Progenitor Civs; My Own Answer to Genericization

[Praetyre]

Well whatever a tie between Olmec and Polynesian makes no sense. I do not know where you are getting that from. Olmecs are the homegrown people of the region and do not have a anything to do with polynesian.

I have heard that the present two competing hypothesis regarding the origin of the Polynesian people place them either as the descendants of Taiwanese aborigines or Mesoamerican peoples. Many Olmec statues strongly resemble Polynesian and African facial features, and I'm certainly not the first to speculate on the matter. It's a bit off topic, though, since that particular origin is probably too much in dispute to fit into an early plan like this.

Japan's original inhabitants came from Asia, and then the language was swallowed up by the later Chinese immigrants. Japan only has any influence in Austronesian languages because of later events.

Could you be a little more specific as to what part of Asia the Jomon people originated from? We are talking about the world's largest continent here. I agree with you on the linguistic front; still, this Wiki article makes an interesting alternative case in it's own right.

The Pacific Islanders have been sorta isolated for a while linguistically. Then a rapid influx from later languages.

I presume here you refer to European colonization?

There are plenty of Mesoamerican people with very significant contributions to the scene. For example vanilla comes from Mesoamerica forget which group it was right now. I always wanted a real scenario for the different groups.

There certainly are, but I don't see why having them all spring off Clovis is any odder than having PIE's spawn most modern day European civs.

It it makes you feel better I have recently looked at how the first people populated the Americas.

I was under the impression that the first Amerindians were Siberians who walked across the frozen Bering Strait 30-50,000 years ago. No expert on the subject, though, so if subsequent scholarship has rendered this outdated then feel free to correct me.

It was by boat probably, but only from north Asia.

When are we talking? I thought boats (as in canoes, not barges) were developed in the early Neolithic or very late Paleolithic, well after the Americas had been populated.

The Austronesian developed later then people i thought were entering North America. There are multiple waves of language groups entering North American like the Na Dene. They occur a different periods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na-Dene_languages

Anyway none of it is simple to fit to the civilizations selected by the game. You have to discard a lot of people in between, but I would not stretch things way out that do not link up.

Well, if the in-between people don't have a C2Cable culture with it's own unique buildings and units, it's probably safe to have a direct line going from Clovis to, say, Cherokee and mention these earlier peoples in the context of the dynamic civ names (Pre-Jomon for Prehistoric Japan, for instance).

 

[johny smith]

I have heard that the present two competing hypothesis regarding the origin of the Polynesian people place them either as the descendants of Taiwanese aborigines or Mesoamerican peoples. Many Olmec statues strongly resemble Polynesian and African facial features, and I'm certainly not the first to speculate on the matter. It's a bit off topic, though, since that particular origin is probably too much in dispute to fit into an early plan like this.

Maybe some theories were tossed around, but all others have been clearly shot down because there is no artifacts to show Pacific influence. You can clearly see that there is a link from the Arctic artifacts. Hell some artifacts might of had European influence, but were associated later in time.

Could you be a little more specific as to what part of Asia the Jomon people originated from? We are talking about the world's largest continent here. I agree with you on the linguistic front; still, this Wiki article makes an interesting alternative case in it's own right.

The Jomon are so old it is a mystery where from exactly. The later Han stuff clearly has a yellow river culture influence. The Yayoi people brought rice from present day China and the written script developed from a similar Han character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_people#Yayoi_people

I presume here you refer to European colonization?

Yes mostly but Chinese and east Asians had contact before, but not in such a large change as the Europeans.

There certainly are, but I don't see why having them all spring off Clovis is any odder than having PIE's spawn most modern day European civs.

That is the problem there are a lot of steps after Clovis. Just going from Clovis is like taking the first Indo-Europeans in Europe and jumping to Prussia.

I was under the impression that the first Amerindians were Siberians who walked across the frozen Bering Strait 30-50,000 years ago. No expert on the subject, though, so if subsequent scholarship has rendered this outdated then feel free to correct me.

