There will be a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ5?

[True_Candyman]

Figures vary greatly for pre-Columbian populations in the region, anywhere form 2 mil to in excess of 10 mil, but the most reliable are of the order 4-10 million from what I can find, that's where the ~0.5%-2% figure comes from. To be relative to the contemporary populations the number of people would need to be in excess of 18 million at the time, which is outside the realm of most of the very generous estimates, and by taking the same liberties on the World Population at the time (which wasn't taken into account for the percentages, a "best value" was used) that percentage would likely be lower.

The Shoshone seem to be in as a replacement for the Pueblo. We can effectively "rule them out of the running" as it were. If France couldn't be included, we could hardly be asking for them. At the same time though. The information on Cahokia is too limited to really build a Civilization out of. The greater culture of the area could be done, but there is a risk of making a blob, which people on here are generally opposed to.

For North America, i agree with you the numbers don't tend to match elsewhere. (However, they have tended towards upward revision for 150 years now so who knows?) The interesting thing about these statistics however, is both Mexico and the Andes as regions within continents can compete on population terms with the rest of the world, yet they have 3 civilizations between them

If we're gunna get into statistics, i'll first put this suggestion out there as i hinted at in my first post. The population at large of the continent is irrelevant. If there are interesting civs to be added, add them. You can have incredible civilizations that thrived on low populations, that's not a problem.

Secondly, Cahokia grew to somewhere in the region of 15-30,000 as a metropolis. That's is up there with the largest cities of Europe in the 11th century. In fact the only one notably larger in Europe is the very one you've been so avidly against, Venice

And finally, i know Cahokia and Pueblo may not be realistic but a man can dream! As much as i love hearing an echo, I had in fact mentioned that it my own post

 

[ptoss1]

If a bunch of small native tribes get to be civs that the Sami and Siberians should get to be civs too.
It's only fair. I mean there were only about 8000 Shoshone in total from what I've read.
Kazakhs
Uyghurs
Tibetans
GO TAJIKSTAN

 

[Menzies]

For North America, i agree with you the numbers don't tend to match elsewhere. (However, they have tended towards upward revision for 150 years now so who knows?) The interesting thing about these statistics however, is both Mexico and the Andes as regions within continents can compete on population terms with the rest of the world, yet they have 3 civilizations between them

If we're gunna get into statistics, i'll first put this suggestion out there as i hinted at in my first post. The population at large of the continent is irrelevant. If there are interesting civs to be added, add them. You can have incredible civilizations that thrived on low populations, that's not a problem.

Secondly, Cahokia grew to somewhere in the region of 15-30,000 as a metropolis. That's is up there with the largest cities of Europe in the 11th century. In fact the only one notably larger in Europe is the very one you've been so avidly against, Venice

And finally, i know Cahokia and Pueblo may not be realistic but a man can dream! As much as i love hearing an echo, I had in fact mentioned that it my own post

I really get sick of people spouting this:

Secondly, Cahokia grew to somewhere in the region of 15-30,000 as a metropolis. That's is up there with the largest cities of Europe in the 11th century.

Yes, 15-30 thousand in c. 1200 AD is a similar size to some notable European cities at the time, normally cited with London (~20-50k at the time) and Paris (~80k+ at the time). However, cities of 15-30k are not particularly notable historically, and this comparison is more for a modern audience to realise that this city was quite large, and to give it context in a World where cities smaller than 500k are considered small and where cities in excess of 20 million people exist. A singular city of 15-30k however (the estimates range widely from about 6-40 thousand for Cahokia at it's peak) is hardly that impressive in and of itself, and including it as a Civ on it's own is down right impossible before even taking into account that we don't know enough about the people and culture to create such a Civ. Any such Civilization would be a blob Civ, and one based on very limited information at that. Not to say that they as a culture aren't interesting and important, but rather they neither demand inclusion nor is there enough to really base a Civilization around, much like the Indus Valley situation.

