Lots of concept out there. But devs would probably pick none of that. They want to make something original.
2 Likes
You’ve stated ‘Mapuche’ in the group ‘North America’ if you click on the link its ‘Mississishitpians’.
Not my thing to set up, you want @casusincorrabil to fix that.
Right below ‘Mapuche’ there is a ‘Mississishitpians’ civ that leads to the exact same topic about Mississishitpians.
Either a typo or you accidentaly used the same link for different civs.
You might consider scrolling down a bit 
Seriously? And how this passed the censor? 11
1 Like
it’s double present in both groups. doesn’t the tribe only excist in south america?
oops autocorrect lmao sorry!
It’s one big post, just scroll down in that thread a bit.
It contains
Mississipians
Iroquis
Mapuche
All in one big post.
I just split them up cause all of them are as well elaborated as the other individual civ concepts.
When was the last time someone updated this table?
1 Like
Well the idea was that most people might have interest in linking their concepts here.
As
almost exclusively meant “me” and I wasn’t always available to immediately link them and would have had to look them up retroactively, I kinda lost the leisure. Especially as there were almost always the same people spamming not very well thought through concepts that wouldn’t fit in the game AND wouldn’t be representative of the civs either. Expecting then chori of praise here…
Ofc there also were good concepts, but as this thread wasn’t pinned it wouldn’t even had guided people to visit them cause of the lack of exposure.
But thanks to all the people who were involved in the project then, especially @TheConqueror753 who built this wiki page for us to use.
4 Likes
I really like this idea you had tbh
A bit of a shame it hasnt gotten that much attention
3 Likes
Thanks.
BTW just to clarify. I’m not tilted or something.
I’ve less time to spent here which is one factor, the other ofc is that this thread just doesn’t make sense in this type of forum when it isn’t pinned somwhere (doen’t need to be the “discussion” subforum).
As there is no real “discussion” that can be made here it will just naturally fall down. But as it is there to lead interested people to threads that are made for longevity that’s exactly what it shouldn’t.
So when you think about that it’s just not worth spending a lot of time trying to keep alive when it can’t provide what it’s intended for.
But we definitely could think about a new poll where we use the collected data here - and all the newer civ designers could/have to send in their contributions manually.
1 Like
@casusincorrabil good work, I discovered this just now, a true gold mine for civs ideas and concepts.
I would just suggest to put Romans, Vandals and Xianbei in their respective category since at this point Romans are in game, Huns always were so Vandals fit (Gaiseric) etc. Also Hepthalites would be mostly out of the timeframe following your logic of the game starting in 600 (which is factually wrong so idk why it’s the case).
I would leave that category for civs that are obviously out of the timeframe like Parthians, Scythians, Dacians, Han Chinese, Mauryans etc.