The reason that Israel probably won't make it in is the same reason that religion was never in earlier civ games and why it's very neutral in CivIV. Simply put, the Hebrew nation is a huge point of religious contention, with many people attributing their strength, success, and even endurance to a Divine Being, and similarly attributing their failures and defeats to violations of a covenant between their people and the same Divine Being. In order to include Israel, Firaxis probably believes that they have to take a position regarding the nature of Hebrew history. They have two options:

1) Include Israel as a purely secular nation with normal strengths and weaknesses. This would be the most likely choice, since religion is seperate in CivIV already.

2) Include Israel as a nation with unexpected and possibly Divinely-gifted abilities such as defeating the entire Canaanite civilization with a bunch of ex-slave militia.

Choosing either offends people. Israel without religion and an unexpected history of supernatural overtones isn't Israel to many people (excluding the contemporary version). Israel with religion and supernatural overtones doesn't fit within the neutral and unbiased format of Civ. It's a lose, lose.

I think the main reason to include Israel would simply be to provide resources for modders, such as a couple of good leaderheads. That's honestly the case for many of these new civs, and one of the things I most look forward to from Civ expansions, new tools for people to play with. When BtS comes out, we'll have sixteen new leaderhead models to tweak and retexture, plus corporations (however those work) to reformat and alter into who knows what. We'll have new animations, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a diplomatic victory movie at long last with the addition of the early diplomatic victory option.

Stop posting that lies that Israel/Hebrewia (;)) would be offensive. They were in civilization call to power 1 and 2, and I never ever heard of complaints there!

mick

Maybe it's because Call to Power isn't in the "mainstream" versions of Civ.

Maybe it's a Neo-Nazi-funded plot to sow hate against the Hebrews by making their AI the most aggressive and annoying one there is.

:eek:

Israel would be fitting addition, modern warfare is one of their greatest strengths. The history of Israel can be looked at as both the history of a people and the modern nation, I have no problem lumping them into one civ. Again, Civ is about what could have been as much as anything else, and what could have happened for Israel if Rome hadn't sacked Jerusalem in 80 A.D. would be awesome. Let 'em in, give them some modern weapons (like mortars or something) and let's give them a shot.

So, seasnake's new list of ten:

Babylon
Portugal
Netherlands
Native Americans
Pacific Islanders
Israelis
Siamese
Moors
Austro-Hungarians
Colombians

Huns and Byzantines and Ethiopians are tough to exclude. Sumer and Assyria would be okay. The truth is they could probably release another expansion pack with 10 more civs and we'd still have some good ones left out.

That said, I'm still just geeking out in general. Maybe I'm too easily pleased, I think Civ IV's already the best computer game around and just want to get my hands on BTS, like, yesterday.

Israel will not work since its claim to fame is Jewish state, having them as secular makes no sense. Israel is a strong nation in todays modern sense, but they have been destroyed and rebuilt so many times that I don't know if you can call each one the same. Israel is just too different compared to every other civ.

@09camaro
Canada... ok, Canada and Poland... NO! sure, there may be many people who play civ in canada, but c'mon! for nearly 300 years the land was controlled by the british, and contested by the french. not to mention that they (stop me if i am wrong) are a member of the British Commonwealth, and therefore are still a part of that culture.

Yes but we have are on seperate history from britain! In school, we don't learn about England's history, we learn about our history. We may be part of the commonwealth, but we have our own identity and we control the control.And those contests is what makes Canada interesting!

P.S. The americans also tried to claim land in Canada during the war of 1812 on the North American front...

Well my list of ten (including what is known suggested)

Known:

Babylon
Dutch
Portugal
Amerindian (either Souix or Generic)

What I think/hope they will have
Ethiopian/Aksum
Khmer/Siam
Israel/Hebrew
Austria (possibly some other Central European power)
Polynesians
Maya/Brazil (Brazil preferred, since the Mayans are a little closer to the Aztecs-in time of dominance, location, and culture)

Other Ones they may throw in
Poland (demand)
Byzantines (done it before, and still a decent idea, but slightly redundant)

I'm basically right there with ya, Krikkitone, except I think:

Ethiopia
Siam
Israel
Polynesian
Maya
HUN!!!

Pillage time!

Israel will not work since its claim to fame is Jewish state, having them as secular makes no sense. Israel is a strong nation in todays modern sense, but they have been destroyed and rebuilt so many times that I don't know if you can call each one the same. Israel is just too different compared to every other civ.

And having Arabia not start with Islam makes no sense. :p

In order to include Israel, Firaxis probably believes that they have to take a position regarding the nature of Hebrew history.This is silly. nearly every early civilization identified themselves with a patron god or pantheon. Did Firaxis take a position on whether human sacrifice was instrumental to Aztecs successes and failures?
...
Then again, slavery IS pretty powerful, so maybe they did.;)

@ Saim:
Afghanistan is Southern Asian :p

But would still be good, because we only have to Southern Asian civs (India and Persia).

it may be a south asian nation, but its empire extended towards the north, into present day Kazahkstan... (hi Borat!)

