Civilization. Period.

[Shiav]

Based on some quick math and with the input of the whinier members of our forum, I'm going to go over what this game will need for true proportional representation.

Europe currently has 14 civs. We can reasonably call the Ottomans Asian bringing the number to 13. Many *many* people have been whining for portugal and poland to be included. So fifteen is the number we'll work with (Firaxis please don't change this on me)

15 civs / 0.11 (the percentage of the worlds population in europe) gives us 136 civs required for balance. ☺☺☺☺.

.6 * 136 gives us 82 Asian civs required. We currently have ten. Ouch.
.1472 * 136 gives us 20 African civs. We currently have four. Double Ouch
North America needs ten, it has four. South America needs seven, but has one. Oceania needs two and has one. Slightly better.

Obviously the game would need to be flooded to bring about these numbers. Thats not going to happen. Lets try looking at some historical population figures to see if we can strike a better balance. Numbers are sparse, so we will try for around the year 1600.

North and South America (most liberal estimate): 18 million 3.6%
Europe: 110 million 22%
Asia: 320 million 64%
Oceania: 2 million .4%
Africa: 50 million 10%

Whew. Much more reasonable numbers from a civ stand point. Total theoretical population at 500 million. All numbers from National Geographic. This gives us theoretical civ counts at 68 total. Much more reasonable. Unfortunately this completely eliminates oceania. For the sake of ease, we'll throw it in with Asia. Thus:
15 European civs
7 African civs
43 Asian civs
2 American civs.

Oh dear, the America's just got ☺☺☺☺ed over. Alright well lets try using some different numbers. There are always more numbers to try.

1900 AD, curtesy of wikimedia commons:

Europe 25%
Africa 9%
Americas 14%
Asia and Oceania 52%

So the civs break down like:
Europe 15
Africa 6
Americas 8
A&O 31

Now that we can work with. 60 civs, proportionally distributed. And now we get:

Europe:
Austria (/Hungary)
Byzantium
Celtia
Denmark
England
France
Germany
Greece
Huns
Netherlands
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Spain
Sweden

Africa:
Carthage
Egypt
Ethiopia
Songhai
-- Congo?
-- Zulu

Americas:
America
Aztec
Maya
Inca
Iroquois
-- Brazil/Tupi?
-- Canada/Inuit?
-- Gran Colombia? Argentina? Sioux?

Asia & Oceania:
Arabia
Babylon
China
India
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
Ottomans
Persia
Polynesia
Siam

20 More Asians?

-- Afghanistan
-- Armenia
-- Assyria
-- Australia
-- Burma
-- Hittites
-- Israel
-- Kazakhs
-- Khmer
-- Majaphit
-- Maori/New Zealand
-- Mughal
-- Nepal
-- Pakistan
-- Philippines
-- Sumer
-- Tatars
-- Tibet
-- Timurids
-- Vietnam




I'd now like a pat on the back, please

Reasons not to close this thread (preemptive action, you might call it):
More math and work involved than previous incarnations
Revitalizes discussion in a more expansion oriented setting compared to say "50+ civilization 5"
It could not be posted in aforementioned thread because I'd actually like someone to read it

And to top it all of, because I don't like even numbers:

UN, world.

Total of 61 civilizations. Proportional population representation of the world. Civs with dashes beside their name may be fought over, I don't really care.

[Pouakai]

Nice math you got there, I like it. I think going solely on Population is a bit iffy though, for reasons you've mentioned. Over at CFC someone developed a formula for working out a factor for a civilization to be included. It's much, much more complicated than what you've got here, and it is for warrant of inclusion as opposed to number of civs per region:

(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2/P)

Where:
P: Modern population of civ AGE (i.e for Rome it would be how many people currently live in what used to be Rome at it's greatest extent)
D: Duration, time in years that the civ existed for
MB: Modern bonus, to account for the fact that civilizations that exist today won't magically disappear tomorrow it is equal to:
1: if civ does not exist in any form
1.33: if civ exists as a different country that is related to the original civ
1.67: if civ exists as the same country but with a different type of government
2: if civ exists in the same form (not the same land, just the same type of government, de facto same country) that it was AGE
C: number of current civs on the same continent
PC: modern population of continent in billions
CH: UNESCO heritage sites in civ AGE


According to the OP, this results in:

dutch empire: 2007
mayan empire: 3321
polynesian empire: 59

So by this formula, the Mayans are more likely to be included than the Dutch, whereas Polynesia is just a completely random, left field civilization.