Not that early. This is the latest, but yes some DNA people will argue sooner because of the mitochondrial DNA line . If sooner then there were multiple waves from Siberia. Either way like I said before mitochondrial only follows the daughter of the mother, and then her daughter and etc. No one will know anytime soon the male line. Just you can look at the latest link below. The recent argument was by boat along the north pacific coast or through Alberta.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108121618.htm

When are we talking? I thought boats (as in canoes, not barges) were developed in the early Neolithic or very late Paleolithic, well after the Americas had been populated.

Rafts were at least 40,000 years ago like the first aborigines in Australia. Boats as in craved out of wood were in the Neolithic.

Well, if the in-between people don't have a C2Cable culture with it's own unique buildings and units, it's probably safe to have a direct line going from Clovis to, say, Cherokee and mention these earlier peoples in the context of the dynamic civ names (Pre-Jomon for Prehistoric Japan, for instance).

Well there needs to be some in the chain in between, but do not have to have the civ playable yet. The Cherokee actually share a linguistically link to the Iroquois they probably migrated into the south later from some more central location for the groups. Look at a linguistic map of North America and you can see the major groups.

Spoiler :

 

[Praetyre]

Maybe some theories were tossed around, but all others have been clearly shot down because there is no artifacts to show Pacific influence. You can clearly see that there is a link from the Arctic artifacts. Hell some artifacts might of had European influence, but were associated later in time.

I wasn't saying I thought Polynesians were the ancestors of Mesoamericans; I was saying I thought that the two major hypothesis for Polynesian origins were Austronesia or South America, and the Olmec seemed a good fit given their physical resemblance to Polynesians. Perhaps my experience with the natives in this country has biased me somewhat on this perspective, but what I've seen from Pacific Islanders and Hawaiians hasn't convinced me of any great physical or genetic divide between them and the Maori.

The Jomon are so old it is a mystery where from exactly.

Occam's Razor would imply they originate either from Siberia or the Korean peninsula (though I hesitate to mention the second possibility too loudly for obvious reasons).

The later Han stuff clearly has a yellow river culture influence. The Yayoi people brought rice from present day China and the written script developed from a similar Han character.

Very much later; agriculture in China is Neolithic (early Ancient in C2C terms) and the written Han script comes well into the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age. So this depends on how much weight you grant to Paleolithic urheimats or ethnic homelands versus later cultural influences.

Yes mostly but Chinese and east Asians had contact before, but not in such a large change as the Europeans.

There is little to nothing in Polynesian culture reminscient of East Asia; at best there are some tenuous links to the more mysterious parts of Southeast Asia. Wonder where the Negrito's fall in this paradigm...

That is the problem there are a lot of steps after Clovis. Just going from Clovis is like taking the first Indo-Europeans in Europe and jumping to Prussia.

Yes, but the "steps" we're talking about are the steps that are relevant for C2C purposes; the Beaker People are not a culture which any uniquely identifiable units or buildings can be traced to, so it's straight from PIE to Celtic, with Beaker People as an Ancient flavor name.

Not that early. This is the latest, but yes some DNA people will argue sooner because of the mitochondrial DNA line . If sooner then there were multiple waves from Siberia. Either way like I said before mitochondrial only follows the daughter of the mother, and then her daughter and etc. No one will know anytime soon the male line. Just you can look at the latest link below. The recent argument was by boat along the north pacific coast or through Alberta.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108121618.htm

Perhaps the source I read was out of date, then (no pun intended). In any case, the number of times people crossed the Bering Strait is irrelevant for our purposes if they were all the same kind of people; it's not like everyone in America (barring the natives) is descended from the crew of the Mayflower either. Like you say, though, this mitochondrial analysis will only get you half of the story, and that's leaving aside the obvious practical issues of obtaining genetic samples from a wide enough range of people, let alone the cultural issues involved in such analysis of Indian burial grounds.

Rafts were at least 40,000 years ago like the first aborigines in Australia. Boats as in craved out of wood were in the Neolithic.

Do you have a source for this? I ask not just out of personal curiosity; this could have potential implications for the Prehistoric tech tree, my time plan and even some new early-game naval units in the mix. Would give a big leg up to those poor island civs...

