[R&F] New Leaks (new civ Cree, new alt leader Chandragupta Maurya of India)

[Perseus Gold]

If we're counting city states, I mean, Brussels is in the game as it is. (As the discussion started around Belgium.)

I'll be honest, I don't know enough about Malaysian history to know what good representation for them might look like-- I don't think Indonesia had a lot of overlap, but I could be completely offbase. Siam was more Thailand, I believe. My East Asian history is... very poor, probably my biggest blind spot by far.



If you're implying a Mississippian civilization of some sort would be awesome-- I completely agree. If a reasonable leader could be procured, which I'm not sure about.

I think your definition of "civilization," however, is extremely limiting. Would you say that the longhouses built by the Pacific Northwest people were somehow lesser structures because they were not built by an agricultural people, even though there was no reason for their society to be structured that way? I'm not an anthropologist, so I have no academic qualifications here. But neither are the game designers, to my knowledge. And the game is structured around setting up alternative human societies along a generic "course of history." That should absolutely not exclude Native American groups whose societies evolved differently than European ones.

And those groups were diverse, and in interesting ways, which makes for interesting gameplay! So I'll stand by my original point: picking one group to represent the entire continent is inherently an arbitrary and limiting choice, and more should absolutely be included. I'll even add to it-- it's a travesty a North American group wasn't in the base game.

You are missing the point. Civilization is define archeologically as meeting minimum logistical requirements because civilization is man shaping their environment to meet their needs, not maintaining traditions to cope with the environment. That is exactly why the Pacific Northwest culture isn't a civilization, it's a culture.

 

[Perseus Gold]

If we're counting city states, I mean, Brussels is in the game as it is. (As the discussion started around Belgium.)

I'll be honest, I don't know enough about Malaysian history to know what good representation for them might look like-- I don't think Indonesia had a lot of overlap, but I could be completely offbase. Siam was more Thailand, I believe. My East Asian history is... very poor, probably my biggest blind spot by far.



If you're implying a Mississippian civilization of some sort would be awesome-- I completely agree. If a reasonable leader could be procured, which I'm not sure about.

I think your definition of "civilization," however, is extremely limiting. Would you say that the longhouses built by the Pacific Northwest people were somehow lesser structures because they were not built by an agricultural people, even though there was no reason for their society to be structured that way? I'm not an anthropologist, so I have no academic qualifications here. But neither are the game designers, to my knowledge. And the game is structured around setting up alternative human societies along a generic "course of history." That should absolutely not exclude Native American groups whose societies evolved differently than European ones.

And those groups were diverse, and in interesting ways, which makes for interesting gameplay! So I'll stand by my original point: picking one group to represent the entire continent is inherently an arbitrary and limiting choice, and more should absolutely be included. I'll even add to it-- it's a travesty a North American group wasn't in the base game.

Civilization produces domesticated humans by shaping their environment to produce selective pressures outside of those found in nature. If someone is living in harmony with nature's they are inherently not civilized. That isn't a value judgement, about civilized or uncivilized people being better, it's just the definition. Like someone reproducing because they are a wealthy accountant who uses that wealth to attract a mate is a domesticated human, civilized. Someone who attracts a mate by being an excellent Hunter isn't likely to be civilized because they are adapted to nature, not an artificial constructed environment.

 

[nzcamel]

I know three NA groups which meet criterias of settled civilization.
1) Cahokia (also known as Missisipi Civilization or Mound Builders) which is mostly obscure and I am not sure if we know any of its leaders good enough
2) Cherokee after adopting European inventions, but they are geographically close to Washington so they mess up with hotly desired "geographic balance" of civs
3) Pueblo adobe builders who were going to be added in BNW... And then it turned out tribal elders oficially disagreed on their people being displayed in a video game

To me, a civilization requires cities. So you need a permanent or largely permanent location with a division of labor and large-scale projects carried out for the common good. The Eastern Woodlands tribes--Iroquois, Shawnee, etc.--certainly qualify. The Iroquois (and other confederacies) add governing structures and foreign policy. They quickly adopted European-style foreign delegations as well. The only thing they didn't have are domesticated animals (except dogs) and relied on hunting instead. It was more land-intensive than Eurasian agriculture, but I don't think efficiency of land use (per acre) should be the make-or-break point.

Yeah, I'm surprised Krajzen left of the Iroquois who I think are the best fit for Civilization.

