Yes oral traditions are not reliable historical evidence.
Yes oral traditions are not reliable historical evidence.
I have literally no comment on whether or not they "deserve" to be there. I'm just reminding people that this was a pet project and so did not take up any development time, which is something the poster I quoted criticizedalso adding tags barely takes time. sure they're fleshed out a bit more than just having a name, colour and flag but it's really not that time consuming. I don't mind having them in game, as they surely will make for an unusual campaign many people might enjoy, but it's ridiculous to pretend they had enough organisation etc to warrant being put into the game, like certain african civilisations do.
yes sure, my second point was unrelated to my first. I agreed with you, added that it didn't take away time from actual development and then independently stated my opinion on the debate above. That was just formated very misleadingly, my bad.I have literally no comment on whether or not they "deserve" to be there. I'm just reminding people that this was a pet project and so did not take up any development time, which is something the poster I quoted criticized
Performance issues happen more during late game, when the number of tags is smaller, early game when the number of tags is at the max, peoples rarely have performance issues.More tags mean performance issues.
This is what will happen in 1.31, native councils mechanics were totally reworked and australian natives will use these new mechanics, they will reform their tribal government and increase their technology more slowly as well.how you can annex migratory native tribes. It should be that you either displace them,
I don't really see a problem here, exploration ideas finisher enable you to fabricate claims in colonial regions, if you really don't want transport armies to Australia you can settle provinces without tags and when your colonial subject reaches a reasonable size and creates a good army you can declare war and let the colony make the job, this option is more historical correct too.And it means that colonising Australia means sending over a stack to attack these tags, and having to fabricate, and war, and deal with their webs of alliances.
So thats dev private time not being used on other mechanicsIt was mentioned at announcement that these tags were added on a developer's private time. The opportunity cost of bug fixes, or even other content, doesn't really apply when something is done off-hours
As well as balancing, and bug testing to make sure its playable on launchalso adding tags barely takes time. sure they're fleshed out a bit more than just having a name, colour and flag but it's really not that time consuming. I don't mind having them in game, as they surely will make for an unusual campaign many people might enjoy, but it's ridiculous to pretend they had enough organisation etc to warrant being put into the game, like certain african civilisations do.
The alternative wasn't designing new mechanics. It was the dev using his weekend to go hiking or watch anime or whatever the hell he does on his days off.So thats dev private time not being used on other mechanics
As well as balancing, and bug testing to make sure its playable on launch
I am a published historian with some training in archaeology on the side and I can tell you that you are mistaken. Oral traditions can be reliable; written records can be unreliable. Different epistemologies and forms of evidence simply require different methodologies to parse and interpret them into usable “history”.Yes oral traditions are not reliable historical evidence.
I am not sure which bit you are referring to, but most of my message except for the bit about Polynesian sailing is contained within the sources I provided earlier if you wanted to peruse through them.
They do believe the boomerangs a few Pharaoh's were buried with were self-returning types, but they lacked any significant combat potential i.e. they lacked the sheer scope of range and power of the designs used by Australian Indigenous people (and it is mostly for this reason that the boomerang is associated with Australia, as it was mastered as a weapon and a tool in ways no other culture had managed). It is certainly true that no sling-and-stone is within the realm of a weapon or a tool compared to the boomerang designs used in Australia, and it is why it was still used even when Australian Indigenous nations developed "more advanced" weapons.
Take for instance one of the other weapons they designed (before they begun trading with Indonesia and the Philippines in the 500's onwards) which was a weapon that worked very much like the ballista and operated in quite a similar way. It was capable of firing spear-like-bolts over a large distance and it was capable of being used to fire at a rapid rate for use in larger battles. The primary reason they didn't adopt the bow and arrow (which they were very much aware of through their trades) is because it was obsolete compared to the ballista-like weapon they employed and the boomerang design they used (I unfortunately cannot remember the name, but it was a crazy sight to behold when elderly people were able to use it to shoot bolts at blinding forces).
Essentially the main evidence found in the last twenty years (because prior to this it was believed impossible that any non-European nations had managed cross-ocean exploration by this point) is that in South America there are colonies of chicken which are nearly genetically identical to chickens only found previously in Polynesia, that in Western North America they had many words in their language to describe people sailing from the ocean (which was long before Europe sailed ships to that part of America) and their ship designs were nearly identical to those used in Polynesia at the time, and that there are Indigenous nations in South America that share genealogy that is significantly different from nearby Indigenous nations and is strikingly similar to that of the Polynesian people.
Analysis of this evidence and triangulating it all has led to the suggestion that Polynesians likely arrived in South America in 900 (about two hundred years after landing in Easter Island) and likely landed in North America around 1300. Additionally, considering how Easter Island was about equal distance to sail to as Easter Island was to sail to South America in terms of traversing open ocean it wouldn't seem technologically unlikely. This does lead me to another fact, the people of Easter Island are believed to be one of the few people that independently developed written language sometime around 1500, but this was wiped out by pirate raids in the 1800's sadly.
This is probably worth pulling out. You’re right that no Old World-New World regular contact before the Norse colonisation of the Americas has been proven, but that doesn’t really apply to Polynesia—it’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (e.g. because they’re still there now) that Polynesians were crossing the Pacific every which way long before Europeans arrived. Given the range of demonstrated Polynesian voyaging across the Pacific (i.e. reaching New Zealand, Hawaii and Rapa Nui) it would be more strange if they hadn’t reached the Americas than if they had.There was already a lot of studies about the possibilities of non-European cross oceans travels (theories about Malians, Japanese, Chinese, and even ancient Egyptians), but most concluded to the same - It's not impossible that a single travel could have happened, but no permanent contact (involving regulars travels and trade) could be ever prouved.