As for historical context, and what really annoys me about citing the size of Cahokia, here are some large cities from around the world circa 1200 AD (some, like Venice, Paris and Polonnaruwa are included for flavour and context of their respective regions):

Polonnaruwa - Sri Lanka - ~75,000
Paris - France - ~80,000+
Hangzhou - China - ~350,000-1,000,000+
Angkor - 200,000-1,000,000
Cairo - Egypt - ~250,000-300,000
Fes - Morocco - ~250,000
Bagan - Burma - ~180,000
Baghdad - Iraq - ~150,000-1,000,000
Venice - Venice - ~45,000+
Milan - Lombardy - ~150,000+
Kaifeng - China - ~1,000,000+

It is particularly worth noting that Sri Lanka, Burma and Khmer are not represented within the game, yet have cities even in the era of the height of Cahokia which are far larger and more impressive.

As for other periods of history, there have been 1,000,000+ population cities throughout history, in Xian in around the 7th-9th century had hit around that mark, as had Baghdad (even pushing higher than 2 million during the 7th-9th centuries by some estimates) and Hangzhou at various times, and Kaifeng of course.Constantinople was push toward half a mil around the fall of Western Rome and the early "Dark Ages".

During the classical era of course cities like Alexandria, Antioch, Athens and of course Rome (which at it's height had a population around 1 mil) were huge as well, with populations in the hundreds of thousands right up to around the million range.

In the earlier periods there were still cities in excess of 100,000 such as Babylon, Athens, Xian and Qufu and as far back as 1200 BC Pi-Ramses is estimated to have had a population around 160,000.

Even in the Americas there are far better examples than Cahokia, but it was merely a case of it being impressive for it's context, particularly as it was abandoned before the end of the pre-Columbian age. Other such lost cities such as Tiwanaku are interesting, but again, there are too many issues to consider it to be demanding selection, and having a population of even 40,000 (the wildest estimates I can find) don't even put the city on the sort of scale in terms of the World then or historically that people seem to suggest.

 

[True_Candyman]

Yes, 15-30 thousand in c. 1200 AD is a similar size to some notable European cities at the time, normally cited with London (~20-50k at the time) and Paris (~80k+ at the time). However, cities of 15-30k are not particularly notable historically, and this comparison is more for a modern audience to realise that this city was quite large, and to give it context in a World where cities smaller than 500k are considered small and where cities in excess of 20 million people exist. A singular city of 15-30k however (the estimates range widely from about 6-40 thousand for Cahokia at it's peak) is hardly that impressive in and of itself, and including it as a Civ on it's own is down right impossible before even taking into account that we don't know enough about the people and culture to create such a Civ. Any such Civilization would be a blob Civ, and one based on very limited information at that. Not to say that they as a culture aren't interesting and important, but rather they neither demand inclusion nor is there enough to really base a Civilization around, much like the Indus Valley situation.

As for historical context, and what really annoys me about citing the size of Cahokia, here are some large cities from around the world circa 1200 AD (some, like Venice, Paris and Polonnaruwa are included for flavour and context of their respective regions):

Polonnaruwa - Sri Lanka - ~75,000
Paris - France - ~80,000+
Hangzhou - China - ~350,000-1,000,000+
Angkor - 200,000-1,000,000
Cairo - Egypt - ~250,000-300,000
Fes - Morocco - ~250,000
Bagan - Burma - ~180,000
Baghdad - Iraq - ~150,000-1,000,000
Venice - Venice - ~45,000+
Milan - Lombardy - ~150,000+
Kaifeng - China - ~1,000,000+

It is particularly worth noting that Sri Lanka, Burma and Khmer are not represented within the game, yet have cities even in the era of the height of Cahokia which are far larger and more impressive.

As for other periods of history, there have been 1,000,000+ population cities throughout history, in Xian in around the 7th-9th century had hit around that mark, as had Baghdad (even pushing higher than 2 million during the 7th-9th centuries by some estimates) and Hangzhou at various times, and Kaifeng of course.Constantinople was push toward half a mil around the fall of Western Rome and the early "Dark Ages".