 

[johny smith]

I wasn't saying I thought Polynesians were the ancestors of Mesoamericans; I was saying I thought that the two major hypothesis for Polynesian origins were Austronesia or South America, and the Olmec seemed a good fit given their physical resemblance to Polynesians. Perhaps my experience with the natives in this country has biased me somewhat on this perspective, but what I've seen from Pacific Islanders and Hawaiians hasn't convinced me of any great physical or genetic divide between them and the Maori.

Well I thought there was a similarity from the people who left southeast asia in the Austronesian wave, but they have been still not as much contact between the two: Hawaiian and Maori. There is no contact between the pacific islanders and the Americas as the first settling. There was an incident with people like Incas boating to the pacific islands.

Occam's Razor would imply they originate either from Siberia or the Korean peninsula (though I hesitate to mention the second possibility too loudly for obvious reasons).

Rule of thumb. Paler skin usually means colder environment because of genetic mutations to adapt. Which was documented, but of course filtered out through time in people like the Ainu.

Very much later; agriculture in China is Neolithic (early Ancient in C2C terms) and the written Han script comes well into the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age. So this depends on how much weight you grant to Paleolithic urheimats or ethnic homelands versus later cultural influences.

Yes but are looking for Japanese language and people? Or are you looking for Jomon? There still are aboriginal tribes in Japan that finally just got recognized by the government that consider them the descendents of the Jomon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people

I had to write a paper on them getting recognized. They definitely was a divide still after the immigrants came to the country. Modern Japan might have some traditions from the Jomon, but they are not Jomon alone.

The article you had compared yes a mixed up modern Japanese DNA. You can find anything in DNA today because yes people have been mixing the entire time.

There is little to nothing in Polynesian culture reminscient of East Asia; at best there are some tenuous links to the more mysterious parts of Southeast Asia. Wonder where the Negrito's fall in this paradigm...

How do we know? The darker skinned people isolated like in the Philippines predate the Austronesian. They are similar to the people of New Guinea. So yes there is another group, but those are for the isolates of course. They are suspected to have came with the same wave to Australia.

Yes, but the "steps" we're talking about are the steps that are relevant for C2C purposes; the Beaker People are not a culture which any uniquely identifiable units or buildings can be traced to, so it's straight from PIE to Celtic, with Beaker People as an Ancient flavor name.

No that is stupid. There are plenty of significant steps. Hell Cahokia for example was bigger than any European city at the time. They did have complex tools for hunting and farming, and more organized structure than some Mesoamerican cities when contact from Europe happened. You can date the fall of the later Mississippian culture clearly with Henry De Soto entering the continent. I had to dig at sites to see the change in the artifacts. Americans are just sticking their head in the sand about changes in Native Americans in North America. They have some picture of them being super hippies with no cities. This totally wrong, and they are literally plowing the remains as we speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Perhaps the source I read was out of date, then (no pun intended). In any case, the number of times people crossed the Bering Strait is irrelevant for our purposes if they were all the same kind of people; it's not likely everyone in America (barring the natives) is descended from the crew of the Mayflower either. Like you say, though, this mitochondrial analysis will only get you half of the story, and that's leaving aside the obvious practical issues of obtaining genetic samples from a wide enough range of people, let alone the cultural issues involved in such analysis of Indian burial grounds.

They went back and forth. Think about it like this that land bridge was open for quite some time. As long as the time that it took for Indo-Europeans to flood into Europe nearly with the transition to Neolithic farming. They were not the same kind as people as much as all of Europe being the same type of people. Europe might have less variation. DNA is not really an answer. Archaeologists you know have chronological timelines off the pottery, and the are that can be seen to see of ya it changed here. They could make a DNA study and probably find millions more of links, but really would be stupid. The chronologically can be seen through what already exists.

What do you think archaeologists talk about? DNA? No, the artifacts show changes. The language shows shifts in migrations. Every piece is not there nor is every piece there for Europe. Both have the same problem. People stupidly have destroyed everything in the past in these areas, and did not record much.

Do you have a source for this? I ask not just out of personal curiosity; this could have potential implications for the Prehistoric tech tree, my time plan and even some new early-game naval units in the mix. Would give a big leg up to those poor island civs...

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2011/08/the-original-boat-people/

Like I said 40,000 for sure. Maybe Homo Erectus even had rafts.

 

[Acularius]

We can always simplify (and possibly be wrong) and correct some areas as more information pieces together.

