouldn't need to play the game, because we'd already know who everybody wanted most.

Not necessarily. With elimination games, sometimes you are left with civs you don't like, and must choose from among them. It's a better way of winnowing down to people's second, third, fourth choice, etc civs than a poll (which is more for a general/preliminary/basic understanding of what civs people like *most*--the parallels to the Academy Awards voting system for Best Picture apply here).

 

[God of Kings]

Not necessarily. With elimination games, sometimes you are left with civs you don't like, and must choose from among them. It's a better way of winnowing down to people's second, third, fourth choice, etc civs than a poll (which is more for a general/preliminary/basic understanding of what civs people like *most*--the parallels to the Academy Awards voting system for Best Picture apply here).

In other words, it's like ranked votes, but with rationale.

Ranked voting is a much better system than first-past-the-post.