How does development of Paleoamerican societies compare to their Neolithic European and Middle Eastern counterparts? Are there enough distinctions to make a compelling expansion?
1 Like
well, the fauna was different and domestication was done not nearly as early on. These were mostly tribal hunter gathering nomads, not suitable for a city building game. However, the fauna would be cool to see, so maybe incorporate a game mechanic like expeditions? idk, just a wild idea.
1 Like
This is where modding would really help.
The user community could make such places/times exist with their own work.
cough Maya, Olmec, Inca, Chavin, Aztec, Pueblo cough
2 Likes
@Dernwine Inca and aztec are too young for the time period (they really started around 10th AD), the other three could fit but only their early early era and they really shine around 1000BC (Maya and Pueblo last longer). So there more adapted to the bronze age time period (Thank to calendar we know that Maya mythology place the origin of the world around 3114 BC ).
And it is true that the domestication was less important : not due to their hability but due to the abscence of proper animals (the only animal which can carry stuff was llama). Which made their architectural achievements more impressive.
Anyway I think they should have their own expansion but in a later period (can not wait to build palenque pyramids temples 
)
2 Likes
unfortunately, there are very little signs of states forming in the Americas in the Paleolithic era. I certainly think it would be cool to teleport a few hundred or thousands years into the future to play as the Maya (c. 1500 BC - first cities around 750 BC) or Olmec (1500 BC). However, the others that you mentioned are extremely late and not within the parameters of the neolithic. Therefore, I omitted them as their relevance is inconsequential to true neolithic Americans.
I’m just interrupting here because I think I see a potential source of misunderstanding that we can avoid - of course you know it, but I feel some posters use one meaning and some the other: “Neolithic” or “Bronze Age” may be used narrowly as referring to a specific time period (say 3300-1200 BC for the Bronze Age), or to material culture, regardless of the date (so Bronze Ages in Scandinavia and China, for example, take place much later).
From the game’s perspective, I don’t think putting a different time stamp on the screen is problematic, so it would be possible and welcome to base an Americas expansion on the Neolithic core game, and/or a later one based on the Bronze Age system (say, for the Aztecs). In these cases we should be looking for parallels in gameplay and city organisation, rather than overlapping dates.
4 Likes
Sargon a) There are very little signs of states forming anywhere in the Paleolithic, that’s part of what makes the Paleolithic (and even the Mesolithic) the era that it is. b) As @Marko the Neolithic isn’t a fixed frame of years but rather a state that given civilizations find themselves in at different times (in the West “Neolithic” is usually used to indicate a state of civilization where a given culture has adopted some form of farming, usually settled, in the East it is usually used to mean a civilization that has started to use pottery). Hence you will find Middle Eastern Civilisation in the Bronze age while parts of Scandinavia will still be in the Mesolithic.
When to cities start to form in the places like the Chavin culture? Boom there you have your American Neolithic. Since there is no contact with Europe/Middle East/IVC/China there is no need to worry about dates and exchange of knowledge with those civilizations which might be more advanced by that time frame.
@Louis.mervoyer Yeah I know, I meant them more as examples of American civilizations that where certainly not hunter gatherer nomands, nor tribal, and certainly very suitable for a city building game
2 Likes
Sorry… but, I was only trying to be polite because it seemed to me that you thought that those examples were indicative of Paleoamerican cultural centers… Which you clarified that they were not. But, were instead indicative of much later neolithic and early bronze age American settlements.
Just for clarification, there were many neolithic states. For example, look at the four main river valley civilizations to see that states were quite popular during the late neolithic. Before that, there was no need for states because farming didn’t exist as a large, local economic institution and therefore did not need governments to regulate and protect it. All of that happened at the start of the neolithic, not the Paleolithic.
As far as I can remember, the Chavin culture used stone tools and farmed and is therefore neolithic… no conflict there with what I said. I was merely pointing out that the examples you used were not indicative of Paleolithic America, not Neolithic America. Because, as you said, the Maya and Olmec were Neolithic cultures. I was answering the OP, who was questioning about PALEOAMERICAN culture. I.e. the Clovis Culture and its sub-cultures which were hunter gatherers of Siberian populations who migrated across the Alaskan land bridge to the Americas and formed societies focused on hunting large fauna. That is the definition of Paleoamerican culture from what little I know.
Actually I’m enjoying this topic and all the comparative discussion around the culture and technology in the early americas. Really my question was meant as a starting point (I’m not an expert)! In particular, whether there was enough advancement prior to the common Bronze Age for an expansion representing this continent?
Paleoamerica does not mean the same thing as Paleolithic America though. Notice how the OP’s question was straight up asking for a comparison with NEOLITHIC (see I can shout too) Europe and Asia?
I don’t think anyone is shouting, you guys are just using emphasis 
I’m also enjoying the topic, and we have managed to clarify lots of things already.
Some topics alway rise tension (like the one on gender which is normal given how important the subject is in our everyday life). So far I enjoy all the topics (some more than other of course) and the talks are mostly polite (which is not always the case in forums). It is normal to have some frictions when passionnate people talk about thing they love.
Moreover, with a field like this one where evidences are scarce and theories many it is likely that some disagreements will rise .
3 Likes
The level of the debate on this forum is high, and I love it!
Ah sorry. When I see all caps I assume it’s someone shouting at me (too much time on youtube and more… drama intensive forums I think), it’s why I tend to use italics or bold to highlight a point rather than CAPITALS.
Yes the level of debate is high, and that’s brilliant
Why do I get the feeling that you hate me? lol. I know that there is a difference. However, there is a significant overlap. As for what the OP originally said, my original response was more than sufficient in answering that Paleoamerican culture (i.e. Clovis culture) is insufficient as there are no cities nor major settlements. However, the fauna was a major part of the Paleoamerican lifestyle. That was my comparisson with neolithic Europe and Asia; i.e. where cities did exist and large fauna, for the most part, was dying out.
Then you guys went off on a tangent about neolithic america, which is post-Paleoamerican archaic period stuff and not pertinent to what I assumed the OP meant. Now that he has cleared things up, I assume that he cares about post-Paleoamerican cultures which would include all of the examples you already listed.
in short, yes there are enough examples in the Americas to warrant a Neolithic expansion DLC. I certainly hope for it.
What? No I don’t hate you. I just disagree with a lot of things you say XD
ouch, that hurt. I don’t quite know why you would disagree with me. If you want me too, I can link you to sources.
XD No worries, when we disagree I say so. Like above. We clashed over differing views (okay it was mostly down to misunderstanding of vocabulary), discussed it and here we are. No hatred, just disagreeing, and discussion.