@ phoenix_sprite:
That may be, but your entire history up until independance was dependant upon the british army and navy. if my sources are correct, (donsidering that i am not a canadian) there is not too much that canada could offer the civ franchise.

and i am fully aware of the American attempts to capture Canada in the war of 1812. but during our war for independence, mind you that we were the first country to actually win its independence from a much superior imperical nation, which would then lead to many more revolutions. some succeeded, some didnt. anyways, i was saying that during our war for independence, we had captured the city of montreal and went on our way to capture quebec city before the winter beat us out of our seige. though still a failure, the fact that we wanted to join these two nations since our birth has lead me, and some people that i know that Canada and America are closely related. and with australia as our little brother (who appearantly has a really bad speach impediment) these three nations could form their own union. sorry aussies, you know we love you!

how many canadians that are reading this forum would, although you may not want or agree, like to see these two nations joined as one? Americans and Canadians as one nation. how many people would like to see it? or can imagine it?

then maybe every other child of the British Crown would like to join us, and then... lets save this sceanarion for anyone who would want to see America and Canada combine.

@ Saim:


it may be a south asian nation, but its empire extended towards the north, into present day Kazahkstan... (hi Borat!)

@ phoenix_sprite:
That may be, but your entire history up until independance was dependant upon the british army and navy. if my sources are correct, (donsidering that i am not a canadian) there is not too much that canada could offer the civ franchise.

and i am fully aware of the American attempts to capture Canada in the war of 1812. but during our war for independence, mind you that we were the first country to actually win its independence from a much superior imperical nation, which would then lead to many more revolutions. some succeeded, some didnt. anyways, i was saying that during our war for independence, we had captured the city of montreal and went on our way to capture quebec city before the winter beat us out of our seige. though still a failure, the fact that we wanted to join these two nations since our birth has lead me, and some people that i know that Canada and America are closely related. and with australia as our little brother (who appearantly has a really bad speach impediment) these three nations could form their own union. sorry aussies, you know we love you!

how many canadians that are reading this forum would, although you may not want or agree, like to see these two nations joined as one? Americans and Canadians as one nation. how many people would like to see it? or can imagine it?

then maybe every other child of the British Crown would like to join us, and then... lets save this sceanarion for anyone who would want to see America and Canada combine.
Thus, the Mongol Empire was Central Asian :p

Where was their capital? If it was in Southern Asia, I would say they where Southern Asian, not Central.

Saddam was not executed for war crimes; he was "convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him, and was sentenced to death by hanging".

HE GOT TO POWER BY KILLING ALL OF HIS OPOSITION!!! HE WAS A NUTTER.

Thus, the Mongol Empire was Central Asian :p

Where was their capital? If it was in Southern Asia, I would say they where Southern Asian, not Central.

The line between "central" and "southern" Asia isn't clear. Some would argue Afghanistan is in Southern Asia, others argue it's in Central Asia. Make up your own mind.

Oh and the Afghans never expanded to include Kazakhstan.

@ Saim:
Thus, the Mongol Empire was Central Asian :p

Where was their capital? If it was in Southern Asia, I would say they where Southern Asian, not Central.

The mongols went into china before anywhere else. but yes, they may be considered centreal asian...

present day capital is Kabul, present day Afghanistan, but their capital during their empire was much farther north. into one of the other stan countries.

The line between "central" and "southern" Asia isn't clear. Some would argue Afghanistan is in Southern Asia, others argue it's in Central Asia. Make up your own mind.

Oh and the Afghans never expanded to include Kazakhstan.

my defiition of central asia extends as far south as Afghanistan along hte border with pakistan.

And they did control portions of land in Kazakhstan, but the Mongols invaded around the time that they were fully invading Kazakhstan. so they had to turn their army to fight the mongols, and failed.

A joint Canada/USA would be pretty cool, as long as the USA took after our systems... Like health care for instance. ;)

But again i'll say that we just really shouldn't be put in this game until there are no better options... We are definitely one of the most useful countries in the world, and what we contribute to the world is worthy of being put in Civilization... And if Civ was going for a modern theme it'd be great, but there are other civilizations that should be put before us because of their older/richer history.

of course your healthcare would replace ours, but the things that we have that is better than yours, like our military, would replace yours. and the government. would be our democratic republic, but the representatives would only introduce bills that they sent to the people that he/she represents to see if it is popular.

agreed on the older/richer history. America just got lucky because we have a tendancy to be war hungry. Iraq was a mistake in my opinion. I am a conservstive and i support the war... now, but that is only because we are there. prior to the invasion i was against Iraq. i thought we should focus on Osama first THEN possibly go to iraq.

what about Cuba?

If you read the epic of Hiawatha, you notice he does things like outrun the wind, walk to the moon, etc., yet no one complained that he was the leader of the Iroquois in Civ III. Civs with legendary or fantastic elements in their history are treated as cultural myths, and people choose to believe or not.
I think you can have a Hebrew Empire with Solomon or Ben Gurion, and it would work out well. Again, they are possibly the most important culture that has not been included this far. Judaism as a religion is one thing, but to be Hebrew culturally is another. I know there is a ton of overlap there, but we can have a distinct Hebrew Civ that isn't Judaistic and it would be cool. Heck, in the bible, many Hebrews worshipped local pagan deities all the time.

he has a point. there is the jewish religion (judaism) and the jewish people (hebrew/isreali) i have some friends that are hebrew/isreali, but not jewish, and i have some friends that are jewish, but not hebrew/isreali. you can have one without the other...

its like the concept of a square.

A Square is a Rectangle, but a Rectangle is not always a Square.

Of course you'd take over the military and government. It's bad enough the second biggest country in the world has like 30-40,000 active troops in the homeland protecting our borders! lol

And yeah, Hebrews aren't necessarily all Jewish. Like back in the times of slavery, it wasn't Judaism back then, they were the Hebrews which are white, tan, brownish, etc.