While I agree with most of your sentiment and comment (The Dutch and Belgians of certain times were indeed much closer than some Civs in game and their closest neighbour), I do think it sounds rather condescending to say The Netherlands and Belgium are 'the meeting place of bigger cultures' and 'a mish-mash of much bigger colliding cultures'. I mean, just because The Netherlands and Belgium are geographically smaller, does not reduce their cultural significance. Otherwise you could say the same for Germany, and before you know it your list ends in the pacific : P What is now Germany were a lot of different kingdoms before. They could easily have been their own countries, would that have made them a meeting place of bigger cultures?

Condescending? Hold your horses! What language is spoken all over Germany may I ask? (And yes...I know they have some regional dialects to, a bit like the example of Belgium.) It wasn't me who raised the difficulties of different languages being spoken in Belgium though. That was offered up as a defense to what I had earlier said; yet I think it strengthens my position. If different large languages (shared with other countries) are spoken there as a first language then it is a meeting ground of cultures, regardless of the borders that have been created.
And I never said that smaller equates to less significance; but where all things are equal, a bigger country with as strong a culture as a smaller one will end up more impactful just due to the numbers. The Netherlands v Germany is a great example of that.
You could divide Germany up again into principalities. They will all still be German principalities though.

There are plenty of differences between Belgium and The Netherlands, and personally (having lived in Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Denmark) I see more similarities between The Netherlands and Denmark, followed by Germany and then finally Belgium. So to say Belgium should feel included by the inclusion of The Netherlands feels wrong.

I find that hard to credit, even if there is truth to it. From an NZ point of view, I always felt that us and the other former colonies were represented in game to a degree by the U.S. Yet Belgium has far more in common with the Netherlands than we do with the States.

That said, I still don't think Belgium is a viable candidate over so many other empires and cultures that could be added to Civ. The Netherlands wouldn't have been either, if it hadn't been for their Golden Age of colonization, their arts, liberal attitude towards various subjects and to be completely frank, the many stereotypes surrounding the country that just lend themselves well to media (clogs, polders, tulips, orange etc.) If anything, the country is just better branded than Belgium, at least that's how I perceive them on a world stage.

That would be that distinctive culture we're talking about. They aren't better branded - They are simply much much older! And that older version often included Belgium! You may have noted that many people here aren't fond of modern Nations being included that have been around for maybe a couple of hundred years. That would include a part of the low countries that was seperated off only recently (in a Civ timeframe).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Also, don't forget - Civ5 ended up with 2 NA native civs. It's possible we'll see Iroquois or some other NA native civ at some point.

 

[TPangolin]

I hereby claim this space as another Colonialist Legacy.

Australia and Kampungs and Cree - oh my.

 

[dataswallow]

You are missing the point. Civilization is define archeologically as meeting minimum logistical requirements because civilization is man shaping their environment to meet their needs, not maintaining traditions to cope with the environment. That is exactly why the Pacific Northwest culture isn't a civilization, it's a culture.

I would propose, maybe in a slightly different light, why Civ would benefit from having what you pointed out as "technically not really civilizations" into the game: they act as set pieces for role playing. Think of Lego lines: the Pirates line had the imperials and the pirates, but they also had "Pacific Tiki-mask wearing islanders" in the set. The Wild West set would only be half complete if it didn't have the "Native Americans" in the playground (so to speak). If someobe wants to play a game where America not only fights off England and Spain (and Persia and Sumeria; I understand the absurdity but bear with me), but also wants to roleplay the "fighting the Natives to expand Manifest Destiny", then you would need an Native American civ too. Just like you would need a South American native civ to play a "scramble for the new world" scenario. And you could inversly play the "what if" history roleplay where Native Americans fended the Europeans back.

This is also why I am so excited to have Korea added in this expansion: I basically get to "make believe" history based on my own country. (I am South Korean btw) But you need a certain set of convincing set pieces to do this properly; playing as China/Japan while manually changing city names into Korean ones don't really cut it (I would know; I tried)

So how about this as a compromise? People can have a much more fun game by roleplaying their imagined alternative history by having numerous set pieces, even if you oppose Pacific Islanders or certain Native American tribes being added for not fitting the academic definition of what a civilization is?