EDIT: Link to topic I just posted about:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=458424

[Hawk]

Good work with this, now we can see how we can balance it realistically. I've never been a maths person, but I'm a visual person, so seeing it laid out in front of me helps!

Asia really does need more attention, but I don't see us ever getting that many more civs for Asia. To help out though, I'd add Assyria to that list of yours.


Hopefully this helps the developers see where they should focus their attention when it comes to new civs, but I think they are far more interested in what will sell that what makes sense. At least letting them know that we want this should help a bit...Here's thinking positively!

[Shiav]

Nice math you got there, I like it. I think going solely on Population is a bit iffy though, for reasons you've mentioned. Over at CFC someone developed a formula for working out a factor for a civilization to be included. It's much, much more complicated than what you've got here, and it is for warrant of inclusion as opposed to number of civs per region:

(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2/P)

Where:
P: Modern population of civ AGE (i.e for Rome it would be how many people currently live in what used to be Rome at it's greatest extent)
D: Duration, time in years that the civ existed for
MB: Modern bonus, to account for the fact that civilizations that exist today won't magically disappear tomorrow it is equal to:
1: if civ does not exist in any form
1.33: if civ exists as a different country that is related to the original civ
1.67: if civ exists as the same country but with a different type of government
2: if civ exists in the same form (not the same land, just the same type of government, de facto same country) that it was AGE
C: number of current civs on the same continent
PC: modern population of continent in billions
CH: UNESCO heritage sites in civ AGE


According to the OP, this results in:

dutch empire: 2007
mayan empire: 3321
polynesian empire: 59

So by this formula, the Mayans are more likely to be included than the Dutch, whereas Polynesia is just a completely random, left field civilization.

Its a good formula, but I think its best for individual comparisons, not the continental ones needed for "properly" filling out a map.

[Shiav]

Good work with this, now we can see how we can balance it realistically. I've never been a maths person, but I'm a visual person, so seeing it laid out in front of me helps!

Asia really does need more attention, but I don't see us ever getting that many more civs for Asia. To help out though, I'd add Assyria to that list of yours.


Hopefully this helps the developers see where they should focus their attention when it comes to new civs, but I think they are far more interested in what will sell that what makes sense. At least letting them know that we want this should help a bit...Here's thinking positively!

Thanks! I was just pulling Asian civs out of my ass by the end there

[Pouakai]

I think that I would rather see a few less Asian civs in favour of America and Africa personally.

[Shiav]

I think that I would rather see a few less Asian civs in favour of America and Africa personally.

I agree. Perhaps I could do it by GDP next time. Then I'd be much more restricted time wise, but I think it might even the numbers out by quite a bit. I'll look into it tomorrow

[istry555]

If I were to edit your lists, just for personal preferences and not based on anything else...

For Europe: Keep Hungary as part of Austria-Hungary, replace that spot with the Bulgarian Empire.

For Asia/Oceania: There's really no need for both the Timurids and the Mughals and then India as well. I'd just go with the Timurids and the current India. Sadly, the Maori are folded into the amalgamated Polynesia (which I always hated and would have split into Hawai'i, Tonga, and the Maori, but whatever). Afghanistan, Pakistan, Australia, Philippines, Armenia, and Taiwan are all meh to me (no offence to their supportes). I'd rather see civs like Phoenicia (as separate from Carthage), Scythia, Champa, Assyria, an Australian Aborigine Rep, (Elam and Akkad would be cool too, but that's being overzealous with ancient Mesopotamia).

Great work overall, though!

[Artifex]

I do not think the representation will ever be proportional. I do not even think that it should.

Interesting unique options from the top of the pile should be added. Population? GDP?, in a word "So?" Those are just possible causes of the desired conditions. Fun, interesting, appealing. It can be called many things but you are looking at the roots to figure out if the fruit is tasty.

And really, that desired state is what already happens. EXCEPT that those that will draw the most sales get heavy favoritism form the developer. That bias isn't going anywhere no matter who complains.

[Pouakai]

GDP will mean NA, Europe and Asia will get way more civs than the Southern Hemisphere regions

[Shiav]

GDP will mean NA, Europe and Asia will get way more civs than the Southern Hemisphere regions

True but will south america thrown into north that should flow down, same with australia. It would also mean less civs overall, as we are using europe to find our benchmark

[Shiav]

If I were to edit your lists, just for personal preferences and not based on anything else...

For Europe: Keep Hungary as part of Austria-Hungary, replace that spot with the Bulgarian Empire.

