Well woad raiding was way more prevalent when sag Hannibal needed some extra painted bodies to terrorize the Romans.
We donāt need to rehash the discussion on records, but one point that hasnāt really been brought up is that to some extent, the argument for addition of a civ based on connections/interactions with existing civs becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for areas that are already civ dense (and a self-limiting prophecy for areas with low civ density). Other considerations aside, I think some people will be biased in favor of more Euro civs and will use the argument that there are already a dozen or so existing Euro civs that they may have interacted with, so it makes sense to add them. So in addition to Europe being a popular area that hosted many viable source cultures, it has benefitted from having a lot of momentum in terms of representation.
The flip side is that the more New World or African civs are added, the more it makes sense to add their neighbors, allies or enemies. If the ChimĆŗ are added, it will make more sense to also add the Muisca, Taino, possibly even Wari or Tupis. For now though, the inertia of low representation seems to bias some people into thinking that all of these civs were not relevant.
2 Likes
The flaw in that argument however is that a DLC does not add one civ, but several. Even if a region did not have much interaction with other civs in the game, you can still make up campaigns and everything with the other civs that would be included in a DLC, if the devs wanted to at least.
(And obviously, many of these regions did interact with existing civs anyway, so the argument itself is also moot.)
Unfortunately true indeed, however I would not say itās a large contributing factor to this, and moreso just the history that is taught. Naturally everyone will have their own countryās history taught to them, and then more important beats from the world, and less is taught about countries the further you go from the playerās country of origin.
Itās kinda why Iād think games that represent civilizations (AoE2, Civilization) from all over the world are important, because without them you wouldnāt even learn about them. And it also gets a little boring to see any new game have the same characters or countries as well, so a little variety is nice for me. ;p
Perhaps not, but Iāve been though enough civ design/hypothetical DLC threads to strongly suspect this is an underappreciated factor. General ignorance is part of it as well of course, but when no new American civ has been added for ~10 years, Iāve seen some people consider that as evidence that āif there was another viable/important American civ, the devs would have added it by nowā and the like. Whereas Iāve never seen that objection regarding any European civ, even for people who apparently arenāt very well caught up on their European history. Which is why I personally would favor another Forgotten-style DLC to cover several of the most unfamiliar civs and begin the process of normalization. Iām not going to hold my breath waiting for people to generally become interested in the histories of lesser-known areas, but the devs have the power to introduce those civs regardless of the general knowledge level.
Also, can you imagine if the focus of AoC had been different, and Aztecs/Mayans had never been added? I suspect that the opposition to adding American civs on the basis of tech/animal disparities would be many times what it is now, without AoC normalizing those civs and showing that civs without iron or gunpowder can be viable and donāt ruin the game.
Of course, it was just to illustrate my point. I would also like to see Georgians, Tibetans, Thais and others, even some from Europe too.
1 Like
This is a game about knights castle not world representation about everybody living during the middle ages.with your logic we should get eskimos and aboriginals as factions too.they too were hunter gatherer societies active during this time.
It certainly features those heavily, yes, but it hasnāt been exclusively āaboutā them since 2000. This would be an okay argument if every existing civ featured knights (much less stables). Itās weird to me when people in 2022 hold on to this idea of what the game should be that never made it past AoC.
Even if 16 (total) New World and African civs are added, the game will still lean much more heavily towards representing Medieval Europe than anywhere else.
It would also be awesome if we could move past the false dichotomy of all civs either resembling a Medieval Eurasian Kingdom/Empire of gunpowder and steel, or being mere āhunter-gatherersā with no evidence of civilization. I agree that the Aboriginal Australians donāt score nearly enough points in terms of organization/power/tech/contacts to meet the quota for inclusion, and the Inuit probably donāt either, but there are African and American civs that do.
3 Likes
I am perfectly fine seeing civis such as shona swahili or even american civis like toltecs zapotecs because you have wonder building.But there needs to be minimum criteria for adding a civi into the game or else what is holding from one adding eskimos in to the game with a giant igloo as a wonder? Or zulus with a shaka zulu campaign?
This is just my personal opinion but any civi that should make it to the game should minimum have a wonder building an interesting story with some other ingame civi present not just fighting amongst same civi.and minimum contact with two or three ingame civis.