After all, it's a game to have fun; not a history lesson simulator

 

[Vandlys]

Condescending? Hold your horses! What language is spoken all over Germany may I ask? (And yes...I know they have some regional dialects to, a bit like the example of Belgium.) It wasn't me who raised the difficulties of different languages being spoken in Belgium though. That was offered up as a defense to what I had earlier said; yet I think it strengthens my position. If different large languages (shared with other countries) are spoken there as a first language then it is a meeting ground of cultures, regardless of the borders that have been created.
And I never said that smaller equates to less significance; but where all things are equal, a bigger country with as strong a culture as a smaller one will end up more impactful just due to the numbers. The Netherlands v Germany is a great example of that.
You could divide Germany up again into principalities. They will all still be German principalities though.

German. Your point being? Dutch is spoken all over The Netherlands : P I seriously don't see where you are going with this, but I hope you can clarify.
Sure, language is an important part of culture and identity. That's why there are so many dialects. And I'm sure that culturally at least, Germans in the North-East share more with Danish people than with Bavarians.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that your argument didn't sound like you were saying "They both have cultures" it sounded like you were saying "The Netherlands and Belgium's cultures are parts of the cultures of their neighbours, and not their own", to which I said, you could say that for every neighbouring country and it's a moot point. Furthermore, a larger country being more impactful purely due to their size is simply not true. Look at Japan, look at The Netherlands. Both small countries with a relatively low population compared to their numbers, but both have (had) huge impact on cultures surrounding them.

I find that hard to credit, even if there is truth to it. From an NZ point of view, I always felt that us and the other former colonies were represented in game to a degree by the U.S. Yet Belgium has far more in common with the Netherlands than we do with the States.

I can't really reply to your comparison, because I don't know how close you are to the states. I can simply say the mentality of interpersonal relationships is more similar between Danes and Dutch people, than Dutch people and Belgian people. The same goes for work environments and mentality and behaviour in school and university. It's not something I have only experienced first-hand, but have also heard a lot of other expats say.

That would be that distinctive culture we're talking about. They aren't better branded - They are simply much much older! And that older version often included Belgium!

That last part is certainly very true, which indeed makes Belgium a hard country to include in the franchise. Note, I'm not debating that with you at all : ) I completely agree, as do I think we agree on most of our points. I merely wanted to contest your phrasing, but maybe I should have made sure I understood you correctly first! Sorry about that : ) Also, I don't think countries need to be old to get their branding up and running. Most of what made/makes The Netherlands famous made them famous within their first century of existence. The US, however, has only become culturally significant in the last century, even though they have existed for neary three centuries, when Hollywood became a thing and televisions, radio and the internet became wildly used.
So I do think you make sense in your original points, but I just mean to say that sometimes I think your arguments lack a bit of nuance : ) Just my opinion : )

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

If you have to search that hard you are clearly over inflating the importance of a minor player not representative of their people at their most iconic.

What I am saying is that there is a group of players who always gets triggered every time a female leader is announced. Though it may be hard to find a female leader for Cree, it is entirely possible when they do find one and announce that female leader into the game it's going make someone unhappy. I always prefer new leaders I haven't heard of to at least expand my knowledge of leaders and civilizations even if they are a Female leader over an iconic classic leader. After all its a game to have fun with not some historical simulator between history's classic leaders.

 

[nzcamel]

German. Your point being? Dutch is spoken all over The Netherlands : P I seriously don't see where you are going with this, but I hope you can clarify.

Is it spoken all over Belgium too? Keeping in mind that Belgium was only separated from the Netherlands relatively recently.
i.e. the low countries like Switzerland are a place where larger cultures bumped into each other.

Sure, language is an important part of culture and identity. That's why there are so many dialects. And I'm sure that culturally at least, Germans in the North-East share more with Danish people than with Bavarians.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that your argument didn't sound like you were saying "They both have cultures" it sounded like you were saying "The Netherlands and Belgium's cultures are parts of the cultures of their neighbours, and not their own", to which I said, you could say that for every neighbouring country and it's a moot point.

I never said that. I said that some of the smaller countries in Europe are places where the culture of larger countries meet. It isn't that there isn't any local culture that is distinct to that country (Switzerland and the Netherlands both have very strong cultures given their small size); but a part of that is the result of the larger cultures bumping into each other! It is nonsensical to think that the low countries weren't heavily influenced by France and Germany, and even England/G.B./the U.K. And that is part of what shapes their culture.