For Asia/Oceania: There's really no need for both the Timurids and the Mughals and then India as well. I'd just go with the Timurids and the current India. Sadly, the Maori are folded into the amalgamated Polynesia (which I always hated and would have split into Hawai'i, Tonga, and the Maori, but whatever). Afghanistan, Pakistan, Australia, Philippines, Armenia, and Taiwan are all meh to me (no offence to their supportes). I'd rather see civs like Phoenicia (as separate from Carthage), Scythia, Champa, Assyria, an Australian Aborigine Rep, (Elam and Akkad would be cool too, but that's being overzealous with ancient Mesopotamia).

Great work overall, though!

Hungary and Lithuania is not separate, they are either part of Austria/Poland or not in at all. And it would be way too much work to add more europe.

As to the lower quality of asian civs, well I needed twenty. so sue me

[istry555]

Hungary and Lithuania is not separate, they are either part of Austria/Poland or not in at all.

But you got Hungary right between Greece and the Netherlands.

[Shiav]

I do not think the representation will ever be proportional. I do not even think that it should.

Interesting unique options from the top of the pile should be added. Population? GDP?, in a word "So?" Those are just possible causes of the desired conditions. Fun, interesting, appealing. It can be called many things but you are looking at the roots to figure out if the fruit is tasty.

And really, that desired state is what already happens. EXCEPT that those that will draw the most sales get heavy favoritism form the developer. That bias isn't going anywhere no matter who complains.

True, and I have always said that they pick civs based off of what will sell, but if people *absolutely* must be whiny about it then its always nice to throw in other things.

The only reason we have large amounts of european civs is because we have lots of european players. The achievements of Poland are no greater than any other civ on my lists, but they have a better chance of being put in because A) people whine and B) people will pay

But you got Hungary right between Greece and the Netherlands.

supposed to be the Huns.

[_Pax_]

According to the OP, this results in:

dutch empire: 2007
mayan empire: 3321
polynesian empire: 59

So by this formula, the Mayans are more likely to be included than the Dutch, whereas Polynesia is just a completely random, left field civilization.

Welladay, but what's really hitting the Polynesians is the relative dearth of land-area in what is currently thought of as "Polynesia". It would be interesting if some way of accounting for that, could be worked into the formula.

However, based on genetic evidence (some of it fairly recently discovered/detrmined), one should really include Micronesia, Melanesia, and chunks of SE and E Asia (Taiwan, Japan, the Phillipines), and possibly Indonesia as well. That would significantly bump up the Modern Population for the Polynesian Empire.

[Shiav]

Welladay, but what's really hitting the Polynesians is the relative dearth of land-area in what is currently thought of as "Polynesia". It would be interesting if some way of accounting for that, could be worked into the formula.

However, based on genetic evidence (some of it fairly recently discovered/detrmined), one should really include Micronesia, Melanesia, and chunks of SE and E Asia (Taiwan, Japan, the Phillipines), and possibly Indonesia as well. That would significantly bump up the Modern Population for the Polynesian Empire.

By this logic Archaic Homo sapiens wins the day And mongolia will have absolutely gigantic numbers.

[steveg700]

The only reason we have large amounts of european civs is because we have lots of european players. The achievements of Poland are no greater than any other civ on my lists, but they have a better chance of being put in because A) people whine and B) people will pay

Hardly the only reason. Europe also just happened to have lots of nations that were powerful movers and shakers at some point in time. That's one reason why this whole notion "proportional geographical representation" is such a meaningless endeavor (albeit only one many such reasons). It makes represntation amount to quantity. So, Asia suffers in this little numbers game because it had huge, sprawling civ's that dominated their region. Far better that they'd had numerous nations in contention with each other.

And of course, that contention is partially what drove the European nations to cross oceans for exploration and colonization. That imperialism is another reason for Europe's prominence.

[JFD]

New Zealand is not an Asian country. And I don't think more Asian civs than European civs would go down too well if it were actually implemented like that. Not for another couple of years at least. If a distinct cultural basis is to be ignored, Russia might be considered Asian, or Denmark North American. That would alleviate the congestion in Europe if one were to look at it from the geographical perspective that is argueing the cause for greater representation.

[acpraider6]

While I understand the viewpoint of "equal representation," it is kind of ignorant to believe that a civilization's dominance is correlated to the population of that civilization. England is a perfect example of a clear cut exception to this rule. It is an island nation with few people in comparison to Asian, as well as African, South American countries. Yet at the time of its peak, it controlled miles upon miles of the globe including parts of North America, Asia, etc. While population is a key factor, it is by no means the gauge on how great a civilization was. Rome began as a city. It ended up an empire. Other factors such as land area, financial assets, quality of life, innovations/inventions created by the civ, culture, works of arts can't be overlooked. Europe has been, for hundreds and thousands of years, the center of culture, knowledge and finances of the world. While I agree that the game should not be monopolized by Europe, there is no denying many if not all civilizations included from Europe deserve their spot in the game.