For the sake of simplicity we could put Japan in an Asiatic group although there is speculation that it belongs as an isolate or is Altaic.
Isolates are a tricky beast to handle so it probably is best to group it with something else and put a footnote somewhere to explain the situation so a player doesn't come in and rehash a topic 50 times (although it will happen anyways).

On the topic of boats, from what I recall, we've been using them for a long time however for the longest time it was a matter of how successful we are. I think the last of the Polynesian islands were finally settled by the late 13th century (?) [1200's].

As for the colonial nations, I think it is safe to make them rather flexible, such that the nation of America could be founded by any number of European cultures... the trickier beast is the other cultures that can in theory, colonize as well.
So these cultures should be able to offshoot with any of the branches but have better relations with their homelands due to the cultural similarities.
Again this area is rather flexible and one could make up ahistorical cultures so to allow a more interesting colonial era.

 

[johny smith]

Well I just say this thought that I had in mine for making a RoH. The prehistoric is not just one era slapped in my idea.

What is the tech tree for? I mean why for example are we looking at dates. The Americas have an extended Stone Age with much more advanced stone tools. The time really does not matter. For example I was planning the Aztecs to begin about in the Iron Age just to make some closer similarities in technologies. Anyway you guys can create whatever you want. If you are trying to match a bad tech tree model that has nothing to do with time, you can not match civs really to techs.

In summary, I think every mod I have ever played so far the tech tree has no basis in reality, and I feel it would better represented achievements chronologically versus "uh paper came after logging" mentality. So in the end a stone age native american tree could run parallel to neolithic-copper age tree.

I can't stand really discussing these things with no basis to attach them something that created them. I mean Japan for example, the Jomon were pushed out by a larger population. The immigrants were farmers and the Jomon were mostly hunter/gathers. The immigrant population outnumbered the Jomon greatly because they had to food from farming to have so many people while Jomon could only find things roaming around. There obviously should be an event related to rice farming entering the island.

Europe the same case. You guys are tossing cultures around like rubber duckies. Their is a pattern of how people getting their food to support the population in Europe. It just seems the mod is really detached from the reality. For example I remember the Apple for some reason attached to England as resource. The Apple is from Central Asia I thought. I don't what your ideas are about an apple being European.

Ill just say it is hard to talk about features on the surface of Mars when you are on the surface of Earth. That's basically how I feel about trying to fit interesting lines to develop civs that need no explanation for being in the game to begin with. While others like Mississippian or Anasazi clearly have impacted North America are left out.

The only thing that matters here is "bling" of the civ otherwise you cannot keep the patience of the player. Just sucks since this came is suppose to represent history a little, and not Power Rangers.

 

[Hydromancerx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people

I had to write a paper on them getting recognized. They definitely was a divide still after the immigrants came to the country. Modern Japan might have some traditions from the Jomon, but they are not Jomon alone.

The article you had compared yes a mixed up modern Japanese DNA. You can find anything in DNA today because yes people have been mixing the entire time.

I did a report on the Ainu for Japanese class back in high school. They are one of my favorite cultures since they are more or less the first peoples of Japan. Since then I found a cool video on YouTube comparing the cultures of the Ainu to the native Americans of the Pacific Northwest. Its amazing the similarities. It almost makes you wonder if somehow the Ainu traveled to North America.

Parallel Worlds: Art of the Ainu of Hokkaido and Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFmg87WnDc

Europe the same case. You guys are tossing cultures around like rubber duckies. Their is a pattern of how people getting their food to support the population in Europe. It just seems the mod is really detached from the reality. For example I remember the Apple for some reason attached to England as resource. The Apple is from Central Asia I thought. I don't what your ideas are about an apple being European.

The culture wonders were linked to different resources in the city vicinity. There were 6 base cultures African, American, Asian, European, Middle Eastern and Oceanian. Since there are only so many map resources I had to double up on resources. Thus some non-native resources had to be used for cultures such as Coffee for Brazilian, Apples for English, etc. As for the reason why these? Well Brazil is known for its Coffee even though Coffee did not originate there. Likewise Isaac Newton was English and had the whole apple thing, plus I believe Apple Pie originated in England (not the USA).