During the classical era of course cities like Alexandria, Antioch, Athens and of course Rome (which at it's height had a population around 1 mil) were huge as well, with populations in the hundreds of thousands right up to around the million range.

In the earlier periods there were still cities in excess of 100,000 such as Babylon, Athens, Xian and Qufu and as far back as 1200 BC Pi-Ramses is estimated to have had a population around 160,000.

Even in the Americas there are far better examples than Cahokia, but it was merely a case of it being impressive for it's context, particularly as it was abandoned before the end of the pre-Columbian age. Other such lost cities such as Tiwanaku are interesting, but again, there are too many issues to consider it to be demanding selection, and having a population of even 40,000 (the wildest estimates I can find) don't even put the city on the sort of scale in terms of the World then or historically that people seem to suggest.

I mentioned Europe cos it shows a good indication of how it compares to conceptions of great empires in history Menzies, no need to get snarky I know that Asia had much bigger cities and great empires too, and i want them too. I'm not suggesting Cahokia above and beyond all else, or even first, simply that it would be a cool addition.

Secondly, you have the wrong time period. Cahokia's height was around 1050 AD (It was declining after that)(And seriously, where did you get 1200 from? That's 100 years after the end of the 11th century?!?), and historians generally agree it was larger than London or Paris then, and comparable with Cordoba and Toledo. The only European cities really noticeably larger would have been Venice and Constantinople.

Thirdly, i'm not suggesting Cahokia as a city state. I'm suggesting Cahokia as the un-named empire-ish entity that was centered around the city of Cahokia. It's so fantastically different as a device of control and power that we can't call it an empire, a state or a chiefdom and we have't come up with a name for it yet beyond "theatre state". Either way, they controlled a vast amount of territory, and far more people than lived within their city.

I know you aren't gunna like that either, and you're gunna say there are better candidates and that's fine. See point 1 again if you like. I however would love to see them included, and i could at a push create a Cahokia civ without having to make it an agglomeration (at least through time (ie no shawnee/cahokia crossover), the city list may have to take into account some other mississippian sites - But then Tlaxcala is on the Aztec list so this is apparently not a problem )

 

[mitsho]

But see, there's the problem with Cahokia. How do you build a civ around something that you can't even classify? An "un-named empire-ish entity" is quite hard to turn into a compelling (!) civ. Especially when we have so many other possibilities in the Americas alone that we can build a civ around for which we don't have to resort to English names like "Mound Builders" as we don't know more of them. Also, mounds are quite a common trait for civilizations on that level all around the world.

 

[Menzies]

I mentioned Europe cos it shows a good indication of how it compares to conceptions of great empires in history Menzies, no need to get snarky I know that Asia had much bigger cities and great empires too, and i want them too. I'm not suggesting Cahokia above and beyond all else, or even first, simply that it would be a cool addition.

Secondly, you have the wrong time period. Cahokia's height was around 1050 AD (It was declining after that)(And seriously, where did you get 1200 from? That's 100 years after the end of the 11th century?!?), and historians generally agree it was larger than London or Paris then, and comparable with Cordoba and Toledo. The only European cities really noticeably larger would have been Venice and Constantinople.

Thirdly, i'm not suggesting Cahokia as a city state. I'm suggesting Cahokia as the un-named empire-ish entity that was centered around the city of Cahokia. It's so fantastically different as a device of control and power that we can't call it an empire, a state or a chiefdom and we have't come up with a name for it yet beyond "theatre state". Either way, they controlled a vast amount of territory, and far more people than lived within their city.