[Shiav]

New Zealand is not an Asian country. And I don't think more Asian civs than European civs would go down too well if it were actually implemented like that. Not for another couple of years at least. If a distinct cultural basis is to be ignored, Russia might be considered Asian, or Denmark North American. That would alleviate the congestion in Europe if one were to look at it from the geographical perspective that is argueing the cause for greater representation.

If you read through it you'd find that Asia and Oceania have been grouped together, because the population of oceania is less than that of Tokyo, and at the time i took my stat was less than london, paris, moscow, or new york

[Shiav]

Hardly the only reason. Europe also just happened to have lots of nations that were powerful movers and shakers at some point in time. That's one reason why this whole notion "proportional geographical representation" is such a meaningless endeavor (albeit only one many such reasons). It makes represntation amount to quantity. So, Asia suffers in this little numbers game because it had huge, sprawling civ's that dominated their region. Far better that they'd had numerous nations in contention with each other.

And of course, that contention is partially what drove the European nations to cross oceans for exploration and colonization. That imperialism is another reason for Europe's prominence.

We have all the big colonial nations besides portugal. And portugal is on the list.

[Shiav]

While I understand the viewpoint of "equal representation," it is kind of ignorant to believe that a civilization's dominance is correlated to the population of that civilization. England is a perfect example of a clear cut exception to this rule. It is an island nation with few people in comparison to Asian, as well as African, South American countries. Yet at the time of its peak, it controlled miles upon miles of the globe including parts of North America, Asia, etc. While population is a key factor, it is by no means the gauge on how great a civilization was. Rome began as a city. It ended up an empire. Other factors such as land area, financial assets, quality of life, innovations/inventions created by the civ, culture, works of arts can't be overlooked. Europe has been, for hundreds and thousands of years, the center of culture, knowledge and finances of the world. While I agree that the game should not be monopolized by Europe, there is no denying many if not all civilizations included from Europe deserve their spot in the game.

It is equally ignorant to assume european hegemony in all fields of life for the past thousand years. With the exception of the roman empire and the industrial revolution to world war two, europe has been far behind the rest of the world.

Culturally? Come on. It takes a lot of ethnocentrism to argue europe has more "culture". Once you include germany, spain, rome, england, france and russia all others europeans can be expressed as variants of this theme. The "culture" of europe is incredibly monotonous and invariable without close inspection. As compared to, say, the inuit. Who no other people on the face of the planet is similar to. Or Ethiopia, the birthplace of our race and one of the only two areas not represented by a civ in this game.

Land? Russia is twice the size of europe. Cutting out the powers already in the game, no european empire has had any lasting size, or even any remarkable size. Canada, Kazakhstan, Tibet, and the Tatars all deserve to be in on a "size" basis, because all were several orders of magnitude larger than, say, Poland or Sweden.

Center of Finances? International finance as a concept was popularized by the knights templar, then eradicated for six centuries until the British used it for their empire in the 19th century. Since then the "centers of finance" have been New York, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and London. I won't grace "center of culture and knowledge" with an answer, because you have to start from a very ethnocentric viewpoint to believe that.

Quality of Life in Europe was absolutely dismal. Once again, with the exception of the Roman empire, the Renaissance, and the past fifty years, european quality of life has been universally either equal to or worse than most of the world. It is an over crowded, disease ridden continent. The frequency of plagues and famines shows this. More over, how do you define quality of life? Arguably humans haven't had too high of a quality of life since the agricultural revolution. Until that point we did much less work to get our food, giving us more more leisure time. There were no diseases, as almost every disease that afflicts us comes from the keeping of animals which was unheard of at the time.

Works of Art? /sigh

[JFD]

If you read through it you'd find that Asia and Oceania have been grouped together, because the population of oceania is less than that of Tokyo, and at the time i took my stat was less than london, paris, moscow, or new york

I was just making sure. Its a sensitive issue for some, because soon half of NZ's state assets may become Chinese owned, and there are concerns of NZ's dependancy upon China.

As for Europe being the centre of various aspects which might be cause for its excessive representation - by far the Arab world has seen exceptional periods of culture, quality of life and the like, whilst Europeans lived in squalor - I believe that the Arab world is doing a far better job today at maintaining its cultural, financial and scientific achievements far better than most European cultures, which seem bent upon giving into assimilation. I believe the Aztecs were similar. I recall that the Spaniards described Tenochtitlan as far cleaner than Seville.