I don't think you need to even consider religion in to it though, really. The Arabian empire would naturally be Islam, but in my game right now they decided to be Jewish or Hindu (I forgot which ;P).. Yes they did have an empire which the Hebrews didn't, but I don't think anyone has a wider history than the Hebrews.

or longer and more genocidal...the jews are the only religion that i cna thinkg of that were always the tarrget of persecution. Christians killed them, Muslims killed them, ancient egypt, persia, and babylonia killed them... the definately deserve a spot... but the largest their kingdom ever was was not much bigger than present day Isreal.

Christians killed them, Muslims killed them, ancient egypt, persia, and babylonia killed them... the definately deserve a spot...
Then Poland should definitely be in, as they too are targets of cruel and unjust violence! :mischief:

not ture, the poles were only persecuted by Hitler, and the Russians. the Austrians and the Germans (prior to world war 1) allowed them to live amongst the occupieing peoples as citizens. in fact, they fought in the geerman and austrian armies (mostly german) so they could liberate the whole of the polish peoples. the Weimer Republic however disagreed, and Hitler was a total moron. i could have won the war had he waited to persecute the jews until after he won.

DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS!!! i was mearly stating a fact. i am in no way sympathetic to that man, nor any other Nazi that beleives there is one superior race.

or longer and more genocidal...the jews are the only religion that i cna thinkg of that were always the tarrget of persecution. Christians killed them, Muslims killed them, ancient egypt, persia, and babylonia killed them... the definately deserve a spot... but the largest their kingdom ever was was not much bigger than present day Isreal.

Er... What the hell? Haven't you ever heard the story of how Cyrus the Great ended the exile of the Jews from the Holy Land after he entered Babylon?

I don't know, the Zoroastrians were victim to a lot of genocide. Same with the Christians before Constatine legalized the religion.

Though, I do think that Isreal, or Judea, which ever, should be included. David and Solomon's kingdom may not have been large, but during that breif period, it was the strongest kingdom in the western world. (During this time, both Egypt and Mesopotamia were in periods of weakness and turmoil).

not ture, the poles were only persecuted by Hitler, and the Russians. the Austrians and the Germans (prior to world war 1) allowed them to live amongst the occupieing peoples as citizens. in fact, they fought in the geerman and austrian armies (mostly german) so they could liberate the whole of the polish peoples. the Weimer Republic however disagreed, and Hitler was a total moron. i could have won the war had he waited to persecute the jews until after he won.

09camaro - it's not true. In Poland we really don't like Bismarck, he was anti-Polish and anti-catholic and was germanizing Poles.
Poland was then divided between Russians (my father's family lived in this part of Poland - it was very bad), Germany (my mother's family lived in that part) - it was not as bad as in Russian part, but still bad - Poles were germanized and there were uprisings, and Austrian part - this part was best out of those three.
Poles didn't served in German or Russian army out of their free will - for example my grandfather (my mother's father) fought at Verden, but he was forced to do it. Then during WW2 he was in Polish resistance - it shows that he didn't liked Germans.

About the civs to add - of course it is ridiculous to think that some civ should be included because it suffered from wars or genocide... In my opinion both Jewish and Polish civs fulfill criteria to be included, but as I wrote several times, they will not include those civs, only very important for world tribes that only achievement was that they had colorful clothes made out of feathers and will bring 'cultural diversity' into the civ4:BtS :D

Still, if Bismarck was succesful, we would not have a mess we have today. ;)

@ Minoan:
no i have not, this changes my information on Cyrus is limited. thank-you for this correction.

@ LDeska:
again, my information on the Polish during this period is limited. the only thing that i know from that is what i have heard from my family... Germans. the conscription of the Poles is something that i always considered... Kaiser Wilhelm II was also a moron. thank you as well for correcting my errors.

@ Martinus:
no, Bismarck was prior to World War I. he was a chancellor to Kasier Wilhelm. he died in 1898 (+ or - a few years) prior to the start of The Great War. his intentions were to make Prussia a strong central european power. he succeeded. he never intended to Unify the German Tribes into Germany. he manuvered himself into 3 victorious wars against Denmark, Austria, and France. after the third war, he ceased all activity (so far as i know) and did not want to gain an overseas empire. this is something that Kaiser Wilhelm II did do, and this upset the balance of powers in europe. this is in no way realted to Bismarck...
i apologize if i tore off your head. the thought of Bismarck's involvement in world affairs tends to drive me up walls. he was my great great grandfather, and i never felt it reasonable for Germany to enter the war in the first place. Austria could have handled Serbia and Rumania on it's own.

I again wish that "Hawaiians" would be recognized as a distinct culture and civilization rather than a region. Kamehameha (Hawaiian) and Salamasina (Samoan) were never king or queen of the "Polynesians" being a Greek term.

@09camaro - the problem for us is that Bismarck considered large parts of Poland as Prussia. For example whole Kaszuby region (Gdańsk - in German Danzig and surroundings). Germans called it 'East Prussia', but if you look into history books, it was never part of Prussia until partitions of Poland in ~1790 and there was always great majority of Poles there.