1 Like
Iāve seen a similar argument on other gaming forums. Itās basically like this: the company doesnāt include such a culture because itās risky. Why? Because the audience is low/non-existent. The problem, of course, is that this audience will never grow/exist with that mindset. For a person to find something interesting, he must be exposed to that something; but for it to be exposed, others must have found it interesting and worthy of exposure before. See the cycle? Exposure ā interest ā more exposure ā more interest etc. The argument is very weak.
Your idea of āāmaking umbrella civs as foothold in the Forgotten style makes sense since we donāt know the future, but donāt you think that umbrellas could end up repeating the āIncas vs Incasā situation of campaigns? Of course, I imagine it will depend on the civ, or maybe with two umbrella civs from each region this can be worked around. But if the latter case, it would be better for specific civs, no?
I really believe the devs will continue the trend of breaking umbrellas, especially after the complaints with India, but I can only guess.
The best thing Microsoft did was get a history nerd like Sandy Petersen (and others) to make aoe2, he was way ahead of his time with the game. And as @Nerathion said, these global history games ā even without having the obligation, rigor and even the proposal ā end up educating more about the world than schools.
@Mahazona you writing something like that makes it seem like you didnāt even read what @SirWiedreich wrote above. No civ is isolated in the real world and thatās how it works in the game. If we add more American and African civs, there will be more of the contact we all want to see.
And your criteria are not all used by the devs (just look at the wonders of the Huns and Cumans) nor all reasonable (an interesting story is subjective).
1 Like
Ah good, at least we share the same basic criteria, even if we might disagree as to what meets those criteria sufficiently.
As a bit of an aside, I think some of the considerations we have for civ designs can be a little ironic - a known wonder in a game where wonders are almost never seen, and campaign material when even many of the existing civs donāt yet have campaigns (like Chinese, for whom there is tons of potential, yet nothing has materialized yet). Not that I donāt think these things carry some weight, just an observation. In any case, the precedent of ānon-standardā Wonders has already been established, so there is some flexibility (not to the point of creating a giant igloo wonder, of course).
By the way, the Inuit extended far south enough to have probably been (at least some of) the Skraelings the Norse encountered. So the characterization of them solely as arctic igloo-dwellers is too narrow. But yes, wonder, leader names, and overall influence would be limiting factors with the Inuit such that I donāt think they meet the quota. They could be part of a Miākmaq umbrella however, or just represented by-proxy with a more powerful and unified northeastern civ. And Shaka Zulu as you know is too far out of the time period to be within reach of the most optimistic consideration.
Yep. The āIf you build it, they will comeā principle is real. Iāll admit I knew almost nothing of Medieval SE Asia before Rise of the Rajas, but I was blown away by how cool the civs were. The ācool factorā can be worth a lot (and was part of the reason ES chose Aztecs and Mayans for AoC by the way).
Thatās always a possibility, but frankly it could be solved by adding a handful of editor units to represent the opposing factions without having to make a full civ. And TBH Iāve somewhat moved away from my earlier position of preferring umbrella civs (especially if the devs add more Editor units to represent the areas that are not represented with full civs). I still think they can be useful, as in the case of Polynesians, Pacific Northwest, and perhaps a Tupi/Guarani civ for Western South America, or maybe a Mogollon/Hisatsinom hybrid.
I before E, except after Cā¦and R in this case 
2 Likes
Tell me one medieval connection to the other ingame civis aboriginals had during the middle ages? Or even polynesians or mississippians?
11 this is literally the āself-fulfilling prophecyā I laid out earlier, a self-reinforcing cycle of gatekeeping on the basis of what already exists in-game. The Australian Aborigines (as far as I know) are possibly the strongest argument for being too isolated (as well as having critical limitations in other key areas), so thatās an easy one to concede.
As for the Mississippians, they were known to trade at least as far as the Gulf of Mexico, so that likely includes contact with Mayans and proto-Aztecs. There was also contact, including fighting, with the Spanish, of the De Soto expedition, among others. (You could argue that the De Soto expedition is a little late at 1540, but I think its fine considering De Soto also participated in the Conquest of the Inca Empire). So easily 2, and probably 3 (in an area of very low civ density no less). Also the Haudenosaunee or Miākmaq, and Taino/Caribs if they were to be added.