There is little place for temperance in European culture, leaving behind this idea that they are superior, from which all other peoples must be compared before others can be considered as "progressing" or "modernising". It's an unfair standard, but I don't think that it should be applied to this game. It's a simple matter of making this game as profitable as possible. Despite the many, many people on all of these forums devoted to the game championing for equal and better representation of the Asian, African and American continents, that is hardly a fraction of the number of people who care only for civs they recognise, or would imagine themselves playing as. As far as that goes, European powers win, because Europeans are the target audience (of course, for the sake of arguement, Americans are Europeans).

[Shiav]

I was just making sure. Its a sensitive issue for some, because soon half of NZ's state assets may become Chinese owned, and there are concerns of NZ's dependancy upon China.

There are many concerns of the worlds dependency on China

[JFD]

There are many concerns of the worlds dependency on China

I'm aware of that. That's beside the point, being that NZ is my country; one that is often overlooked, or considered a part of Australia, at that. Sure, if the world became China's plaything NZ would be among them, but NZ is getting closer and closer to being completely dependant upon China than most other Western nations (mainly because the US will not commit to us economically, and exclusive trade rights with the UK will come to an end if we forfeit our Queen). I didn't mean to make any other point than that NZ is more European than Asian/Oceanic, so I wouldn't consider NZ, or Australia for that matter, as being among the list of Asians/Oceanic...ians (Polynesians?). But then we might not be reviewing the idea of representation on the same level.

[jpbar81]

Shiav, the whole basis of this concept is fallacious. That, alongside your attitude, makes for an amusing thread.

Here's just one example:

When using population percentages to proportion the game's civs to the real world, China and India are massive... no, MAAAASSIVE. They break it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

According to that list (I'm sure other references wouldn't be too far from that), China and India make up 36.5% of the world's population alone. Without them, your Asia percentage would probably be cut in half (at least).

Basically, all those Asian (and Oceania) civs you've listed are sneaking their way into the game because they were lumped together with the massive China and India.

[Shiav]

Shiav, the whole basis of this concept is fallacious. That, alongside your attitude, makes for an amusing thread.

Here's just one example:

When using population percentages to proportion the game's civs to the real world, China and India are massive... no, MAAAASSIVE. They break it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

According to that list (I'm sure other references wouldn't be too far from that), China and India make up 36.5% of the world's population alone. Without them, your Asia percentage would probably be cut in half (at least).

Basically, all those Asian (and Oceania) civs you've listed are sneaking their way into the game because they were lumped together with the massive China and India.

Selling to a niche market (american video gamers) it might seem that way. Selling WoW or TOR, its a very good argument. Global games have a global audience, so if you are trying to sell to the whole world then india and china rightfully take large market shares. And Indians and Chinese would more easily recognize/want to play as the Khmer/Nepal just as europeans want to play as Poland/Sweden. None of those four are truly civ worthy, or at least not on the same level as civs currently in the game, yet you want to add more civs to sell more dlc to continue making money. Thus if you had more market penetration in developing countries you could actually use my argument to its greatest extent.

TLDR, if we want non-european civs we need Firaxis to start selling to people of different ethnicity

[IrishSamurai]

Shiav....

You had me at Nepal.

[acpraider6]

It is equally ignorant to assume european hegemony in all fields of life for the past thousand years. With the exception of the roman empire and the industrial revolution to world war two, europe has been far behind the rest of the world.

Save for the Dark Ages, the Europeans have been pretty equal to ahead of everyone else. Civilization of course really began in the Middle East with the Sumerians, Babylonians, etc. however, The Greeks before and during the Roman Empire were incredible scholars. They advanced ancient society into a new age. The Greeks have even been said to have been creating machines as early as 100 B.C. Then, obviously there is no doubt about the Romans. This is when the Dark Ages period occurred and Europe plunged into darkness. However, the Renaissance can't be overlooked. This was an incredible time of new knowledge achieved by both the Asians and Europeans. This is not to mention the industrial era-modern era time period has been the most important in human history.

As compared to, say, the inuit. Who no other people on the face of the planet is similar to. Or Ethiopia, the birthplace of our race and one of the only two areas not represented by a civ in this game.

Yes, and as it has been brought up before the Inuit had little to no competition. Hence, the Europeans arrive with muskets and the Inuits can only fight back with bows and arrows... Don't get me wrong, i'm fine with some diversity and snow civilizations interest me but come on for you to sit here and claim that Europe is and has been a wasteland makes me laugh..

