There are as many evidences as of the existance of UFOs or Atlantis. They aren't exactly what a serious historian would call evidences, plus historians themselves around the world disagree on the conclusions about such "evidences". There are evidences of pre "Native American" civs like for example the Anasazi but we know too little about them to think of a civ, a UU, a UB and 3 UHV conditions, and they were not anywhere north of New Mexico AFAIK.
Woah, that is possibly the most ignorant post I have ever read in my life on this forum. The 'evidence' isn't all circumstantial or transparent like the UFOs or Atlantic examples you so rudely stated.
Acoma Pueblo - An native town that still stands today, and was built in the 11th/12th century, with numerous smaller towns around it making a total early population of a few thousand.
Cahokia - A city in modern Illinois--yes, that is north of new mexico--that flourished in 1200AD, and had an estimated peak population of over 40,000 people. There's an incredible amount of evidence there that there once stood a fairly well established city in this spot that survived for over 500 years, from evidence of mass agriculture, and settlement debris, to a very large square area of land that was made flat to build the city on. Not to mention the mammoth burial mounds present around the site.
Laguna Pueblo - Another town of nearly 10,000 inhabitants that still stands today--though in total ruin.
Anyways there's many other locations that I can list that are obvious examples of non-nomadic native americans with established early city states. And we know much more about the Anasazi than you're stating. Heck, the impressive agricultural systems that the Anasazi had established to allow them to survive in populations in the tens of thousands in the middle of the desert should show that they had something going; the irrigation canals still stand today, and can be easily seen by anyone.
I know when compared to other civilizations, it isn't as impressive. But simply acting like all of north america, apart from Mexico, was just a vast open plain with a few nomadic tribes wandering around, like this mod is, isn't anyway to act. Even the Zulu get a few cities.. why doesn't Cahokia pop up too?
Rhye said (and I agree):
RFC tries to "replay" history as close as it can¨, but not being a simulation. Now, gameplay wise, if you put a civ in North America, it will grow big cities all over the place. Of course, it will be backwards, but the European didn't conquer North America, they SETTLED it.. Putting a civ into NA would be completley ahistorical from a gameplay point of view.
If Rhye wants to go for historical accuracy, he could fix this problem easily. The small pox epidemic has been greatly downgraded in the latest editions, but I think this was done to make it possible to win with the three native civilizations already present. In reality the real epidemic killed about 90% of the native population. If this were done realistically, then every city in the Americas would drop to just 1 population, with a very weak military, within a few turns of meeting Europe. This would be historically realistic. A huge factor in the native american defeat was the small pox epidemic, and the other epidemics that happened afterwards in rapid succession. I have a feeling if disease didn't hit with the force it did hit with, then Europe would have taken longer to settle the Americas, and probably would have had to resort more to conquering then settling the east coast. The native's have shown they obviously were capable of warfare with Europe, especially in the 16th century, when the British were really having a lot of trouble spreading beyond the Appalachian mountains due to them. But of course if Rhye actually made the Americas realistic, then a lot of people would complain.