Well done for being taught that oral histories are sometimes used. A primary source and a secondary sauce do differ, but that doesn't make one innately more credible than another.I am a published historian with some training in archaeology on the side and I can tell you that you are mistaken. Oral traditions can be reliable; written records can be unreliable. Different epistemologies and forms of evidence simply require different methodologies to parse and interpret them into usable “history”.
Edit for the person who “disagreed” with me, whoever you are, you’re objectively wrong. If you take five minutes to look up the uses of oral tradition in “doing history” you will find that oral traditions are not only a useable but an important source in histories from every corner of the Earth and there are whole fields of historiography dedicated to finding the best ways to compare, test, and validate oral evidence just as there are whole fields dedicated to working with textual or archaeological evidence. The idea that text is the only usable form of historical source material fell out of favour in the late 1400s; your viewpoint is more at home in the era EUIV represents than the era which created it.
Edit again for the clever clogs disagreeing with centuries of historical methodology without a reason: consider the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, “textual evidence” that a sinister Jewish conspiracy was sacrificing children and taking over the world... except it wasn’t, and the early life of Genghis Khan, which doesn’t exist in any textual evidence anywhere (unless you count wildly unreliable decades-later propaganda) because virtually no one in his immediate culture could write, but which has been reconstructed by historians from the 13th century on from independently collected, compared, triangulated and verified oral evidence from hundreds of people who knew him or knew people who knew him. Textual sources can be unreliable, oral sources can be reliable. Disagreeing with that is failing to under the basics of historical methodology.
It is true that there has been criticism made of it, but as I myself am no biologist either I am not able to determine if the criticisms are valid or not and hoped that by mention of the evidence it would provide an avenue of further research for those that wanted to come to their own conclusion about the existence of Polynesian-American contact.There was already a lot of studies about the possibilities of non-European cross oceans travels (theories about Malians, Japanese, Chinese, and even ancient Egyptians), but most concluded to the same - It's not impossible that a single travel could have happened, but no permanent contact (involving regulars travels and trade) could be ever prouved.
I find the study that mention the chicken theory (Araucana chickens) - but you didn't precised that this study was hevily critisized and dismissed twice due to flaws in the initial researsh (I'm not a biologist to argue about the scientific part). Also this theory was about Polynesians, not Australian hinterland tribes.
I had a search of the Woomerang (or Woomera) and it seems to be similar in some ways to the weapon I observed. I had meant more to refer to the specific mechanisms of how the bolt was fired rather than the nature of the weapon when mentioning its ballista-like properties.I never heard about an Australian ballista, are you sure that you don't confuse it with the woomerang? I don't see the point to develop siege weapons in a place without siege warfare. Even if that's true - there is a big difference between warfare weaponry and everydays tools as slings and bows, that can be used for hunting and self defence in peaceful time. Artillery didn't made handgun obsolete, they have different purposes.
Less new mechanics is better than more buggy mechanics on launch that take several patches to fixThe alternative wasn't designing new mechanics. It was the dev using his weekend to go hiking or watch anime or whatever the hell he does on his days off.
It's one thing to say "these tags shouldn't be added for xyz gameplay reasons" and something totally different to say "the person working voluntarily and for free should have done what I wanted him to do while he was working voluntarily and for free." The former is reasonable, the latter is called being an entitled brat
No one was saying oral traditions are more credible than textual sources, though. The suggestion was that all oral traditions are worthless all of the time, which is patently ridiculous.Well done for being taught that oral histories are sometimes used. A primary source and a secondary sauce do differ, but that doesn't make one innately more credible than another.
Apocalyptic chroniclers from the mediveal era are taken with a grain of salt, and Chinese stats are largely ignored, otherwise you get shit like 100k Ottomans at Varna
Turks thinking they descend from a shewolf in the mountains is far more important than whether they did or not, because it helps us understand their culture
We’re being asked to pay for this DLC though. If the entirety of the DLC were free you might have a point.The alternative wasn't designing new mechanics. It was the dev using his weekend to go hiking or watch anime or whatever the hell he does on his days off.
It's one thing to say "these tags shouldn't be added for xyz gameplay reasons" and something totally different to say "the person working voluntarily and for free should have done what I wanted him to do while he was working voluntarily and for free." The former is reasonable, the latter is called being an entitled brat
The Aboriginal tags, like all maps updates, are coming for free with the 1.31 patchWe’re being asked to pay for this DLC though. If the entirety of the DLC were free you might have a point.
I agree (as a Māori person and a historian of New Zealand, no less) that adding these indigenous tags was a poor gameplay decision for EUIV, but the angle you’re critiquing it from makes no sense.We’re being asked to pay for this DLC though. If the entirety of the DLC were free you might have a point.
"Oral traditions can be reliable; written records can be unreliable." is saying oral can be more authentic than writtenNo one was saying oral traditions are more credible than textual sources, though. The suggestion was that all oral traditions are worthless all of the time, which is patently ridiculous.
Are the religious mechanics free? Due to malaccan Australian interactions, it will affect the mission trees of the Sea tags that we are playing forThe Aboriginal tags, like all maps updates, are coming for free with the 1.31 patch
Yes. They can be. They can also not be. It depends on the traditions in particular. Two hundred different oral verifications that there was a battle at Alesia, recorded in seventy places by forty different people from fifteen different points of view is far more authentic and credible than one scrap of writing from a Gaulish patriot saying “THERE IS NO PLACE CALLED ALESIA”."Oral traditions can be reliable; written records can be unreliable." is saying oral can be more authentic than written