According to the newest interview http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/civilizationivbeyondthesword/interview.html there will be WW2 scenario, so I think that there will be Poland for sure, but in this scenario. They still don't want to tell which new civs will be in epic game... this is intentional to keep us discuss this add-on :) ehhh, marketing is everywhere :)

@ Martinus:
no, Bismarck was prior to World War I. he was a chancellor to Kasier Wilhelm. he died in 1898 (+ or - a few years) prior to the start of The Great War. his intentions were to make Prussia a strong central european power. he succeeded. he never intended to Unify the German Tribes into Germany. he manuvered himself into 3 victorious wars against Denmark, Austria, and France. after the third war, he ceased all activity (so far as i know) and did not want to gain an overseas empire. this is something that Kaiser Wilhelm II did do, and this upset the balance of powers in europe. this is in no way realted to Bismarck...
i apologize if i tore off your head. the thought of Bismarck's involvement in world affairs tends to drive me up walls. he was my great great grandfather, and i never felt it reasonable for Germany to enter the war in the first place. Austria could have handled Serbia and Rumania on it's own.
Where did I say Bismarck was involved in WWI? :crazyeye:

Don't have time to read through it all..but did anyone mention the Polynesians? Seems like if they have the Maoi statues there will be Polynesians. Maybe their galleys and triremes could be ocean-faring...or at least able to enter ocean tiles but with a chance to sink every turn.

What about Māori? They are polynesians? I must admit that im not totally familiar what polynesian really means. Anyway that region should have some kind of representation.

Native americans are ok as such, but Sitting Bull/Sioux is stupid. Anazasis would be the best pick from North America, but we really dont know much about them. Iroquois, Powhatan, Cherokee, Pueblo indians... lots of civilized tribes. Plain indians were most primitive tribes.

I don't remember the name but I remember reading an article in the national geography about an ancient polynesian vivilization that had built this immense city of stone with canals and temples similar to that of the mayans.

Of course you'd take over the military and government. It's bad enough the second biggest country in the world has like 30-40,000 active troops in the homeland protecting our borders! lol

And yeah, Hebrews aren't necessarily all Jewish. Like back in the times of slavery, it wasn't Judaism back then, they were the Hebrews which are white, tan, brownish, etc.

I don't think you need to even consider religion in to it though, really. The Arabian empire would naturally be Islam, but in my game right now they decided to be Jewish or Hindu (I forgot which ;P).. Yes they did have an empire which the Hebrews didn't, but I don't think anyone has a wider history than the Hebrews.

Come on!. ;) I doubt we could be the same civ.. If you read enough of our history we are two distinct people, which roots in the past tensions. I would rather us not be represented at all, other than as part of the Empire, than be part of the US..
Just to mention this, but it was a Nor'Wester who reached the Pacific across land while the Americans were still stuck in Ohio..

or longer and more genocidal...the jews are the only religion that i cna thinkg of that were always the tarrget of persecution. Christians killed them, Muslims killed them, ancient egypt, persia, and babylonia killed them... the definately deserve a spot... but the largest their kingdom ever was was not much bigger than present day Isreal.

I agree the Jew were persecuted, and I agree the Crusaders killed Jews and mistreated them. But as a Christian myself, I think we should not real classify it 'Christian' as it implies the same type as today. Between the Crusades (And it was the crusaders who killed the Jews, and who know if it was condoned by the European populace? The communication back then wasn't perfect) and now, the Christian faith divided into two basically. The Catholics, and the Protestants. They even fought each other a lot to, but to me to say Christians' killed the Jew is quite presumptuous.
Know I know that in Civ 4, there is not that division between Catholic and Protestant, and it is all grouped under 'Christian'. But this is another (Not bad) instance of the makers ditching (for lack of a better word) history for gameplay sake.. And besides, to most people that is neither Protestant or Catholic, there is really little difference..

And yes the Muslims killed (And still do) them, but if I can remember right, Saladin was quite lenient to them.
The only Egyptians persecution I can remember is the slavery part (Which was persecution, but then they also for a time were quite powerful with the second greatest guy in the kingdom).

Persia? I don't recall any persecution from them..
Babylonia? Sure, but it was mostly putting down continuous rebellions, after they were taken captive they were relocated mostly to the two rivers (Euphrates and Tigris I think) and resettled. So not really persecuted per se.
Noe the Greeks after Alexander persecuted them a fair amount as they fought that succession war between his generals through there territory.

And then they were persecuted some in Europe during the Medieval ages and stuff. And of course, the Nazis, but that has been covered maybe a little too much (Not to put down the significance of it, but it has been discussed many times).

So I definitely would like to see them, along with Canada..

1-Mayans
2-a mesopotamian civ(sumerians , babylonians)
3-Carthage -----> Phoenicans or just Phoenicans
4-Portugal
5-Netherlands
6-Hittites
7-a southeast asian civ
8-Israelis(with state religion of Islam :D)
9-Byzantine Empire could be fun but they are not a civ.I am not sure.
10-Ottomans ------> Turks

@ LDeska:
ok. but it was not considered east prussia... it was west prussia.

@ Martinus:
you didn't, i misintrerpreted. :p

@ GeneralMatt:
and to another, thank you for the correction. you forgot about the orthodox christians. and the reason they are all grouped together is because they are the same religion. i do not care what you say. catholic, mormon, orthodox, and protestant christians are still christians. ignore those stupid little differences and consentrate more on the big stupid similarities... JESUS! i did not just say jesus was stupid. just proving a point that no matter what you call yourself and how you practice your religion, the sects (not sex you horny little pervs :p:lol::crazyeye:) are irrelevent. Christianity is Christianity, Islam is Islam, Judaism is Judaism... i have also noticed that the modern monotheistic religions are divided into sects. while the far east religions inter-twine. the only difference between mongol buddhism, chinese buddhism, and tibetan buddhism is their geographical location. but otherwise, i persoanlly see no difference.
This division of one religion is what i think causes religious wars in the first place.

