I’ll start. Since I know the most about the Georgians, I’ll list all the civs they interacted with historically that I can think of. They will be listed alphabetically.
Armenians
Bulgarians
Burgundians
Byzantines
Cumans
Franks (Crusaders or Western mercenaries referred to as Franks)
Mongols
Persians
Romans
Saracens
Slavs (this might be a stretch)
Tatars
Teutons (again, probably Crusaders)
Turks
If there are any I missed, let me know. Try it for yourself!
Okay. I was thinking about opening a thread of this type. List of all in game civs that interacted with other in game civs.
Anyway, about your topic - I’m choosing Incas. They interacted with Incas and Spanish.
Am I a genius or what? 11
Incas:
Spanish
ok that was easy.
I’m largely waiting for someone to notice the Burgundians inclusion in my post and ask about it. Definitely an obscure bit of trivia.
Mongols also interacted with Spanish and more.
Choosing Mongols, the highest interacted civ in the game.
Interacted with
Cumans
Chinese
Turks
Tatars
Byzantines
Teutons
Poles
Lithuanians
Japanese
Malay
Bulgarians
Vietnamese
Persians
Hindustanis
Magyars
Georgians
Saracens
Slavs
Possible interaction that I’m not sure
Bohemians
Armenians
Gurjaras
Bengalis
Burmese
Japanese
Chinese mongols koreans portuguese malays.
Clearly this logic will introduce civs only to regions where there are already tons of civs.
Disfavoring the unrepresented areas to become even more under-represented.
What?
I would argue the opposite:
There is only one civ in the game that the Inca interacted with, therefor the region needs more civilisations.
Same argument works for other civs like Malians, Mayans and Aztecs.
They all interacted with a very low number of other civs therefor those regions really need more civs.
I cannot introduce Polynesians or Mississipians or Bantu Civilizations because they have very little civs around them and so very little interaction.
We already have 2 Roman Clones in the game so suddenly a civ introduced to say balkan region gets the advantage for more interaction.
I think the “more interaction” metric is inherently flawed.
It might seem good at the first look but it’s absolutely now.
It assumes that every major civilisation and every region of the world is already perfectly evenly covered and we are just filling out the blanks, but in reality >50% of civilisations are European so obviously a new European civilisation suggestion has the highers chance to have the most interaction with older civilisations.
It they would always follow that metric then the game would almost only cover one region since naturally you have to be from that region to be able to interact with civilisations from there.
Therefor I think it’s actually the opposite what we should go for.
Add the civilisation with the least interactions should be the highest priority.
Also with Britons, Franks, and Italians:
Some relevant parts:
Several attempts at a Franco-Mongol alliance… were made by various leaders among the Frankish Crusaders and the Mongol Empire in the 13th century.
Edward [Longshanks] understood the value of an alliance with the Mongols, and upon his arrival in Acre on May 9, 1271, he immediately sent an embassy to the Mongol ruler Abaqa, requesting assistance. Abaqa answered positively to Edward’s request, asking him to coordinate his activities with his general Samagar, whom he sent on an offensive against the Mamluks with 10,000 Mongols to join Edward’s army.
Another link between Europe and the Mongols was attempted in 1290, when the Genoese endeavored to assist the Mongols with naval operations.
I’ve only skimmed the article – there may be others as well.
You can include some of them
(they were technically Moravians, but I think that’s close enough)
However, I don’t think they significant contact with either the Gurjaras or the Bengalis, since Delhi defeated the Mongols in every attempt.
Franks… wish me luck, I’ll limit to 1500
Romans - first fought them, then hired as auxilia, then finished off what was left of the West
Huns - fought them at Chalons
Goths - fought alongside them at Chalons, then drove them out of Gaul
Burgundians - vassalised them, then major contacts since Philip the Bold was granted the duchy
Saracens - first stopped them at Tours, then fought them during the Crusades
Berbers - stopped them at Tours then when kickstarting the Reconquista. Saint Louis died when crusading against Tunis.
Bohemians - Charlemagne made them tributary
Teutons - evolved from East Francia, mostly stable border with the HRE for 500 years
Italians - contacts since Pippin the Short fought the Lombards. Italian Wars at the tail end of the timeline.
Byzantines - fought briefly under Justinian, then the Crusades including that damned 4th one…
Spanish - started the Reconquista, the Spanish March evolved to form Aragon
Celts - contact with Britanny, then ally with Scotland
Vikings - got raided, let them settle in Normandy
Britons - The Perfidous Albion has been LE major thorn in the side since Eleanor of Aquitaine remarried.
Sicilians - founded the kingdom then contacts during the Crusades
Magyars - passed through Hungary during the Crusades
Bulgarians - same + fought the Latin Kingdom
Turks - Crusades
Armenians - Antioch bordered Cilicia
Mongols - tried to ally them against the Saracens
Ethiopians - Crusaders tried to contact Prester John who is thought to be the King of Ethiopia
Slavs - a princess from Kiev became Queen of France
Portuguese - ally of the Perfidious Albion during the HYW
Cumans - contacts with the Latin Kingdom then fought them as the Mamelukes in the Levant
Poles - some Frankish knights were at Grunwald
Lithuanians - same
Tatars - a crusader fortress got besieged by Timur, earning him the title “Sword of Islam”
Possibly Persians & Georgians during the Crusades, not sure about that. For India and East Asia it will be after 1500.
As well as Slavs, Magyars and even Saracens, to a certain extent
Agreed, more interactions automatically means more chances of getting represented already by existing civs. It should be other way round. Civ with least interaction with existing civs should be introduced to cover all parts of the world.
Some parts of the world wouldn’t be very relevant to the period, areas still in protohistory notably. North & South America ouside of areas already covered by Meso civs (the most developped parts until the colonial era), too far south in Africa, Australia, north Siberia…
No such hypothetical bar exists for development level to be including in the game.
As long as a civ is unique and brings something new to the table it is good to be included.
North American civilisations were a lot more developed then you might think.
The problem is that the civilisations collapsed thanks to European diseases before the continent was colonized so the colonizers never encountered the big cities that used to exist.
South America also had more beyond the Inca that would be worth adding.
The Inca empire only exited at the very end of the Middle Ages anyway so there are multiple other earlier civilisations that existed in the same area in the 500-1000 years before the Inca.
Africa also has a lot more potential. Many more empires existed on that continent that are not in the game.
I agree about Australia and Norther Siberia though.
Only real criteria as of now is having 10 leader names and a campaign story.Things like having a uu and wonder are also now out of the window.