I know you aren't gunna like that either, and you're gunna say there are better candidates and that's fine. See point 1 again if you like. I however would love to see them included, and i could at a push create a Cahokia civ without having to make it an agglomeration (at least through time (ie no shawnee/cahokia crossover), the city list may have to take into account some other mississippian sites - But then Tlaxcala is on the Aztec list so this is apparently not a problem )

Cahokia's peak was c. 1200 AD onwards and it's decline was the period following. 1050 AD is the generally cited point for when it grew from a ~1000 people up to it's heights, and before that period it was considerably smaller, it's the 13th when it was at it's height. There is some level of disagreement though and some cite it's height as the 12th century, not that it really matters, I gave context for other time periods as well and later I might go through more time periods if that is what you want.

 

[True_Candyman]

But see, there's the problem with Cahokia. How do you build a civ around something that you can't even classify? An "un-named empire-ish entity" is quite hard to turn into a compelling (!) civ. Especially when we have so many other possibilities in the Americas alone that we can build a civ around for which we don't have to resort to English names like "Mound Builders" as we don't know more of them. Also, mounds are quite a common trait for civilizations on that level all around the world.

How is that hard to turn into a complelling civ? Cahokia could make a crazy wide culture civ, a fantastic trading civ or even a groovy tourism civ now! It could be fantastic and have the capacity to play completely different to anything we have at the moment. It is not at all limited in it's capacity to compel by being unclassifiable, that actually makes it all the better

I find it slightly ironic (only slightly mind you) that we can be so happy about things called Tiwanaku and not Mound builders. Tiwanaku may be phonetic, but it's still an Anglicised and bastardised form of the word. It's unfortunate that we don't have the native names for Cahokian settlements, and we probably won't ever find any without a time machine. But should we cast it aside because they are gone now? Isn't the point of civ creating alternative histories? Besides this, half of the Mesoamerican civs have spanish names on their city lists and the Iroquois have modern Canadian cities on their list. That is a hell of a lot worse than english names for genuine cahokian settlements.

Mounds are quite common but Cahokia is not limited to mounds. As a civilization they did far more than pile up dirt, that is simply what they are famous for because of how mysterious these mounds were. However, i'm not quite sure what you mean by "on that level". As much as this game seems to disagree, history isn't a linear progression of development

Cahokia's peak was c. 1200 AD onwards and it's decline was the period following. 1050 AD is the generally cited point for when it grew from a ~1000 people up to it's heights, and before that period it was considerably smaller, it's the 13th when it was at it's height. There is some level of disagreement though and some cite it's height as the 12th century, not that it really matters, I gave context for other time periods as well and later I might go through more time periods if that is what you want.

My bad, jumping through notes is a bad habit! Pulled the wrong date out there and i apologise. As you rightly point out however, it's all a moot point as there were much larger cities elsewhere

 

[mitsho]

@True_Candyman, Well, Cahokia isn't even the name of the site, just the one of a later era Native American Tribe located at the site. Doesn't that explain the whole thing? (I dislike the Spanish names for other civs as well and have deleted La Venta from my City State list because of that btw.)

What makes these mounds special from the ones found with the Celts or Etruscans? See Tumulus. Aren't the Egyptian Pyramids just burial mounds? But much more impressive ones? Or that the famous Terracotta Army is actually located beneath the burial mound of Qin Shi Huang Di (wiki.

But yes, of course they did more and I'm not debating if they deserve it or not. But mound building or early pottery isn't special. They can still be included. But for a compelling leader with a name we have to go to Tuscaloosa who isn't directly connected to the civ (not a problem per se though), for a city list, we have to take archaelogical site names or tribe names of later Native Americans, for a UB we'll get something bland that would probably fit more with the Sumerians, Egyptians or any other early-agricultural society. For a UU we get a Bird Warrior. But we already have quite a lot Warrior replacement. How to make that unique?

And yes, alternate history and education is a good argument for civ, but you're only doing a disservice by painting a half picture with many "wrong facts" in it that are cleared up by later science. Maybe in ten years we know enough on them, but not now. For comparison, take what we know now about the Bronze Age Stilt House Culture and what we did 20 years ago for the first civ game.