@ LDeska:
@ GeneralMatt:
and to another, thank you for the correction. you forgot about the orthodox christians. and the reason they are all grouped together is because they are the same religion. i do not care what you say. catholic, mormon, orthodox, and protestant christians are still christians. ignore those stupid little differences and consentrate more on the big stupid similarities... JESUS! i did not just say jesus was stupid. just proving a point that no matter what you call yourself and how you practice your religion, the sects (not sex you horny little pervs :p:lol::crazyeye:) are irrelevent. Christianity is Christianity, Islam is Islam, Judaism is Judaism... i have also noticed that the modern monotheistic religions are divided into sects. while the far east religions inter-twine. the only difference between mongol buddhism, chinese buddhism, and tibetan buddhism is their geographical location. but otherwise, i persoanlly see no difference.
This division of one religion is what i think causes religious wars in the first place.

That last statement is very true..
As a Protestant I can see this:
In a way we all have great similarities, but most of the stuff we differ on (And some of it can be big, like how you actually get saved) is doctrinal stuff, and how extreme are you supposed to take stuff. The Catholics are big on tradition and stuff like that, not too sure about the Orthodox or Mormons, and most of us Protestants (Which in reality doesn't describe out position correctly) are big on the grace aspect.
Yes, Jesus IS the most important factor, but many of the differences come in how you accept Him..

8-Israelis(with state religion of Islam )
:lol: I keep seeing ingame, Saladin's religion is Judaism, or Isabella's is Muslim.. Exceedingly weird.

meh, better than china as jewish, and england as taoist...

and acceptance is acceptance. how you do it doesn't matter. being catholic, and haveing many friends of many religions, i have learned that all religious doctrines have an are of truth, an area of blasphemy, and a major area of philosophy that can be included in many other religions... i am of catholic blood and decent, but i have accepted all religions and will mold their ideas into one great philosophy

What about Māori? They are polynesians? I must admit that im not totally familiar what polynesian really means. Anyway that region should have some kind of representation.


"Polynesia" is in the same category as "Asia" or "Europe" representing continents or regions of the world. Polynesia, in Greek, means "many islands". Draw a triangle with the points at Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island. The island groups within that triangular region are part of Polynesia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Polynesiantraiangle.jpg

Northwest of the triangle, there are two other regions, Micronesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronesia) ("tiny islands") and Melanesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesia) ("black islands"). Just like there are many independent countries and cultures in Asia and Europe, there are many independent countries and cultures in Polynesia. Just like their counterparts in Europe and Asia, they had wars between countries as well as the formation of bonds between societies.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Te_Puni_Maori_Chief.jpg/415px-Te_Puni_Maori_Chief.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/New_Zealand_map.PNG

The Māori of Aotearoa "land of the white cloud" or New Zealand are within the Polynesian triangle. Other groups include Samoans, Tongans, Fijians, Tahitians, Marquesas, and Hawaiians.

The Māori to me are the most American Indian like people in their ancient style of dress and how they wore their feathers. Many of their dances are intended to intimidate during wartime and others to show agility. They often tattooed their faces to show status. Sometimes it had a spiritual meaning. Here is a Māori Haka on YouTube.com (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w6E12NNMU_w) as well as a Poi dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hu2g5h0hNM).

On a religious note in suggesting their origin, in 1982, the twelfth prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Spencer W. Kimball, told the Māori people their ancestors came from the Americas, or more specifically, "The Lord calls you Lamanites." The Māori chief Paora Potangaroa (http://www.mission.net/new-zealand/gems2.html) 100 years prior in 1881 foretold the coming of Mormon missionaries in answer to Māori confusion over different religious groups.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Samoa_Country_map.png/800px-Samoa_Country_map.pnghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Tonga.jpg/484px-Tonga.jpg
Samoa, Fiji, Tonga

The Samoan islands and Tongan islands are close enough that those two cultures often clashed and went to war against each other. They are the big peoples of Polynesia. They are large boned and love to eat a lot of meat and taro. They make for great defensive lines in football (http://espn.go.com/gen/s/2002/0527/1387562.html). Check out some Samoan dancing on YouTube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlZZa3ZEt1M) I was actually there at this event. Watch the crowd go wild! It is very common for people to go up and give the dancers money in Samoan culture. They are a friendly and giving people and like to be funny and entertaining when they dance. Here's a Samoan slap dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scXvKAPGzsw). They love to play, even with fire. See some fire knife dancing (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yUDiiqxim2k). Lono and Alex are friends of mine and are professionals. Don't try this at home! A lot of Samoan dancing is done to celebrate life and important life events like marriage. Sometimes their dances tell stories.

Tongans traditionally are very patriotic being the last Kingdom in the Pacific, although that is changing with recent moves toward democracy. Here is a Tongan spear dance on YouTube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=067CY1SCkmI). The spears are painted white with a red encircling stripe much like a candy cane.

