I agree on Russia but I hear opposite opinion a lot. Still at which point does country became natural to the region? Is Hungary European?
Look Egypt was integral part of Caliphate. People were still same so its not fair to say that they are African no more.
Egypt was a region in the Abbasid Caliphate, an entity whose capital was Baghdad, and whose courts spoke Farsi.
Egypt on it’s own, is an African country. Egypt dominated under a larger entity from Asia, is not.
What is this Soyjak talking about?
nice, cant wait for that DLC 
anthropology has nothing to do with technology
You’re following MIR’s Positivist argument, that doesn’t reflect real life, only Positivism’s books. It is basic knowledge in any area from the Humanities.
Steel is useless in rainforests, so why would people in Amazon develop this kind of technology?
actually i made an error as i was unaware Archeology was under anthropology umbrella and not by itself
And why is it useful in thhe plains and fields?
I really don’t get what you mean between Positivism, Archaeology and Anthropology. Though, yeah, areas of knowledge can do some exchange between themselves.
Steel+excessive humidity=rust.
Its good thing than that Cortez abandoned all his steal weapons when he was conquering Aztecs otherwise it would all go south.
America is leading in my survey about Where should the first DLC go?
It seems like a likely place to go for me.
Aztecs and Byzantines seem the most beloved civilisations that are missing in the base game.
Looks like I’m one of the few people who is totally fine with this. Lack of mesoamericans in the base game is very good game-design choice, developer choosed 8 civs which was historically really important for their continents and thus for the world. Meso-americans civs maybe looks good, but nothing more, they not achieved anything special in history, they didn’t influence medieval world at all and were isolated from other.
Look at this also from the other side, how do you want to fit them in campaigns? Second Pachacuti with one-civ missions?
There should be more civs, but civs like Byzantium or Persia which really did anything special in history.
It’s good to learn that Tenochtitlán gave place to Manaus and not Ciudad de México. And you say as Cortéz came shooting and slicing everything. I’d love to read some of your literature about Iberians in America.
Anyway, tell me why Aztecs needed so bad steel to be a developed civilization.
There’s a lot of messages here, but you could save some time to read some of them. It’s tiring to explain basic stuff all over again to every new person who comes here repeating the same non-sense.
Blockquote There’s a lot of messages here, but you could save some time to read some of them. It’s tiring to explain basic stuff all over again to every new person who comes here repeating the same non-sense.
I saw your “explaining”, that was funny to read but nothing more.
You could’ve read others also 
I’ll try to make my “explaining” easier to understand in the future, so I hope you keep following the post, maybe you’ll get it sometime.
Seeing how the most impactful, developed and wealthiest European nation in the Middle Ages, the Byzantine empire, is not going to be included in the base game, I am not the little bit surprised that American civs are not either.
The game is building well on some preconceived western stereotypes where the following 4 powerhouses of the modern era have always been on top, which is a blatant lie:
If anything, all four of them were most often seen as barbaric ,backwards and uncivilized societies by the more developed civilizations that they came in contact with.
And if what has been heard or seen around is true, then all 4 of them are going to be in the base game.
the games campaigns are literally about them NOT being on top but becoming civilizations.
Have you actually played the campaigns to know what they are all about?
I do not speak about what the campaigns tell you. The very fact that those nations are going to be featured at the expense of more advanced and impactful ones, is a proof of itself on which ones are considered by the devs important and which are not.
This is what I meant by them always being considered to have been on top in terms of significance, power, culture or anything else can be viewed as a decisive factor to which civilizations should be included first. They haven’t been on top and should not be treated as such.
I have read the descriptions of both normans and 100 years war campaigns.
They both sound similar - you start at a bad point, unify your people to defend against a conqueror and therefore create an empire. Which means it is about becoming civs, not being on top
They are probanly chosen first because they are more appealing for the general public.
You mean like ripping the hears out of tens of thousands of POW’s and their own people and sacrificing them to THE SUN GOD WHILE THEY WERE STILL ALIVE? 
Pathogens were more so responsible for the fall of most civs on Mesoamerica though. This is also NOT the fault of Europeans. Since the “Germ Theory of Disease”, was NOT “discovery/invention”, until approximately 100-200 years later.