However some are just loosely based on what resources were left. Its hard to base an entire culture upon one resource and having a combo of 2 makes it much too rare. Thus a system like Praetyre's would be great.

You must remember this has been a huge trial and error. However it has been a nice chnage from the default Civ cultures where you can only be one culture the whole game. Also the cultures are made to be more fluid and less tied to history and more tied to how similar your civ is to a particular real life culture.

For instance if you start out with Asian as your culture and you live on the plains with Horses then its not surprising that your culture will resemble the Mongols. Which is why the culture is unlockable.

 

[johny smith]

I did a report on the Ainu for Japanese class back in high school. They are one of my favorite cultures since they are more or less the first peoples of Japan. Since then I found a cool video on YouTube comparing the cultures of the Ainu to the native Americans of the Pacific Northwest. Its amazing the similarities. It almost makes you wonder if somehow the Ainu traveled to North America.

Parallel Worlds: Art of the Ainu of Hokkaido and Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFmg87WnDc

I think the similarities though are just people jumping to conclusions that do not understand details of each. Sure Ainu have some broader hunter/gather lifestyle similar to the people that entered North America. But to simplify all North American inhabitants to one group is bad. Sure Pacific Northwest will have similarities because of somewhat of a similar climate to live in.

Either way Japanese culture has the majority of its content from the later farmers with perhaps some Jomon presence in its religion. Regardless Confucius heavily influenced all of the East Asian cultures.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Oh no doubt. In evolution we would call this Convergent Evolution. Its just interesting to see how cultures across an ocean have such similar styles. Yet you can still see how they differ as well. Even with the things that are so similar. Thus showing how similar environments can shape how a species adapts to it.

 

[johny smith]

Oh no doubt. In evolution we would call this Convergent Evolution. Its just interesting to see how cultures across an ocean have such similar styles. Yet you can still see how they differ as well. Even with the things that are so similar. Thus showing how similar environments can shape how a species adapts to it.

Well that is more or less my point with the geography. I would rather have technologies that represent changes. The techs would be better served to act as a timeline for development in each region around the globe.

Currently what I see is the techs just bring together ideas of what people believe influenced on one another, and make no sense chronologically. Why would there not be an early tech that represented the lifestyle of the Ainu and Northwest Natives that is really old.

Then basically if you say the Ainu began in say for example 1000 AD the beginning time in game is way earlier in relation to the technology. So then if you would play the Ainu there would have to a lot of alternate history for techs beyond this very early beginning. For example Ainu lifestyle is say a Neolithic tech but the time may be 1000 AD for them.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Right now I have the Ainu as requiring Asian (culture) + Furs (resource) + Shamanism (tech). This tech on the tree is late prehistoric. The Nootka which is the only Pacific Northwest Tribe in the game so far I have them requiring American (culture) + Whale (resource) + Forest (terrain) + Wood Working (tech).

Both have prehistoric techs and thus both cultures are at the prehistoric level of technology. Whether or not they lived at the same time historically is irrelevant. The game can easily represent this in say minor tribes spawning from barbarians and thus having a much later start than the other civs and the player. Once a full fledged civ they can too try to get any wonders missed by the other civs due to them not having the right resource, terrain or culture combo in their area.

Thus say the Aztecs could indeed be still in the Ancient Era technology wise because they grew from a barbarian civ and got access to obsidian resource and were American culture. Thus when say a European culture arrives with more advanced techs they can mimic what happened historically between the Spanish and the Aztecs.

 

[johny smith]

Right now I have the Ainu as requiring Asian (culture) + Furs (resource) + Shamanism (tech). This tech on the tree is late prehistoric. The Nootka which is the only Pacific Northwest Tribe in the game so far I have them requiring American (culture) + Whale (resource) + Forest (terrain) + Wood Working (tech).

Both have prehistoric techs and thus both cultures are at the prehistoric level of technology. Whether or not they lived at the same time historically is irrelevant. The game can easily represent this in say minor tribes spawning from barbarians and thus having a much later start than the other civs and the player. Once a full fledged civ they can too try to get any wonders missed by the other civs due to them not having the right resource, terrain or culture combo in their area.