In short, and I really don't want to continue this discussion, for me a civ needs to be rounded out with information and Cahokia just doesn't cut it for me, just like Tiwanaku doesn't as well btw. That one would be better as a city state instead of an Incan City, but well..

 

[Menzies]

How is that hard to turn into a complelling civ? Cahokia could make a crazy wide culture civ, a fantastic trading civ or even a groovy tourism civ now! It could be fantastic and have the capacity to play completely different to anything we have at the moment. It is not at all limited in it's capacity to compel by being unclassifiable, that actually makes it all the better

I find it slightly ironic (only slightly mind you) that we can be so happy about things called Tiwanaku and not Mound builders. Tiwanaku may be phonetic, but it's still an Anglicised and bastardised form of the word. It's unfortunate that we don't have the native names for Cahokian settlements, and we probably won't ever find any without a time machine. But should we cast it aside because they are gone now? Isn't the point of civ creating alternative histories? Besides this, half of the Mesoamerican civs have spanish names on their city lists and the Iroquois have modern Canadian cities on their list. That is a hell of a lot worse than english names for genuine cahokian settlements.

Mounds are quite common but Cahokia is not limited to mounds. As a civilization they did far more than pile up dirt, that is simply what they are famous for because of how mysterious these mounds were. However, i'm not quite sure what you mean by "on that level". As much as this game seems to disagree, history isn't a linear progression of development

The main issue with Cahokia, as previously pointed out, is we just don't know much about them. Forget having issues finding someone to speak their language, we've got issues finding an appropriate leader.

 

[BrokenSky]

Someone suggested once that you should be able to found Colonies as a separate thing from Cities, and that Colonies would effectively function as a City-State. I think there could be something to that. Here's one possible model:

-Have a type of unit called a Colonist. Functions as a Settler, but founds Colonies instead of Cities.

-Colony names would be drawn from the regular city list. (As interesting as it would be to have England founding Jamestown or France founding Montreal, way too many civs wouldn't have "colony lists" to draw from.)

-The Colony would be a new type of City-State, permanently allied to your civ. They wouldn't be "Cultural" or "Religious" or whatever; they would be a whole type of City-State unto themselves.

-Benefits: They would supply gold per turn, World Congress votes, and exclusive access to whatever resources they have, like an allied City-State. You would also reap the benefits of whatever buildings they create, as though they were a Puppet City. Other civs cannot interfere with the relationship; you cannot use money or espionage influence to lure another civ's Colony to you.

-Drawbacks: Each Colony would have a "Rebel Sentiment" meter reflecting how unhappy they are about being in your thrall. (Similar to diminishing influence of an allied City-State.) The meter will creep gradually upward, and you can keep it down by fulfilling their quests. If it gets to maximum, they'll go into armed rebellion and all benefits from them cease. Then you have a time limit within which you must re-occupy the city. If you do, the meter is reset (to represent that you've reasserted your dominance), but will start creeping up again. If you can't re-occupy by the deadline, they become Independent.

-A quest for City-States in rebellion would be to ask other civs for assistance. Civs who help out would get a huge diplomatic boost with them.

-You can save yourself the trouble of going to war with them by granting Independence yourself at any time.

-Independent Colonies become like regular City-States. Colonies that were granted Independence start as allies (provided the Rebel Sentiment meter was low enough; otherwise there'd be an obvious exploit of letting it get to the tipping point and then granting Independence), but can have influence diminish or be undermined by other civs in the manner of any City-State. Colonies that had to fight for independence would go through a period of anger at the mother country, but like anger from any City-State it would wear off and relations could eventually be restored. They could be made allies again, but not re-colonized.

-Since they function as City-States, we wouldn't have to worry about which civs split off from which (as in Civ IV), or finding leader screens and uniques and city lists and all for the new "civs", because former Colonies can't become new civs. As an American myself, I immediately see historical flaws there, but gameplay-wise, I think it makes more sense that way.

