New gods and kings civ formula

[MARDUK80]

Well, if we consider the duration to begin from 1809 (granted, the country was under Russian rule, but had autonomy, so I think it to be an appropriate year) the score would be as follows:

Finland: 203*1.67/10*0.739*9 = 225

Thanks. Though, I think more suitable starting year could be 1150 AD the year of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Swedish_Crusade and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Finnish_wars. Ancient "Capital" - most important city - Vanaja was destroyd in 1311 AD gues that could be one important year as well. I would start from 1000 AD perhaps..

 

[AbsintheRed]

Actually 203 years for duration is already very generous
We used numbers where the civs were at least partly separate

 

[CMKMStephens]

New Zealand (not a serious attempt to convince anyone):

1.67*172/3*.0044*5

....2.1.

Lets pretend Australasia is a continent

1.67*172/25*.038*5

....2.2

Dammit.

Screw those islands! Only the closest six!

1.67*172/9*.0291*5

.....4.64 - THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN 'BOUT.

At least the Ngram is good.

 

[CTH]

I am not sure that I agree with the age of sweden, sure that it was a bit mixed up now and then with norway and denmark before Gustav Vasa but there was definitely an independent sweden long before that. For example the first (known) king of sweden Erik the Victorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Segersäll who became king 1042 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden for some other possible starting dates.
Gustav Vasa becoming king is a very important part of swedish history but sweden did exist before that (how else could Gustav Vasa take BACK sweden from the occupying danes if it did not exist before that).

with same numbers as used before but a earlier start date Sweden: 1042*2/10*0.739*23=3542

 

[tofofnts]

Just physical presence wasn't supposed to be what we're counting. Otherwise, the Polynesians would spike up. We used one of two empires for Polynesia (either Tongan or Hawaiian) and limited the number to 200 or 300 years. It gets a dramatically skewed result if you just count any existence in an area - especially the Inuit who were free from any outside influence so their culture never had to compete to stay intact.

I know I know I changed this when absinthered actually did research, not just blindly search throuh wikipedia like I do

 

[tofofnts]

What duration would you use for the Inuits?

Sorry, I really can't remember what I used and IMHO you are much more reliable of a source than I am

Of course, this is only for fun
The formula works to some extent - surprisingly well in a few cases - but doesn't really have any real statistical or factual reasons why to use exactly those attributes and constants

Exactly, right now my main goal is to make it as good as possible, i.e. add more variable so feel free to suggest any

Also, a huge thanks to AbsintheRed, you seem to spend hour straight fact checking instead of just lazily using a combination of wikipedia and guessing like I do I'm thinking of making a graph comparing points and google search results, just for the lulz

 

[tofofnts]

New Zealand (not a serious attempt to convince anyone):

1.67*172/3*.0044*5

....2.1.

Lets pretend Australasia is a continent

1.67*172/31*.038*5

....1.76

Dammit.

Screw those islands! Only the closest six!

1.67*172/9*.0291*5

.....4.64 - THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN 'BOUT.

At least the Ngram is good.

2.1 is probably an amazing score compared to canada, where i'm from

 

[tofofnts]

Graph comparing score with google search results

Same as above, but without Germany, China or Rome

 

[Polar Bear]

For the Inuit, what did you use for Duration?
There wasn't any 'Inuit Empire" at all
Also there is no government, and never were. They don't really get a modern bonus. Maybe 1.33 for still existing
And there are at top 3 UNESCO Heritage sites on at least partly Inuit populated lands
Also, there are already 4 civs on their continent
So I can't figure out how did you get more than 2000 for them, at first glance they should be lower than Brazil...

Even when counting them for 1000 years - which is very generous, when you compare it how you counted Duration for other civs - the result is:
1000*1.33/6*0.529*5=586

1000 years is not being generous at all. The Inuit started their conquest of the North American Arctic (a humongous region of the world, and one of the most difficult to survive in) which includes Greenland. It is estimated that they originate about 5000 years ago. 1000 years is not too much to ask.
Considering the amount of land they conquered - yes, conquered, how long they have been around for, the fact that they consist of around 85% of the population of the North American Arctic, if not more, the fact that they are doing better than any other northern Native American group, own a country-sized piece of land, and have kept their own language and culture, I would put them above the county of Brazil without question.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think conquered is an accurate word. Tamed, perhaps, although, even then they didn't adapt the landscape to serve them, they adapted to use the landscape. Either way, the formula seems designed to deal with organized states instead.

 

[GenjiKhan]

About Inuit,I have some questions:

Who would be their leader?
Which UU/UB/UI they would have?
And Which UA they would have and how their history influence in the choose of their UA?
And if they were released as a dlc,which scenario they would fit?

 

[Pouakai]

Polar Bear had a very detailed proposal of them at 2K forums, including how the leader screen would look, strategy and city lists

 

[Polar Bear]

About Inuit,I have some questions:

Who would be their leader?
Which UU/UB/UI they would have?
And Which UA they would have and how their history influence in the choose of their UA?
And if they were released as a dlc,which scenario they would fit?

Polar Bear had a very detailed proposal of them at 2K forums, including how the leader screen would look, strategy and city lists

I have an even more detailed list here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448438

GenjiKhan, when you have read through the thread, tell me your views.