Thus say the Aztecs could indeed be still in the Ancient Era technology wise because they grew from a barbarian civ and got access to obsidian resource and were American culture. Thus when say a European culture arrives with more advanced techs they can mimic what happened historically between the Spanish and the Aztecs.

That sounds very rational. Good job. I glad to hear you guys have done that. I mean the jest of what I am saying has been done.

I would just expand the earlier stone technology. I would not leave it as just a small era tech tech tree. Now the details on names for advances in stone tools are little more work. The general pattern is small tools progressing to spears in a large form to take down megafauna. Then getting smaller to take down smaller prey after the megafauna are declining. The Neolithic is recognized as ground stones coming in. The time right before has the introduction of the microlithics.

The analogy I could make would be the CPU. First crappy electronics then larger chips to handle stuff. Then progressively getting smaller. Last a peak of very refined CPU that really does not have a lot of things that can be improved size wise.

So in game terms this would mean taking that stupid giant club out of the hands of the warrior at the beginning. Then start making models that represent the stone tools used. The rest of the metal weapons and beyond at least have some art that corresponds. I wanted to actually have the units upgrade their weapons, but Dom Pedro never finished his mod for equipment.

Anyway my idea was someone has to go to a stone querry and then this stone type can be made into a tool. You need the stone to do it. So the prehistoric would be wondering around looking for a resources to make a better boomstick, and yes someone would need to make vaguely accurate art for the weapons. Not just um here is some ancient stone age people.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well we do have a bunch of stone tool technologies ...

- Stone Tools
- Bone Tools
- Flint Knapping
- Fine Edge Tools
- Axe Making
- Spear Making
- Microlith
- Stone Building
- Megalith Construction
- Obsidian Weapons

You can see where they sit on the tech tree. If you have more ideas about them let me know.

We also have quie a new upgrades of units before even the Ancient Era ...

Stone Thrower -> Slinger -> Atl-Atl -> Archer

Clubman -> Stone Spearman -> Atl-Atl -> Javelineer

Clubman -> Stone Spearman -> Spearman

Clubman -> Stone Axeman -> Axeman

We also have a variety of prehistoric culture units like the Boomberang Thrower, Tomahawk Thrower, Inuit Harpooner and many more.

 

[johny smith]

I do not have a lot of time at the moment, but will post something of what I would suggest on the tools when I can.

The axe and spear jumping right to microlithics is a big leap. Clovis points for example fall in there they are a big megafauna killer. I would expand that area for megafauna.

Music and dance well I am not sure what you have in mind, but those artistic expressions in relation to spirits or what not came later during the megafauna period.

I thought bone working comes before the larger stone tool use.

Anyway there is a lot of tools in between microliths and axe/spear making. Axe making is much older than spears. Axes were not thrown. The spear was the first real ranged weapon. There should be a progression there. I would argue having early ranged spear throwers using dcm stuff.

So something like
axe-spear-more advanced large tools-microlith.

Atl-Atl being related with microliths.

So spear throwers would go into different stages of better types of spears for example. Axes could have different types of axes. A lot of it would be associated with different types of stones learning to work.

I will give some more details if you are interested, but need to put it together first.

Dance and music should coincide with the advancements in the "more advanced large tools"

 

[Hydromancerx]

For the Music and Dance, most of those are in relation to say Singing and Dancing around, which I would assume needs no tools at all to do.

 

[johny smith]

For the Music and Dance, most of those are in relation to say Singing and Dancing around, which I would assume needs no tools at all to do.

The tools did not create singing and dancing, but the singing and dancing had changes based on ceremonies from big kills. The cave art is in response to killing the large animals so rituals went it stages of development in response to how much power humans think they had to killing the large animals.

Now how to represent that it stages I am not sure right now. I mean you can see chimps do some rituals, but it depends what you guys are thinking is singing and dancing. I am thinking instruments created like bone flutes in Neanderthals being an example of more creative song which was response from a wider assortment of tools. Which in turn fed some more music tech.

 

[Praetyre]

For the sake of simplicity we could put Japan in an Asiatic group although there is speculation that it belongs as an isolate or is Altaic.
Isolates are a tricky beast to handle so it probably is best to group it with something else and put a footnote somewhere to explain the situation so a player doesn't come in and rehash a topic 50 times (although it will happen anyways).