That's just what comes to mind just now. I can't say I've really thought it through; maybe this would be unbalanced. Maybe there wouldn't be enough incentive to build them--or to grant independence. I don't know if this would even work at all. But it's a thought.

Yeah I think that's a cool idea, expect that the independence meter should probably act more like CS meter, with 30 as the basic level (with CS friendship boosters affecting the standpoint- Patronage, papal primacy etc. -oh by the way we already have the papal state: its Venice when Venice founds a religion with papal primacy -or maybe Vatican city ) anyway I think espionage should affect it, but aside from that I basically agree with this idea. Also trade routes going to/from a colony should base moneys on the assumption that you don't have the luxuries the Colony gives you, which would actually well represent the empire era trading colonies of England, Netherlands, Spain etc. where you found a colony on another continent with other resources then make lucrative, lucrative trade with it.

Anyway yeah there should maybe be quests such as "don't ... " with negative effects should you fail, e.g. 'don't declare war on X civ' or 'cut down less than X woods/jungle in the next 30 turns' etc." And if your friendship with them drops below say -15, they declare independence and war.

 

[Carl5872]

I really feel North America is underrepresented. I dont go by population, but by number of cultures/civilizations that are worth remembering. We are very saturated on European ones I think most can agree. Central America has the Aztecs and Mayans, but North America has only USA, Iroquois and Shoshone. Even me, a CPA, can think of a plethora of commonly known, widely respected North American Cultures not represented. If I can name 10 easily from North America, that means that my ignorance of others could boost that number.

We put in civs that Im confident that many people have never heard of prior to Civ (Songhai, Venice (as an actual Civilization and not a mere city or city-state). Not to say these civs are inferior or unworthy, quite the contrary, I am glad Civ has shown me them and because of that I can learn about a rich culture I never heard of before and I think thats a really good thing.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are still so many more North American Cultures that are very diverse. Some very small populations/ geographic boundaries had very big influences, despite tiny land/population. Using these as metrics I feel is inferior. One of the greatest Civs, England, at least England Proper, had Tiny land and actual English descent population, but is arguably one of if not the most influential civilization to have ever existed.


In conclusion, I feel the representation of a continent's civs shouldn't be evaluated quantitatively by population or geographic territory owned. These are important, but not as important as the mark they've left on history. To evaluate proper representation, count the number of well-remembered civs from that location, and compare based on that.

 

[Bakspatel]

It is not all about interesting cultures for the developers but mainly about the interesting gameplay that a civ can contribute to the game. Some European civs were simply too important to ignore (England, Germany, France), while others offered interesting possibilities (Venice) and others were big fan requests (Poland). BNW has seen a bunch of fan favourites as Fixaris works with the assumption that this will be the last expansion, but several civs did receive an interesting and unique gameplay.
And to be honest, most people outside the USA and Canada know almost nothing about native Americans. Names like Navajo, Comanche and Sioux are most likely to ring a bell but others such as the Iroquois Federation and the Shoshone are completely unknown. Which is quite understandable, I also do not expect Americans to know anything about the Frisians. As it comes to civs that have left their mark on history I think there is little room for New World civs, especially those from North America. What kind of major contributions did the Shoshone and Iroquois give to humanity? In that case I am more supportive for those who promote Vietnam, Khymer and Kongo as they managed to develop an empire and a more developed society.

 

[Menzies]

I really feel North America is underrepresented. I dont go by population, but by number of cultures/civilizations that are worth remembering. We are very saturated on European ones I think most can agree. Central America has the Aztecs and Mayans, but North America has only USA, Iroquois and Shoshone. Even me, a CPA, can think of a plethora of commonly known, widely respected North American Cultures not represented. If I can name 10 easily from North America, that means that my ignorance of others could boost that number.