Land? Russia is twice the size of europe. Cutting out the powers already in the game, no european empire has had any lasting size, or even any remarkable size. Canada, Kazakhstan, Tibet, and the Tatars all deserve to be in on a "size" basis, because all were several orders of magnitude larger than, say, Poland or Sweden.

Russia's capital for the large part of history has been based in Europe... And they are an example of why other factors matter too... however Russia surely accomplished many feats, that is why they were included.

Center of Finances?... I won't grace "center of culture and knowledge" with an answer, because you have to start from a very ethnocentric viewpoint to believe that.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=gdp+b...9,r:2,s:0,i:71 Ethnocentric? These European countries are a tiny fraction of the dominant Asian countries and they equal or don't far trail them!!

Quality of Life in Europe was absolutely dismal. Once again, with the exception of the Roman empire, the Renaissance, and the past fifty years, european quality of life has been universally either equal to or worse than most of the world. It is an over crowded, disease ridden continent. The frequency of plagues and famines shows this.

So like 1000+ years... odd thats almost half of the accepted start of civilization. Never did I say Europe is and has been the model for society... it was rather unsanitary but it was better than many of the rest they nearly single handedly advanced us into new ages. Technology... the reason the past 50 years have been so breakthrough.

Works of Art? /sigh

Mona Lisa... Sistine Chapel... all of the Renaissance painters...totally non existent?

[Shiav]

snip

I'm just going to cut you off here. Everything important in Europe is in the game. Every single accomplishment you've mentioned of Europe is in. We are now talking about more Europeans. And adding any more europeans would be pointless. Poland, Sweden, Belgium, etc. No. We have all we need from Europe. We actually have much more than we probably need.

As to Quality of life, well you seemed to back track on that one. You formerly said european quality of life was far better than the rest of the world. With the exception of the seven hundred years i mentioned, i showed it was actually worse. Humans have existed for almost two hundred thousand years, yet apparently the six hundred years of europe are all that matter.

And its not that european culture isn't good. It's just to claim any one cultures works of art are better than anothers is completely and utterly racist. There is infinite diversity and beauty in the world, and to claim that europe's art is better is completely ethnocentric.

[Xur]

~14 countries in Oceania (pop: 0.5%)
~29 countries in America (pop: 13.5%)
~44 countries in Asia (pop: 60.3%)
~47 countries in Africa (pop: 14.9%)
~50 countries in Europe (pop: 10.7%)

I'm pretty sure Firaxis/2K got statistics from steam where their customers come from, so if western countries are first in line to meet a demand, then I wouldn't hold it against them. I wish we could get some non-extinct civs from Oceania (Australia) and South America though.

[Shiav]

~14 countries in Oceania (pop: 0.5%)
~29 countries in America (pop: 13.5%)
~44 countries in Asia (pop: 60.3%)
~47 countries in Africa (pop: 14.9%)
~50 countries in Europe (pop: 10.7%)

I'm pretty sure Firaxis/2K got statistics from steam where their customers come from, so if western countries are first in line to meet a demand, then I wouldn't hold it against them. I wish we could get some non-extinct civs from Oceania (Australia) and South America though.

Im thinking the next expo is going to be the modern era, and will add civs like australia, brazil, etc

[Homero]

Hardly the only reason. Europe also just happened to have lots of nations that were powerful movers and shakers at some point in time. That's one reason why this whole notion "proportional geographical representation" is such a meaningless endeavor (albeit only one many such reasons). It makes represntation amount to quantity. So, Asia suffers in this little numbers game because it had huge, sprawling civ's that dominated their region. Far better that they'd had numerous nations in contention with each other.

And of course, that contention is partially what drove the European nations to cross oceans for exploration and colonization. That imperialism is another reason for Europe's prominence.

A very good post

---

(P*D*MB)/((C+2)/PC)*(CH+2/P)

The wonderful world of math

Many *many* people have been whining for portugal and poland to be included.

More math

More math,

Longevity

Extreme longevity marked some global empires.The Portuguese were the first Europeans since Alexander the Great of Macedonia to have had an empire in Asia.Portugal was the first European country to acquire an oversea empire and the last to renounce it.