 

[Polar Bear]

I don't think conquered is an accurate word. Tamed, perhaps, although, even then they didn't adapt the landscape to serve them, they adapted to use the landscape. Either way, the formula seems designed to deal with organized states instead.

Conquered is exactly the word that should be used. They won their land through bloody violence. They had adapted to that environment long before also.

If the Zulu, Celts, Polynesia, and the Huns are good enough for this formula, and for the game, then most definitely are the Inuit as well. It is no longer an argument on whether or not they are worthy of being in the game.

 

[AbsintheRed]

1000 years is not being generous at all. The Inuit started their conquest of the North American Arctic (a humongous region of the world, and one of the most difficult to survive in) which includes Greenland. It is estimated that they originate about 5000 years ago. 1000 years is not too much to ask.

I'm really curious what are your sources
AFAIK Inuits first appeared around 1000 years ago - and to be honest, I even find that 1000 years too much to use as duration for these calculations
Maybe 7-800 years, when they first appeared on Greenland, but even that seems strange when you look what we used for other civs

Btw, if you do link some sources, please don't get to me that their ancestors first appeared 5000 years ago
I know about pre-Dorset cultures, but it's totally irrelevant here. We are talking about the Inuit
If you count ancestors, than what number should we use for all the other civs?

 

[Cía]

I am not sure that I agree with the age of sweden, sure that it was a bit mixed up now and then with norway and denmark before Gustav Vasa but there was definitely an independent sweden long before that. For example the first (known) king of sweden Erik the Victorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Segersäll who became king 1042 years ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden for some other possible starting dates.
Gustav Vasa becoming king is a very important part of swedish history but sweden did exist before that (how else could Gustav Vasa take BACK sweden from the occupying danes if it did not exist before that).

with same numbers as used before but a earlier start date Sweden: 1042*2/10*0.739*23=3542

I agree on this age of sweden. When it comes o civ and sports, I think its ok to be a bit nationalistic... But nonetheless, sweden was independent for more than 200 years before the Kalmarunion, and on paper sweden didnt became independant again before Gusat Vasa. But in reality the union didnt last, sweden, norway and denmark had different kings and the power was shifting all the time.

 

[GenjiKhan]

I have an even more detailed list here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448438

GenjiKhan, when you have read through the thread, tell me your views.

I find them too restrictive to Ice biomes . In Hot maps or in maps where Tundras/Ice tiles are scarce,they have more disadvantages than other civs . Russia,which is also a Civilization that explored Tundras,doesn't have any problem with Hotter maps,unlike Inuits . Beyond that,I'd like to ask what is the connection between their history and these suggestions of UA(without this,any other Ice based civ could claim that this UA fits them better than Inuit)?

Considering the amount of land they conquered - yes, conquered, how long they have been around for, the fact that they consist of around 85% of the population of the North American Arctic, if not more, the fact that they are doing better than any other northern Native American group, own a country-sized piece of land, and have kept their own language and culture, I would put them above the county of Brazil without question.

I don't get it about why Inuit would have more points than Brazil .

 

[Polar Bear]

I'm really curious what are your sources
AFAIK Inuits first appeared around 1000 years ago - and to be honest, I even find that 1000 years too much to use as duration for these calculations
Maybe 7-800 years, when they first appeared on Greenland, but even that seems strange when you look what we used for other civs

Btw, if you do link some sources, please don't get to me that their ancestors first appeared 5000 years ago
I know about pre-Dorset cultures, but it's totally irrelevant here. We are talking about the Inuit
If you count ancestors, than what number should we use for all the other civs?

Some Internet sources.
http://www.itk.ca/publication/5000-years-inuit-history-and-heritage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Cultural_history
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/northamerica/before1500/history/inuit.htm

The 1000 years marks the time when the Inuit started their conquest of the North American Arctic, including Greenland. This is what I am focusing on. We cannot time this to just when they appeared in Greenland, which was after the Vikings. That was just part of their conquest. If you shorten the 1000 years you are ignoring history for your own view.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Calling it a conquest does a disservice to actual conquests. Alexander conquered, Genghis Khan conquered. The Inuit moved into an area and adapted to live there.

 

[Polar Bear]

I find them too restrictive to Ice biomes . In Hot maps or in maps where Tundras/Ice tiles are scarce,they have more disadvantages than other civs . Russia,which is also a Civilization that explored Tundras,doesn't have any problem with Hotter maps,unlike Inuits . Beyond that,I'd like to ask what is the connection between their history and these suggestions of UA(without this,any other Ice based civ could claim that this UA fits them better than Inuit)?

I don't get it about why Inuit would have more points than Brazil .

All maps have ice tiles on the edges, and the ability includes movement over these ice tiles. Other civilizations have abilities that are contingent on certain objects being on the map. Germany makes use of barbarians, Spain makes use of natural wonders, Mongolia makes use of horses, Polynesia makes use of water tiles. There can be conditions and map generations that lack these things.

Brazil has not been around for near as long as the Inuit. Brazil is a colony of Portugal, and was assisted greatly by Portugal in its development, and in the deconstruction of existing pre columbian cultures in the region. The Inuit have never had that extreme advantage, and succeeded on their own, defeating other tribes as well as Europeans. Then they managed to survive European colonization - unlike most other Native Americans, including the particularly impressive civilizations, such as the Mayans and Inca. The Inuit preserved their culture and language, and still dominate the population by far, and won back a humongous region of their original land. Brazil is yet to be tested to this degree.