We put in civs that Im confident that many people have never heard of prior to Civ (Songhai, Venice (as an actual Civilization and not a mere city or city-state). Not to say these civs are inferior or unworthy, quite the contrary, I am glad Civ has shown me them and because of that I can learn about a rich culture I never heard of before and I think thats a really good thing.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are still so many more North American Cultures that are very diverse. Some very small populations/ geographic boundaries had very big influences, despite tiny land/population. Using these as metrics I feel is inferior. One of the greatest Civs, England, at least England Proper, had Tiny land and actual English descent population, but is arguably one of if not the most influential civilization to have ever existed.


In conclusion, I feel the representation of a continent's civs shouldn't be evaluated quantitatively by population or geographic territory owned. These are important, but not as important as the mark they've left on history. To evaluate proper representation, count the number of well-remembered civs from that location, and compare based on that.

There are innumerable cultures from around the world that are not represented, and beyond Europe and it's vast over representation there is an enormous list of Civilizations that are not only missing, but are gaping holes in representation in the game. Yes, there are some cultures in North America that could be represented, but relative to the number of great cultures around the World with no representation, North America is extremely well represented as things stand. Just going off the top of my head for obvious misses:

West Asia:
Sumeria
Hittites
Phoenicia
Armenia
Timurids
Khazars
Scythia
Kazahk
Afghanistan
Israel
Oman

East Asia:
Khmer
Burma
Vietnam
Tibet
Manchu
Uyghur
Nepal

Africa:
Mali
Nubia
Swahili
Ghana
Kongo
Malagasy
South Africa

Oceania:
Australia
Some representation of Indigenous Australians and Torres Straight Islanders

South America:
Argentina
Gran Columbia or alternative

North America:
Olmec
Zapotec
Canada
Mexico

Of these the most obvious are of course:
Khmer
Mali
Sumeria
Phoenicia
Hittites

...and the lack of pretty much any recognition for the silk road in a trade oriented expansion is bizarre to say the least. The idea that with 43 civs there hasn't been a place for the Khmer, Sumer, Mali, Phoenicia and the Hittites is pretty much comical, but there you go.

 

[mitsho]

And just see how subjective "well-remembered" is. My list of course would be very different from Menzies, and I'd debate strongly whether these last civs are needed for a 43 list. From the list above only, I'd say I'd put the Etruscans and Illyria above Scythia alone, but then that's my opinion. I personally don't get the appeal of Nubia, but my next on the list African civs (Ashante, Dahomey, etc. ..) would be from a totally different region of Africa. There were posters in here saying that Indonesia wouldn't work as a "blob" civ and we need Majapahit or Srijavaia (I botched that name, sorry) and not Indonesia.

See, very subjective topic...

 

[Carl5872]

It is not all about interesting cultures for the developers but mainly about the interesting gameplay that a civ can contribute to the game. Some European civs were simply too important to ignore (England, Germany, France), while others offered interesting possibilities (Venice) and others were big fan requests (Poland). BNW has seen a bunch of fan favourites as Fixaris works with the assumption that this will be the last expansion, but several civs did receive an interesting and unique gameplay.
And to be honest, most people outside the USA and Canada know almost nothing about native Americans. Names like Navajo, Comanche and Sioux are most likely to ring a bell but others such as the Iroquois Federation and the Shoshone are completely unknown. Which is quite understandable, I also do not expect Americans to know anything about the Frisians. As it comes to civs that have left their mark on history I think there is little room for New World civs, especially those from North America. What kind of major contributions did the Shoshone and Iroquois give to humanity? In that case I am more supportive for those who promote Vietnam, Khymer and Kongo as they managed to develop an empire and a more developed society.

You make several good points. The interesting game play is very important, but I don't think it is independent of interesting cultures. For example, the Sioux were nomadic in nature, which is contrary to conventional civs. A creative mind could find a way to incorporate that as a truly unique and game altering civ. Perhaps they don't use cities, or mobile city equivalents and tile improvements. I'm not creative, but I'm sure some people on this forum could do wonders with them.

I also wasnt saying that they are more or less deserving than those cultures of southeast Asia either. My personal preference is to increase the representation of both. All I was saying is that people said America was OVER represented, and I just could not believe that at all.