Legacy

Webs of kinship maintained historical connections between different geographical regions. The language, traditions, culture. As the Portuguese empire is coming to an end, the events in Timor makes one wonder if the sun has yet set on this thalassic enterprise. The adoption of Portuguese as an official language after independence from Indonesia, in 1999, gives East Timor an identity as a ‛Portuguese speaking nation’ securing its position amongst a global community". Retaining Portuguese in a far flung country in the Indian Ocean might seem like a colonial hangover, but it allows Timor to identify itself with Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Principe".
It is significant that after decolonisation, the national sentiments have not affected the Lusitanian imprint on several cultural aspects.Even though decolonisation heightens an awareness of ancient roots, cultural flows have tended to preserve Lusitanian links. Over five centuries,several million people embarked for Asia, Brazil and Africa.The Portuguese diaspora has strengthened Lusitanian links and helped to diffuse European cultural traits and customs among them. Since the Portuguese ‘went native’ in the colonies, wherever they decided to settle down, they seem to have integrated well with the locals and passed on Lusitanian traits.
"The Portuguese in the East-A Cultural History of a Maritime Trading Empire"

"The Dutch...while they did not have tha baggage of religious zealotry that had fairly or unfairly attached itself to the Estado da India, their single-minded worship of profit, perhaps exarcebated by the predestination doctrine of their calvinistic faith, made them much less suave colonizers than the Portuguese. The Iberians, after all, had intermarried with local populations wherever possible, and produced generations of Euro-Asian offspring. Their language, moreover, continued as the lingua franca of the Asian trade. Even in Batavia it was heard almost as commonly as Dutch"
"Globe Encompassed, Connections, Key Themes in World History"

Unesco

Unesco? Portugal is "the country that left more patrimonium with bigger geographic diversity" having 22 monuments of Portuguese origin spread by the globe, classified as UNESCO World Heritage”.

The Math and the Empires, The World Economy, A Millenial Perspective, Madison, page 63, OECD 2001,

The impact of the Portuguese economy was deep in Europe,as the products of innovation were directed related to the discoveries.

Sugar production by area of origin: (1456-1600)
Almost exclusively from Portuguese colonies.(Cyprus with a small quote between 1456-1500)

World Gold Production

Pre- 18th century:
1493-1600

World Gold Output:
Portuguese colonies 8153
Americas 8976
Europe 4758
Other 1080

1750 Main gold producers (troy ounces)-Gold became a nominal anchor throughout the 18th century,

Brazil 500 - 550,000
África 75-100,000
Chile 35 - 40,000
Peru: 25-30,000
Mexico 25-30,000
Bolívia 10-15,000
África 75-100,000

Number of ships sailing to Asia from Europe

Number of ships sailing to Asia from European Countries, 1500-1600

Portugal 705
Netherlands 65*
England 0
France 0
Other 0

Total 770

*1590´s.

Number of ships sailing to Asia from European Countries, 1500-1700

Netherlands: 1835
Portugal: 1078
England: 815
France: 155
Other countries: 54


Atlantic slave trade.

From 1501 to 1866:

Portugal/Brazil: 5,848,265
Great Britain: 3,259,440
France: 1,381,404
Spain: 1,061,524
Netherlands: 554,336
Denmark/Baltic: 111, 041

From 1701 to 1800:

Great Britain : 2,830, 257
Portugal: 2,213, 003

From 1801 to 1825:

Portugal/Brazil: 1,160, 601
Great Britain: 283,959 ( slave trade act, 1807)

Religion

As an international organization with special loyalty to the pope the Society of Jesus had its headquarters in Rome; but in Asia and East Africa in the 16th and early 17th century it was obliged to work within the context of the Portuguese Padroado and to co-operate closely with the secular authorities of the (Portuguese) Estado da India.
The Jesuit missionaries (eg. Francis Xavier, Valigagno, etc) who served in the region worked for the Portuguese Padroado,and included Italians, Spanish, Germans and other European nationals.The great majority were always Portuguese.
This last point is easily forgotten because of the attention traditionally paid to a few well-known fathers of non-Portuguese extraction.( Empire in the East; Anthony Disney)
For administrative purposes the Jesuits divided Asia into the four mission provinces of Goa, Malabar, China and Japan.
Their principal colleges were located at Goa and Macau. Missions were implanted in China ( Beijing) and the fiefs of various daymio in Japan Japan (and eventually at the court of the shogun) the Mughal court at Agra and in south India.

Charles Boxer, in "Four centuries of Portuguese expansion",
"The Portuguese Padroado can be defined as a combination of rights and duties inherited by the Crown of Portugal as a patron of the Roman missions and ecclesisatical establishements in a large part of Africa, Asia, and in Brazil. In fact, the Portuguese Padroado in non- European world was only limited by similar Papal privileges conferred on Spanish king´s Patronato Real in Spanish America and Philippines"
---

Everything important in Europe is in the game..Every single accomplishment you've mentioned of Europe is in. .

Not exactly...not exactly.

[Radu]

Yes, I think Portugal is the only one in Europe that should be in that's still missing.