Furthermore, a larger country being more impactful purely due to their size is simply not true. Look at Japan, look at The Netherlands. Both small countries with a relatively low population compared to their numbers, but both have (had) huge impact on cultures surrounding them.

I wouldn't call Japan small. It's not big (unless we're talking population), but it isn't Belgium either! Both (Japan and the Netherlands) have punched above their weight in history. Both deserve to be in the game every single time. But both are more influenced by their bigger neighbors than they have influenced them. They have done well to hold their own in many ways...but they have still incorporated more from the bigger countries than the other way around.
None of this is making a good case for Belgium being in the game if we only have 50 odd Civs.

I can't really reply to your comparison, because I don't know how close you are to the states. I can simply say the mentality of interpersonal relationships is more similar between Danes and Dutch people, than Dutch people and Belgian people. The same goes for work environments and mentality and behaviour in school and university. It's not something I have only experienced first-hand, but have also heard a lot of other expats say.

We are on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. Even Australia (who we are more alike than anyone) is separated from us by a decent size sea; which makes us very different culturally compared to most neighbouring countries.

That last part is certainly very true, which indeed makes Belgium a hard country to include in the franchise. Note, I'm not debating that with you at all : ) I completely agree, as do I think we agree on most of our points. I merely wanted to contest your phrasing, but maybe I should have made sure I understood you correctly first! Sorry about that : ) Also, I don't think countries need to be old to get their branding up and running. Most of what made/makes The Netherlands famous made them famous within their first century of existence. The US, however, has only become culturally significant in the last century, even though they have existed for neary three centuries, when Hollywood became a thing and televisions, radio and the internet became wildly used.
So I do think you make sense in your original points, but I just mean to say that sometimes I think your arguments lack a bit of nuance : ) Just my opinion : )

Yeah, we do agree on plenty
The U.S. isn't just significant in the last century. They have only been a super power for the last 70 odd years, and the lone super power for not even 30 years. But they were a regional power long long before that, with their loss to the British early in the 19th century probably being the last time they weren't the force to be reckoned with in the Western Hemisphere (that's a reasonable chunk of the world to dominate). Right from their foundation they were massively significant as they successfully brought back democracy to the world after an almost 1800 year absence (yes...others tried and had minor successes of that front (Iroquois being possibly the most successful), but by and large other than the U.K. -on own it's gradual slow path to democracy- the rest of the world was incredibly authoritarian pre the U.S. (and don't make me laugh by bringing up France and their take on creating a "democracy" ).) I think the U.S. succeed on this front because they looked to the Roman Republic, when the other European countries were more inspired to restore the Empire instead *face-palm*. Their Constitution is still bullet proof in a way that few others around the world are; meaning that it is impossible for a tyrant to successfully take over. Like it or not, but the combo of the 1st and 2nd amendments are the real steel that stops too much power ever accumulating in too few hands.
The E.U. has nothing like it, and their takeover of Europe is almost complete.

No...the U.S. was massively influential on the world (at least the one that was transpiring in their wake) long before WWI or WWII.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, we do agree on plenty
The U.S. isn't just significant in the last century. They have only been a super power for the last 70 odd years, and the lone super power for not even 30 years. But they were a regional power long long before that, with their loss to the British early in the 19th century probably being the last time they weren't the force to be reckoned with in the Western Hemisphere (that's a reasonable chunk of the world to dominate). Right from their foundation they were massively significant as they successfully brought back democracy to the world after an almost 1800 year absence (yes...others tried and had minor successes of that front (Iroquois being possibly the most successful)), but by and large other than the U.K. -on own it's gradual slow path to democracy- the rest of the world was incredibly authoritarian pre the U.S. (and don't make me laugh by bringing up France and their take on creating a "democracy" ).) I think the U.S. succeed on this front because they looked to the Roman Republic, when the other European countries were more inspired to restore the Empire instead *face-palm*. Their Constitution is still bullet proof in a way that few others around the world are; meaning that it is impossible for a tyrant to successfully take over. Like it or not, but the combo of the 1st and 2nd amendments are the real steel that stops too much power ever accumulating in too few hands.
The E.U. has nothing like it, and their takeover of Europe is almost complete.

No...the U.S. was massively influential on the world (at least the one that was transpiring in their wake) long before WWI or WWII.

I'd also like to add that in the process of bringing back a form of democracy, we successfully won our independence from the world's superpower at that time in history, and then gave others the idea of revolutions such as France not long after, Haiti, and many other countries in the western hemisphere eventually.