Fiji was also warlike. Fijians look similar to Africans with their darker skin and tighter curled hair. Here are some kids doing a Fijian club dance on YouTube.com (http://youtube.com/watch?v=_2xXBzeTlbY).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Fp-map.gif

Tahiti and Marquesas are close enough to one another that their cultures are rather similar. These people are much more tall and slender in appearance with long wavy hair. Check out YouTube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC19Z1PUnc4)for some Tahitian dancing. Tahitian dancing is well known for its fast hips and drums and one of its purposes was to entice which is why the Christian missionaries who came were appalled and wanted to ban it. Marquesas like to imitate different animals in their dancing. Here they are doing a wild boar dance and bird dance (http://youtube.com/watch?v=vw1d9glilvw).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Hawaii_Islands2.png

Hawaii is very far north from the rest of these islands and in their isolation in the center of the Pacific Ocean, developed a very unique and rich culture. Because of this distance, their wars were civil wars between Hawaiian chiefs. Hawaiians are more at the median when it comes to build some being slender while others get rather big like Braddah IZ (http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2563975). Traditionally, in Hawaii, being large was beautiful and a sign of greater wealth and status. Due to the huge influx of outsiders to Hawaii and interracial marriages, pure Hawaiians are becoming a rare commodity. Often the girls dancing on Tourism advertisements for Hawaii are actually Filipino (smaller and slightly more Asian looking). Although well known for their "Aloha" and giving nature, Hawaiians can also be a very serious people - especially when dancing ancient style. See some real Hawaiian dancing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWP5r-IiRMc).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puelcyhsXQ0

Most of Hawaiian dancing was for the purpose of telling stories and legends. Although their traditional dancing is ancient, today their lifestyle is very modern - especally in Hawaii and New Zealand. There are still some smaller islands in the south Pacific where people continue to live the old way.

WingedPaladin:

Thanks for the info! This is very very interesting. On a practical note, if you were to have to group the ethnic divisions into a singular title...for example, the Vikings or the Celts, or presumably the Native American Indians, what term would you use to group them? Or which tribe would you pick?

I have my guess, I'm seeing what you say :)

Winged Paladin, Polyenesia isn't in the same category as Asia and Europe. It's a subregion, the same category as Southern Europe or Eastern Asia. It's a subregion of Oceania (others being Melanesia, Micronesia and Australia).

@ TobyWanKenobi:
they divided them selves amongst tribe. so a single, unified, racial term is non-existant. Indians are the term given to them by the europeans for mistaking the reigon as India. the Old World cultures since then have been too lazy to relabel them. and the term native american is like african-american, everyone who enter the United States is given another term, an ethnically based name prior to the country in which they live. but the whites of this country are still considered americans... not european-americans. the Irish are an example of where this does not work, and the italians. but they are all americans. i hate refering to black people as african-americans. that makes them un-equal. i will call them black. and asians yellow (this is as a whole, if you tell me your country of origin then i will consider you by your contry) american indians as red.
to answer your question, the best term that i can think of as a whole would be Amerindian. it is not entirely unique, but it does give them a rather unique way to describe them other than the norm.

@ Saim:
just thought i would let you know, Oceania is the term given to the islands. Australia is not considered by most scholars to be apart of Oceania. so they decided to anme the whole reigon and include Australia. the new term is Australesia. (the "e" is pernounced like an "a")

One difference I see between the people Polynesia and American Indians is borders or the lack thereof. American Indians were often roamers over a giant space of land and didn't have clearly defined borders between tribes. Polynesians, however, live on island clusters. The borders are very defined geographically so the differences between groups are enhanced.

The people look different from one another and have distinct physical characteristics that make them Samoan or Tahitian or Fijian as I previously explained. Today I saw 2 Hawaiians, 2 Samoans, and 2 Māori and I can tell where they are from on sight because of these physical characteristics. Once they open their mouth, the distinction becomes even clearer because they each speak English differently as well.

The major groups amongst those I have mentioned are Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, Tahitian, Fijian, and Māori.

Personally, I would like to see Hawaiian and Māori in the game because I feel those two have had the most international impact and have become the most modernized.

No polynesia, we need good civilizations that have actually done something of some significants. Screw the fact the Maoris' had beaten back some retard Brits, I mean you people say no Hitler because he only took over europe before he lost. Hmmm... Screw it. Put in Israel, incredibly important, in fact just put in hmmm... carrots instead, they have done more in History than the polynesians. In fact the whole point of the huge amount of OCEAN they had means nothing. Put in the Magyars'. MAGYARS'!!!

Oh, also they not been unified at any point in time. Stop thinking of the polynesian and make a mod for them.

PUT HITLER IN THE GAME!!!

and

Winged Paladin, Polyenesia isn't in the same category as Asia and Europe. It's a subregion, the same category as Southern Europe or Eastern Asia. It's a subregion of Oceania (others being Melanesia, Micronesia and Australia).

Australia is not a subregion of Oceania, Australia, like Israel really avoids oceanian countries now because of their corrupt goverments. Oh! and its not a subregion, its a country, you don't have a one country region, its just a country. I hate people calling it a region, christmas island and all that are controlled by Australia as autonomous regions. Not a region. I know everyone calls it one, but it ain't. Another point, the only countries in south east asia that could be capable of a civilization in the game ARE the Khmer. No others deserve it. Find me some civilization in the game less important than Polynesia. Also the following nations being in Civ IV: BTS would make me lose all respect for it: Australia, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand (baaaaahhhhh!!!), Mexico & Argentina. Damn weak colonies, no balls. The USA is an exeption to the rule for the massive courage in the revolution, that and their Superpowerdom (go made up words). They should have real powers like the Magyars, or for a twist the Hapsburgs (though actually a family, not a civilization). Oh, and put Hitler in the game.