[acpraider6]

As to Quality of life, well you seemed to back track on that one. You formerly said european quality of life was far better than the rest of the world. With the exception of the seven hundred years i mentioned, i showed it was actually worse. Humans have existed for almost two hundred thousand years, yet apparently the six hundred years of europe are all that matter.

Considering up until about 4,000 or so years ago we were virtually cavemen I think the modern years count for much more... As for quality of life, Europe's was still good. Good shelter, food supplies (for the most part) thanks to Feudalism and agriculture and animal husbandry. While it was unsanitary, you've yet to come up with an example of a place where the average quality of life was superior to that of European countries.

And its not that european culture isn't good. It's just to claim any one cultures works of art are better than anothers is completely and utterly racist. There is infinite diversity and beauty in the world, and to claim that europe's art is better is completely ethnocentric.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, certain works of art attempt to accomplish certain things. Realism is one of those things...

[Shiav]

Considering up until about 4,000 or so years ago we were virtually cavemen I think the modern years count for much more... As for quality of life, Europe's was still good. Good shelter, food supplies (for the most part) thanks to Feudalism and agriculture and animal husbandry. While it was unsanitary, you've yet to come up with an example of a place where the average quality of life was superior to that of European countries.

We have never been "cavemen". Does our species look like it's good at surviving in caves? I don't think so.

Neanderthals might be called "cave men", as they were known to bury their dead in "caves". If you can relate to a neanderthal then I completely accept you calling prehistoric humans "cave men"

Not that I've forgotten your argument, I'm getting to that.

Now, what our species is good at are plains. Specifically African plains. Where our height is an advantage, not a detriment. Where we can run. Where large (huge) groups of us can learn to live together.

Now your argument that we "were cavemen" is wrong for a second reason. As many books have pointed out, the cause for all human suffering began ten thousand years ago, with agriculture. Before that, humans were very healthy. Sickness, disease, over-population, etc were virtually unheard of. There was no racism, inequality, class struggle, or differences in wealth. Which means that, by our own standards, the only thing that would limit their quality of life from being much higher than the most modern nations, is life expectancy. As we still don't know what range their life expectancy was in, we can't really say much as to this. Even if it was the lowest estimate, however (55-60), there HDI would be higher than the Eurpean average until 1976.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, certain works of art attempt to accomplish certain things. Realism is one of those things...

So? Art is completely subjective, and the only incorrect statement that can be made about it is that one culture is "bad" or inherently "worse" than another. So realist paintings, impressionist, dadaist, surrealist, etc don't have any more meaning than the most elegant painted caves from over two hundred thousand years ago.

[Shiav]

Yes, I think Portugal is the only one in Europe that should be in that's still missing.

Which is why portugal is on the list. Though Poland may not be for long

[_Pax_]

As many books have pointed out, the cause for all human suffering began ten thousand years ago, with agriculture. Before that, humans were very healthy. Sickness, disease, over-population, etc were virtually unheard of. There was no racism, inequality, class struggle, or differences in wealth.

No, instead you just had to worry about being eaten by a hungry mountain lion, or being stabbed with a sharp stick by someone jealous of the woman you've been spending so much time chasing after.

Let's keep ourselves honest, here: the life of a stone-aged hunter/gatherer nomad was NOT a pretty thing. It was brutish, ugly, and above all hard.

[JFD]

Which is why portugal is on the list. Though Poland may not be for long

If you're taking requests for a replacement: Sweden. But if that comes with a big disagreement from anyone about how Sweden was not a super power, and that Poland is apparantly far superior, then consider it withdrawn. I at least feel Sweden's achievements go beyond the superficial arguements which I see support Poland. That's not to say Europe isn't pretty much complete without Sweden, of course, or that other places shouldn't be represented better. Just if one was to look for a second tier civ from Europe which was just as much a great power - argueably more so - as Poland was.

[Shiav]

No, instead you just had to worry about being eaten by a hungry mountain lion, or being stabbed with a sharp stick by someone jealous of the woman you've been spending so much time chasing after.

Let's keep ourselves honest, here: the life of a stone-aged hunter/gatherer nomad was NOT a pretty thing. It was brutish, ugly, and above all hard.

Not as hard as you might think. We actually have to do more work for our food than they do. A typical hunter/gatherer worked 16 hours a week to provide for themselves. A typical agrarian in the past 12000 years worked 64. We do around forty. They still have us beat that way. Also, with the manipulation of fire we became the top of the food chain, meaning lion/human attacks were about as common then as they are now. Maybe less, pretty sure our ancestors had more common sense than stupid tourists