 

[zebenji]

The Cree? Really? Woohoo! One civ to cross off my wishlist. Christmas came a bit late this year but whatever!

 

[antimony]

Count me as a Canadian who's enthusiastic about the addition of the Cree as a Civ.

Somewhat amused by people trying to litigate current political issues here. Having a historically nomadic group being portrayed as a sedentary Civ in game is not new to Civ6. As others pointed out, choosing the Cree rather than one of the more sedentary North American first peoples could be primarily due to gameplay (adding a 2nd civ with tundra bonuses, conveniently fitting in a TSL map) or because it's well-known to Canadians who are a major part of the player base.

 

[steveg700]

What I am saying is that there is a group of players who always gets triggered every time a female leader is announced.

Well, I don't think anybody gets triggered by England having a queen. Or, say, Catherine or Isabella showing up on the leader screen. It's when it feels like a blatant case of tokenism, choosing a leader for their gender rather than any other notable quality or accomplishments.

To many people, Civ is a title bout between the greatest of the greats. Picking obscure leaders goes against that grain.

 

[evanaurora]

Well, I don't think anybody gets triggered by England having a queen. Or, say, Catherine or Isabella showing up on the leader screen. It's when it feels like a blatant case of tokenism, choosing a leader for their gender rather than any other notable quality or accomplishments.

To many people, Civ is a title bout between the greatest of the greats. Picking obscure leaders goes against that grain.

The key words being "to many people." Which is to say-- not all, and I would argue, not even close to a majority.

On this forum, I think the majority opinion is that a variety of interesting leaders is the most important thing. A mix of the traditional lauded leaders and villains-- and important fascinating characters not as prominent in the traditional narratives. Often that means including overlooked women!

In the wider civ-playing world, I'd hazard that the majority just think it's neat when an unconventional leader is chosen, but don't put like, this weird emotional value into it. My father, my male cousins, and several of my male friends-- all of whom are very different from each other politically and background wise-- are casual male civ players in my life. And none of them care.... at all.... when Catherine de Medici is leading France in their games. (which isn't a choice that's loved by the majority on this forum, I'll freely grant! however Wrong that opinion is )

I'd say then that "triggered" is a fair assessment for this insular group of- mostly male- video game fans that are already whipped up about Females in their Vidya Games in general, who automatically react to any female leader being announced by thinking of All The Worthy Male Leaders who could have taken her place.

Finally, which, this is probably the millionth time someone has said this, no one person is the ultimate arbiter of "notable quality," an inherently subjective assessment.
Sorry if this comes across as overly confrontational-- I haven't had my morning coffee yet, I'm on edge.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The key words being "to many people." Which is to say-- not all, and I would argue, not even close to a majority.

On this forum, I think the majority opinion is that a variety of interesting leaders is the most important thing. A mix of the traditional lauded leaders and villains-- and important fascinating characters not as prominent in the traditional narratives. Often that means including overlooked women!

In the wider civ-playing world, I'd hazard that the majority just think it's neat when an unconventional leader is chosen, but don't put like, this weird emotional value into it. My father, my male cousins, and several of my male friends-- all of whom are very different from each other politically and background wise-- are casual male civ players in my life. And none of them care.... at all.... when Catherine de Medici is leading France in their games. (which isn't a choice that's loved by the majority on this forum, I'll freely grant! however Wrong that opinion is )

I'd say then that "triggered" is a fair assessment for this insular group of- mostly male- video game fans that are already whipped up about Females in their Vidya Games in general, who automatically react to any female leader being announced by thinking of All The Worthy Male Leaders who could have taken her place.

Finally, which, this is probably the millionth time someone has said this, no one person is the ultimate arbiter of "notable quality," an inherently subjective assessment.
Sorry if this comes across as overly confrontational-- I haven't had my morning coffee yet, I'm on edge.

Yeah, I'd certainly not want people to judge humanity based on what they see in youtube comments.

 

[bbbt]

To many people, Civ is a title bout between the greatest of the greats. Picking obscure leaders goes against that grain.

I mean Shaka and the Zulu has been a staple since the first, and I don't think they'd appear on a historian's top 10 list of 'greatest' even sub-saharan civilizations. They just have a higher pop-history profile, mainly because 'Zulu' the movie was a big hit probably right around when Meier was young.