Polynesians is a little trickier, but they certainly interacted with the West Coast of South America (so Proto-Incas) and peoples who fall under the Malay umbrella, with possible (but limited) contact with other empires of SE Asia. I donāt have strong evidence for (impactful) contact with these other empires, but it seems very likely based on the enormous distances traversed and the proximity of SE Asia with areas the Polynesians did have contact with. There are also genetic links showing some ancestry from East Asia, although I canāt prove this wasnāt pre-Medieval.
Even if proximity/interaction is one of the defining factors, I maintain that many of these civs do meet these criteria much better than is commonly known.
2 Likes
Iād really like more African and Native American civs
5 Likes
Im not gate keeping im asking a historical backed question.saying polynesians made contact with incas is just a theory which is yet to be proven just like aboriginals were a gardning community.mississippians are a cultural umbrella you can always say they had contact with spanish or aztecs but what proof is there to back it up?
On a side note I find it really odd that none of the malay peoples ever went to australia given the close proximity.
Okay, but I wasnāt talking about Inuits or Australian Aboriginals? Thus far Iāve mostly been talking about African civs in mind, which are neither Inuit or Aboriginals. Potential civs that you also agree on arenāt merely hunter-gatherers.
And this is also something I said before? That as long as a āminimum criteriaā from the devs is met, a civ is up for consideration for being added to the game, regardless of the quantity of historical texts.
In general I donāt know if you didnāt read my posts (or the conversation) at all. Why the focus on Inuits and Aboriginals?
Iād highly recommend looking into the available information before you assume thatā¦thereās literally genetic evidence (among other things) proving it happened, so Iām not sure how you can dismiss it as ājust a theory.ā Youād be fair to point out that thereās still a lot we donāt know about how and why, so that might not be a strong idea for a campaign, but Iām not aware of any credible scientist or historian that disputes the connection (since thatās what weāre talking about here).
Well yes, Mississippians are one of the better uses of an umbrella, but I donāt see how that diminishes the contact they had with other nations. Considering that De Soto literally zigzagged through the Mississippian heartland and died at the Mississippi river, I think itās fair to say there was contact with the Spanish 
Regarding Mayans and proto-Aztecs (Toltecs)ā¦eh, to be frank, I get tired of doing the homework for people who disagree or seem to have a default position of being resistant to certain information, but generally it is out there if you look for it. The tl;dr is that there are major artistic, cultural, and even architectural (major commonalities size and alignment of the Cahokia Mounds and the temples of Teotihuacan) similarities between Toltecs and Mississippians that are not shared by other NA cultures. To what degree this is āinfluenceā vs direct contact is unclear, but thereās definitely a strong link.
Also artifacts showing trade with the Mayas (especially Huastecs), to say nothing of the Mississippi emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, which was widely traversed by Yucatec Maya traders.
2 Likes
The Merovingian kings in 500 and 600 AD were burried with Fransisca throwing axes. They were still in use in the early medieval times, so they are not just a myth from the pre-roman Gaul period. They were even found in the lowercountries, thus the Franks represent the Dutchies for the first few hundreds of years after the Romans before the HRE was established by them. Later on the Teutons represent them.
Yes. Iām not saying they are legends or fiction.
That argument of mine is that even if there is always something later that appears earlier (e.g. conquistadors in the campaign of El Cid), or vice versa (e.g. throwing axemen in the campaign of Joan of Arc), they all do exist in their respective records.
Why the more civilizations in the New World and Africa, the more possible people could be able to dispel doubts about them?
The issue of quantity is about the unpredictable total number of slots. The number of civilizations does not remove doubts about their suitability to be civilizations. Itās two different matters.
Asking for too many slots may turn shaky supporters into potential opponents. Is it reasonable for the New World and Africans to ask for as many as 16 new ones just because Europeans will still be over the half? When we know for certain that the old world is still full of many untapped potential civilizations?
I hope the reason you guys are trying so hard to debate it is just wanna show that they are still worthy of competing with potential civilizations in the Old World, not that the Old World isnāt worth mentioning anymore.
1 Like
To be clear, I donāt think we need 16. I picked a number that was both larger than what I think is needed, and what I think the devs will ever do to illustrate the point that, even if the devs go super tryhard on African and American civs, Europe is still not in danger of losing its status as best-represented.
Surely the old world includes Africa as well as Asia and Europe. And of course I am open to more civilizations even from Europe (I think Georgians or Armenians make one of the best cases for viable civs that are not yet covered), but there is no reason to prioritize them at this time.
3 Likes
Gaelic would be a nice addition to Western Europe.