@ 09camaro

I am well aware of racial breakdowns in our country...you might have deduced by my location:)...also I wasn't refering to the Native Americans...mentioning them was how they were mentioned in the Firaxis press release...Sitting Bull of the Native Americans...and so that leads me to believe that "Native Americans" will be the way they are labled. I might be wrong. What I was asking was what term would be used as a similar, all encompasing term, which seems like something that would happen, especially if the "Native American Empire" occurs in the game.

@Winged Paladin
I KNEW IT! :) And Hawai'ians would be great, but I have a feeling you'll be stuck with the Polynesians.

I have a feeling you'll be stuck with the Polynesians.

Indeed, this is a Eurocentric community that chronically knows rather little about the other side of the world.

@ TobyWanKenobi:
And the "all encompassing term" that you are looking for is "Amerindian" which is much better than "Native American" or "American Indian" or individual tribes names. "Amerindian" fits the best. it is one word, it describes the people as a whole, and it it fun to say! IM AN AMERINDIAN!!!:lol: :crazyeye: :confused: people look at me funny, but i dont care.

@ WingedPaladin:
very much so, but i personally am looking to expand my horizons and want to learn more. new non-european civ's would be nice. Maya, Olmec, Toltec... in fact, i want to see more New World Civs, leave the Old World behind (for now)

...they have done more in History than the polynesians. ... Find me some civilization in the game less important than Polynesia.

This is very much a matter of perspective and education. Though not considered an international warmongering state (other than Pearl Harbor and the US involvement in WWII), it is hard to top Hawaii in its compact, dense, and diverse international cultural representation.

"Hawaii has the largest multiracial population with 24.1 percent of its population identifying with two or more races. Alaska follows a distant second with 5.4 percent identifying as multiracial." http://www.censusscope.org/us/s15/chart_multi.html The statistical reports however deal with generalized racial groups. (ie. White, Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Black, American Indian) thus someone could be Hawaiian, Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino and statistically be only "two races" in this study.

I would be "three races" being Hawaiian, Chinese, English, Irish, Scottish, and French and my husband would also be "three races" being Hawaiian, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish, and Portuguese. Our children would also be "three races"! lol

Every year for May Day, the children of Hawaii, elementary and high school, perform dances from countries all over the world. (YouTube.com (http://youtube.com/watch?v=77p5-jKqJqk))

Some facts of a local college:

Student Body (http://www.byuh.edu/about/facts.php#studentbody)

* At least two-thirds of our students speak two or more languages
* Cultural diversity: 21% from Asia, 16% from the Pacific, 12% Hawaii, 45% U.S. mainland, and 6% from elsewhere (approximately 144 students coming from Europe, Russia, Africa, South America, etc.)
* With nearly half of our 2400 students coming from 70 nations, BYU-Hawaii is the most ethnically diverse campus per capita in the U.S.

Read about this school's special history and mission (http://www.byuh.edu/about/). Many Asian countries send their brightest students to study here to return home and become cultural, educated and well-rounded leaders.

With this in mind in answer to your challenge, find me a civilization that has a greater vantage and impact in cross-cultural understanding and international harmony.

I'm to the point where I'm tired of talking about the new civilizations (I've taken a two week sabatical from the civ-boards, as probably no one has noticed), but I just have to say one thing:

"Sitting Bull of the Native Americans" is one of the most f#@%ing retarded things I have heard from Firaxis in any of the games they have developed. Seriously, the Aztecs, Incas, and Maya (who I am really pulling for in the expansion) are all native Americans as well. He was the chief of a single tribe of native Americans that happened to be Plains Indians, an oft over-represented native American culture. I hope Firaxis realizes how stupid this is and fixes it before the expansion is released. Otherwise I might throw a conniption on these boards.


That aside, having studied mainly European history, my list is a little Euro-centric. I admit it freely, and am not opposed to seeing others admitted, but my ideas mostly come from my studies of the West. Of the seven we don't know, I have picked another European group or two, but the rest are scattered: Austria, Byzantium, Hittites, Maya, and Sumeria are at the top of my list. I don't have strong feelings for the remaining civs... Note that Austria represents the Hapsburg family, which is one of the longest-lived European monarchies with a titanic influence on the religious makeup and history of the continent (Charles V, anyone?).

And, on Hitler: before jumping to the conclusion that Hitler is the "obvious" new German leader, why don't you read up on King Otto the Great or Barbarossa. I think you could make a very strong argument for their inclusion over Hitler as a new German leader.

My civs would be
1 israel or the ancient jews.
2 mayans
3 babylonians
4 we dont need the eastern roman empire=byzantium. They would just be a roman clone. I want something new and fresh like israel or the ancient jews.

The ancient jews are the Israelites, and yes they should be. I also reckon HITLER should be in the game (note: The idea of Hitler being added to the game with Israel would not be that un-pc). I mean come on, why would people be talking about Polynesia, hmmm... completly insignificant group of un-associated people, sounds like a winner there. I would say the aboriginals of Australia would be better, at least they had all been in the same place. I also oppose the idea of Native Americans in the game for their lack of Unity. Byzantia also is needed, its more than just the East Roman Empire, at least by the end. Yes Germany fills the void of the Holy Roman Empire, but Byzantia cannot be ignored, they where one of the most influencial civilizations in the first and early second millenias. Hell, take america out, there just the Trans-Atlantic British Empire. I do agree Austria can make up for the Hapsburgs since they are not exactly a civilization. Though they did control Spain, Austria, Hungary... Maya, put them in. So simply put I would say for new civs:

1. Byzantia
2. Austria
3. Maya
4. Magyars
5. Israel
6. Polynesia...

... by polynesia I mean something worth being in the game.
and some more...