Honestly, based on youtube and steam comments, a lot of those folks ideas of who the 'greatest' leaders are primarily based on prior Civ games. They just seem to want the same leaders as prior editions (and possibly the same game remade in better graphics).

Anyways, I don't know how all these threads devolve into this. Maybe there should just be one "Who counts as a civilization" thread people can argue in. Also "1UPT death of the series or not", "Civ 4 was better", and "AI sucks" threads.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Civilization produces domesticated humans by shaping their environment to produce selective pressures outside of those found in nature. If someone is living in harmony with nature's they are inherently not civilized. That isn't a value judgement, about civilized or uncivilized people being better, it's just the definition. Like someone reproducing because they are a wealthy accountant who uses that wealth to attract a mate is a domesticated human, civilized. Someone who attracts a mate by being an excellent Hunter isn't likely to be civilized because they are adapted to nature, not an artificial constructed environment.

Where did you get this definitions and concepts? Surely not from an anthropology class.

 

[Guandao]

Where did you get this definitions and concepts? Surely not from an anthropology class.

As someone who has a masters and bachelor degrees in Anthropology, I totally agree with your comment.
Enough talk about whether the North Amerindians qualify for "Civilization" status, this thread is for discussing the leak!


I showed my mom this picture and asked her to translate the white subtitles. It's talking about something which provides housing, production, food, and "luxury". The OP probably has a better translation for this.

I wonder what this Cree unique improvement is called? Does it have to do with buffaloes?

 

[steveg700]

I'd say then that "triggered" is a fair assessment for this insular group of- mostly male- video game fans that are already whipped up about Females in their Vidya Games in general, who automatically react to any female leader being announced by thinking of All The Worthy Male Leaders who could have taken her place.

Well, that's a reductive negative characterization. I mean, if you whittle any pool of commenters down to enough of a minority, you'll find someone to fit a negative caricature. Of course, the danger is taking that ugly sliver and alleging that anyone who doesn't unilaterally distance themselves from that sliver can just be lumped in with them. That is a crucible in our current political climate that is opening a way for revisionism. And history buffs do get rankled by revisionism.

Finally, which, this is probably the millionth time someone has said this, no one person is the ultimate arbiter of "notable quality," an inherently subjective assessment.
Sorry if this comes across as overly confrontational-- I haven't had my morning coffee yet, I'm on edge.

You seem perfectly civil to me, but calling something subjective is a frequent means of being equivocal. Sure, there's a degree of subjectivity in determining notability, but it's not as utterly subjective as "my favorite color is green". It's not so arbitrary that all meritocratic notions and the resultant discussions should go out the window. And that is happening in a lot of conversations as well, with folks openly saying they want leaders picked solely as gender tokens.

I mean Shaka and the Zulu has been a staple since the first, and I don't think they'd appear on a historian's top 10 list of 'greatest' even sub-saharan civilizations. They just have a higher pop-history profile, mainly because 'Zulu' the movie was a big hit probably right around when Meier was young.

Honestly, based on youtube and steam comments, a lot of those folks ideas of who the 'greatest' leaders are primarily based on prior Civ games. They just seem to want the same leaders as prior editions (and possibly the same game remade in better graphics).

I'd concur that Shaka is a pretty good example of a rotten leader that is kept around for the sake of legacy, given that he went nuts and damaged that which he ruled. He's notable for being iconic, rather than accomplished. Ghandi's another odd legacy, given that he never held any office of authority, who also owes some of his icon status to a hit movie. Of course, these are just amusing characters to many players. There are certainly long-time fans who just want to see impis rampage and nukes fly.

But again, it would be equivocal to suggest that these odd ducks render the merit discussion moot.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

As someone who has a masters and bachelor degrees in Anthropology, I totally agree with your comment.
Enough talk about whether the North Amerindians qualify for "Civilization" status, this thread is for discussing the leak!

View attachment 483870
I showed my mom this picture and asked her to translate the white subtitles. It's talking about something which provides housing, production, food, and "luxury". The OP probably has a better translation for this.

I wonder what this Cree unique improvement is called? Does it have to do with buffaloes?

I was thinking it might be a Buffalo Pound. It's basically a big trap for catching and killing bison. The Cree word for it is Pihtokahan, according to a Cree-English dictionary I googled. A bison carcass provided both food and trade goods, so it kind of makes sense to benefit from nearby resources.