New gods and kings civ formula

[tofofnts]

This formula is working fairly well.

Thanks

 

[Louis XXIV]

Just as I guessed, Polynesia has 9 heritage sites for a pop. of 6,274,742. will caluculate points soon

I don't think it'll change much, but what was the territory at greatest extent? I had the pop at 8 million but I essentially used Oceania minus Australia and Papua New Guinea.

 

[CYZ]

Polynesia should scory low I think. Let's be fair, if you asked 100 people here to name 10 civs deserving to be included before Polynesia was known as DLC... I doubt it would be named more than once to be honest.

I really wonder how no-brainer civs such as Persia, Greece, Rome, China, England and Japan rate. You'd expect them to score high but I'm not so sure. I'd expect Songhai and Siam to score relatively low.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Songhai, at its height, was much of west Africa. That's a decent population size.

 

[tofofnts]

I don't think it'll change much, but what was the territory at greatest extent? I had the pop at 8 million but I essentially used Oceania minus Australia and Papua New Guinea.

It's hard to tell what "polynesia" really is, since they have Honolulu and Aotaeroa (New Zealand) as cities and there never has been a civ that controlled both, but the map on the background of the loading screen and the city names imply that polynesia is the polynesian triangle. After adding up the population of each country in polynesia (according to wikipedia) I got a bit over 6mil

 

[tofofnts]

Polynesia should scory low I think. Let's be fair, if you asked 100 people here to name 10 civs deserving to be included before Polynesia was known as DLC... I doubt it would be named more than once to be honest.

I really wonder how no-brainer civs such as Persia, Greece, Rome, China, England and Japan rate. You'd expect them to score high but I'm not so sure. I'd expect Songhai and Siam to score relatively low.

Actually it did score low.

actually I was wrong Polynesia score is pathetic

59

 

[GenjiKhan]

Well,what would be the result of Brazil,considering two situations:

1)from Independence(1822) till the beginning of the Republic(1889);

2)From Independence(1822) till nowadays(2012);

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's hard to tell what "polynesia" really is, since they have Honolulu and Aotaeroa (New Zealand) as cities and there never has been a civ that controlled both, but the map on the background of the loading screen and the city names imply that polynesia is the polynesian triangle. After adding up the population of each country in polynesia (according to wikipedia) I got a bit over 6mil

There's been no organized state that controlled both, but they were both part of the Polynesian civilization. This is hard to fit in the formula. I calculated the 400-500 years of the Tui'Tonga empire for the duration. But it's clear that the entire Polynesian superculture is included as far as population, world heritage sites, etc.

 

[tofofnts]

Well,what would be the result of Brazil,considering two situations:

1)from Independence(1822) till the beginning of the Republic(1889);

2)From Independence(1822) till nowadays(2012);

1) 14,377!!!!!!
2)40,771!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HOLY #*@$*

*gasps for air* As we can see Brazil is about 20 times as important as the netherlands

 

[tofofnts]

There's been no organized state that controlled both, but they were both part of the Polynesian civilization. This is hard to fit in the formula. I calculated the 400-500 years of the Tui'Tonga empire for the duration. But it's clear that the entire Polynesian superculture is included as far as population, world heritage sites, etc.

Since there hasn't been a unified state, I used Kamehameha's state for the duration (since Kamehameha is the leader of the ingame civ) but the polynesian triangle for everything else

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think Kamehameha is the ideal target period. Certainly, even the Hawaiian Kingdom lasted longer than he did.

As for Brazil, this does demonstrate a difficulty in separating time of existence from time of importance. Unfortunately, that's not an objective quality.

BTW, It would be great if you try Sumeria next (for a unified state, use either Sargon's empire or the Third Dynasty of Ur). I'm not sure how to get reliable numbers for the modern population of southern Iraq.

 

[tofofnts]

I don't think Kamehameha is the ideal target period. Certainly, even the Hawaiian Kingdom lasted longer than he did.

By that I meant the Hawaiian kingdom not him himself

 

[Louis XXIV]

What was the duration number? If it was shorter than 300 years, use that one from Tonga (alternatively, you can go with 550 years to take the legends at their most generous).

 

[tofofnts]

BTW, It would be great if you try Sumeria next (for a unified state, use either Sargon's empire or the Third Dynasty of Ur). I'm not sure how to get reliable numbers for the modern population of southern Iraq.

This ones gonna be tough, as the akkadian empire (the sargon one), actually owned part of modern syria as well as Iraq, but I should get a rough statistic soon (rough because the iraqi provinces are quite large
EDIT: while akkadia is seperate from Sumer, it owned most of Sumer and is much easier to find data on. Hope it's good enough, not sure I will be able to find enough data to do it on the Sumer you wanted

 

[tofofnts]

What was the duration number? If it was shorter than 300 years, use that one from Tonga (alternatively, you can go with 550 years to take the legends at their most generous).

It was less than 300, I'll update Polynesia when I am done Sumer

 

[Louis XXIV]

Akkad was an outsider who conquered the area. Sumer has a fairly distinct area culturally that, even after it collapsed, people still referred to as Sumer. It's about half the size of the Akkadian Empire, but a rough estimate everywhere Baghdad and south would work.

 

[Buccaneer]

In my opinion, land area is much more important than population size. Most wars (and royal marriages) were about controlling the territory (and its resources, access, routes, etc.) regardless how many people populated it.

 

[tofofnts]

447 for Sumer, Ok, not great

 

[Louis XXIV]

Population helps give an idea of economic sophistication of the civilization. Many modern civilizations are successful because of the base they inherited. The only complication are when other civilizations after were the ones to build it up (the Celts might be an example here).

 

[tofofnts]

In my opinion, land area is much more important than population size. Most wars (and royal marriages) were about controlling the territory (and its resources, access, routes, etc.) regardless how many people populated it.

Canada has a greater area than USA. Kazakhstan has a larger area than the UK and France combined. Not all land is equal and it doesn't matter how many resources you have if you have no one to defend it or work it.

Compare this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_area
To this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

The first one is definitely more correlated to power.