What other cultures would be part of this group you'd place Japanese culture in? I'd ask the same thing for Ainu, Basque and for that matter, Aborigine. From both a realism and game balance perspective this could have significant ramifications.

On the topic of boats, from what I recall, we've been using them for a long time however for the longest time it was a matter of how successful we are. I think the last of the Polynesian islands were finally settled by the late 13th century (?) [1200's].

These islands (one of which I presently reside on) were settled using canoes, suggesting a generally Neolithic (early Ancient) level of technology among the settlers. What are your thoughts on adding a new Prehistoric boat based on the most extraordinary info JS has brought to light? What technology do you think it would fit best?

As for the colonial nations, I think it is safe to make them rather flexible, such that the nation of America could be founded by any number of European cultures... the trickier beast is the other cultures that can in theory, colonize as well.
So these cultures should be able to offshoot with any of the branches but have better relations with their homelands due to the cultural similarities.

So in your plan, Brazilian culture can be founded with Dutch culture, or American culture with Russian? If so, I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on that particular point, though I'm open to a greater degree of alternate-history possibilities for the US due to some of the non-Anglic influences in it's founding and conception.

Again this area is rather flexible and one could make up ahistorical cultures so to allow a more interesting colonial era.

I'd rather leave alternate history cultures (barring the main -punk line) until we've thoroughly explored real ones. There'd be obvious issues where unit and building art are concerned, as well as major/minor status.

I'm pretty much on board with Hydro as far as these dates are concerned; the Zulu might have started in 1800 or so, but their technology was definitely Ancient, and in historical terms they were not seperate from the other Bantu tribes before this point, hence barbarian civs and splitoffs.

 

[Hydromancerx]

These islands (one of which I presently reside on) were settled using canoes, suggesting a generally Neolithic (early Ancient) level of technology among the settlers. What are your thoughts on adding a new Prehistoric boat based on the most extraordinary info JS has brought to light? What technology do you think it would fit best?

You have to remember there has to be some game balance too. Since even the largest maps cannot compare to the size of the real Earth in scale ocean travel is restricted until later. Note that you CAN get across ocean tiles if its in your claimed territory. Thus things like colonizing Iceland or Island hopping is possible even with canoes. If you focus on the boat building side of the tree you can get quiet far early on. However most focus on Sedentary Lifestyle instead. Same goes for the more nomadic parts of the tree like horseback riding which can be done early if you go down that side of the tree.

 

[Praetyre]

The new unit I was speaking of wasn't going to be ocean capable; it'd be a non-attacking transport/exploration ship available at some early Prehistoric tech. Graphics would resemble a raft.

Anyway, I think it would be helpful if we could all get our own ideas about how these cultures should be grouped and categorized in visual form. You don't necessarily have to go the whole hog with it, but just restricting yourself to covering the lineages of the in-game civs could give a good idea of the approach you are using, and potentially help improve each others suggestions.

For starters, what does everyone think of my idea of having a categorical split between major and minor civilizations? And what progenitors would you folks yourselves have for the great cultural tree?

 

[johny smith]

I am not saying anything new with this.

I would start with regions of the world first. The regions have to be decided. Then I would look at times that a group entered a region. From there I would place that time's technology in a overall look based on each region. So Ainu are for example Northeast Asia some time on the tech tree as pre-Neolithic or at the beginning of the Neolithic. I guess this translates to prehistory here. So Ainu, Jomon, or whatever hunter/gather group might have a regional ancestor. The regional ancestor group would be a vague name to a style of tools for that were made in prehistory. Something like Pasika as is the name of the tool tradition found in this link.

http://natural-history.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/mnch/UOAP_65.pdf

But I am sure you want some real name for a group. I don't think you will find one. Anyway I would figure out a name for the Pleistocene people there and then connect groups from there for the region. If they migrated in later from another region well then they are just a new beginning group in their new region.

For people that migrated like say the Huns. Huns are the group from Central Asia. Magyar I would use for the more permanent group in Hungary and yes then they are a Central or East European group then. Probably this sounds horrible.

Like I said nothing new.