 

[Carl5872]

And just see how subjective "well-remembered" is. My list of course would be very different from Menzies, and I'd debate strongly whether these last civs are needed for a 43 list. From the list above only, I'd say I'd put the Etruscans and Illyria above Scythia alone, but then that's my opinion. I personally don't get the appeal of Nubia, but my next on the list African civs (Ashante, Dahomey, etc. ..) would be from a totally different region of Africa. There were posters in here saying that Indonesia wouldn't work as a "blob" civ and we need Majapahit or Srijavaia (I botched that name, sorry) and not Indonesia.

See, very subjective topic...

Thats true, it is very subjective, and its not a perfect way, but its the best way of evaluating how well-represented a continent is. Take the continents in question, poll either the designers or users to come up with a list of who they feel are worthy of inclusion, and compare those lists to the civs already included. Consider civs from continents where those disparities are greatest.

While each persons list may be different, you can find some commonalities. For example in Europe, we may not all have Poland on our list, but I think most of us would have England. It gets less of a consensus as you increase the number of civs, but that is a good way to teach people about new civs they may not have heard of.

If you truly feel population is dominant I can see your point, its easy to understand and cut and dry.

 

[Bakspatel]

You make several good points. The interesting game play is very important, but I don't think it is independent of interesting cultures. For example, the Sioux were nomadic in nature, which is contrary to conventional civs. A creative mind could find a way to incorporate that as a truly unique and game altering civ. Perhaps they don't use cities, or mobile city equivalents and tile improvements. I'm not creative, but I'm sure some people on this forum could do wonders with them.

I also wasnt saying that they are more or less deserving than those cultures of southeast Asia either. My personal preference is to increase the representation of both. All I was saying is that people said America was OVER represented, and I just could not believe that at all.

I do not think North America (or the New World in general) is overrepresented. Fixaris had a good idea with the Pueblo and it is very unfortunate that it didn't work out. It is likely that they chose therefore the Shoshone as there might not have been enough time to work out an idea like you suggested for the Sioux.
Europe is a little crowded now (though thats a fun thing when it comes to EU TSL maps), especially compared to (sub-Sahara)Africa. But you could see it on the positive side that almost all big players in Europe have been represented in the game now, so if a new expansion comes there's a lot more room for civs from other parts of the world.

 

[Carl5872]

I do not think North America (or the New World in general) is overrepresented. Fixaris had a good idea with the Pueblo and it is very unfortunate that it didn't work out. It is likely that they chose therefore the Shoshone as there might not have been enough time to work out an idea like you suggested for the Sioux.
Europe is a little crowded now (though thats a fun thing when it comes to EU TSL maps), especially compared to (sub-Sahara)Africa. But you could see it on the positive side that almost all big players in Europe have been represented in the game now, so if a new expansion comes there's a lot more room for civs from other parts of the world.

I do see it as a positive. And ideally, I would just solve the problem by including ALL those civs. Which is why Im thankful for all you modders that can make civs the DEVs dont have time for. Also take a hint DEVs. I throw my money at you for each new civ.

 

[mitsho]

I don't feel so. Since population is very subjective as well. Why not take land amount? Or a ratio of the two? Or the number of years an empire existed? Or the number of wikipedia mentions? And it all depends on where you're from. See, we could split up China and India into many smaller civs, but we can quite easily merge Germany, the Netherlands and Austria into one Germanic civ again. So no, there are no measurements at all to "rank civs" or "create a distribution key over the continent", that really leads to nothing. (Oh, and where does "Europe" stop with you? Are the Huns Europe? Russia? Ottomans? What about the Moors (based in Spain)? Do we count the US as Europe or America? Is Mesoamerica Northern or Southern America?)

 

[Merciorum]

Swahili
Vietnam
Sioux
Oman
Phoenicia
Cherokee
Kongo
Sumer
Hittites

That would be my favoured combination of civs for another expansion/future DLCs.