Oh, PUT HITLER IN THE GAME. HINT HINT!!!

"Sitting Bull of the Native Americans" is one of the most f#@%ing retarded things I have heard from Firaxis in any of the games they have developed. Seriously, the Aztecs, Incas, and Maya (who I am really pulling for in the expansion) are all native Americans as well. He was the chief of a single tribe of native Americans that happened to be Plains Indians, an oft over-represented native American culture. I hope Firaxis realizes how stupid this is and fixes it before the expansion is released. Otherwise I might throw a conniption on these boards.What would you call them if you were to group all the American Indian Tribes as one? Sitting Bull of the American Indian's? Maybe coming up with a more precise name might help Firaxis improve it better, because I can see the advantages of putting all the American Indian tribes into one group: It allows for more leaders to be created easiliy.

Menzies, Hitler won't be in BtS for reasons given in this thread or other similar threads. For example, it would be illegal to sell BtS in Germany with Hitler.

We were doing so well!

Hitler isn't a civ...so lets stop that talk before it even starts again...how about this for a new discussion...between Siam and Khymer, which would you choose?

@ Antilogic:
i agree and disagree. the european civs i agree. Hitler, Barbossa, and King Otto would make a good debate, on the proper thread. sitting bull however... that is acceptable. but the name (as i have mentioned a many times before) should be...
AMERINDIAN
that being said, i will move to the next person.

@ Menzies:
see above

@ Watiggi:
see above

@ Hitti-Litti:
are you sure it would be illegal. i know that representing yourself as a nazi is illegal. and identifing yourself with him is as well. but are you sure that if they put him in a game that they would ban it from the country? that is a fairly popular part of their history and the world itself. i do not think that they would be as foolish as to not include him just because one or two (ok, hundred) people might become upset. and it was because of him that we have a jewish nation in the first place. Isreal would not exist without hitler.

@ TobyWanKenobi:
well, people just don't learn, maybe a few :hammer2::hammer::badcomp::sniper::ar15::trouble: and then :deadhorse: would make learn their lesson!

remember to speak softly and carry a big stick!!!

I read somewhere Germany bans games with red blood and other representations of gross violence. Also something about trying to "forget" all about WWII.

If China censored the game for their purposes, the Germans probably will, too. Everyone wins that way.

However there is a problem: the people affected by the inclusion of Hitler (-'s face, more likely :p) will not only include Germans, unlike the case in China (where only Chinese are affected).

@ Saim:
just thought i would let you know, Oceania is the term given to the islands. Australia is not considered by most scholars to be apart of Oceania. so they decided to anme the whole reigon and include Australia. the new term is Australesia. (the "e" is pernounced like an "a")

I never said Australia wasn't part of Oceania, I said it wasn't part of Polynesia.

I'm to the point where I'm tired of talking about the new civilizations (I've taken a two week sabatical from the civ-boards, as probably no one has noticed), but I just have to say one thing:

"Sitting Bull of the Native Americans" is one of the most f#@%ing retarded things I have heard from Firaxis in any of the games they have developed. Seriously, the Aztecs, Incas, and Maya (who I am really pulling for in the expansion) are all native Americans as well. He was the chief of a single tribe of native Americans that happened to be Plains Indians, an oft over-represented native American culture. I hope Firaxis realizes how stupid this is and fixes it before the expansion is released. Otherwise I might throw a conniption on these boards.


That aside, having studied mainly European history, my list is a little Euro-centric. I admit it freely, and am not opposed to seeing others admitted, but my ideas mostly come from my studies of the West. Of the seven we don't know, I have picked another European group or two, but the rest are scattered: Austria, Byzantium, Hittites, Maya, and Sumeria are at the top of my list. I don't have strong feelings for the remaining civs... Note that Austria represents the Hapsburg family, which is one of the longest-lived European monarchies with a titanic influence on the religious makeup and history of the continent (Charles V, anyone?).

And, on Hitler: before jumping to the conclusion that Hitler is the "obvious" new German leader, why don't you read up on King Otto the Great or Barbarossa. I think you could make a very strong argument for their inclusion over Hitler as a new German leader.
When most people say Native American, they mean Northern Native Americans (Plains Indian, Esquimaux, etc.), Central America not included.

Regarding Austria: I think Austria should be in as Austria-Hungary (it would represent both Austria and Austria-Hungary this way).

Regarding Hitler, post in the Hitler thread, not the 'new civs' thread!

Huge Point, do not put Austria in as the compromised wreck it was from the 1850's on, thats like representing the ottoman empire as turkey. If you need both the Magyars and Austria in the game, put them both in, adding them to each other and saying Austria-Hungary would be only refering to the time period where they had to compromise in order keep control of it. In fact lets put some more compromised states in, how about lets replace Germany with West Germany. That makes about as much sense. Forget the past 150 years whilst talking of civilizations that have been greater before.

Screw native american civilization, make a mod just to remove it. It makes no sense. Next thing you know we will have a Polynesia. You know what, forget actual civilizations and just throw any ol' 'Mike Rann' or 'ALP' into the mix like how about, the aboriginals of australia. Everyone, lets all hop in one boat. In fact 'Rann' all the other Civilizations. Take em' all out and just put a North American, South American, European, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Indian & Oceanian in, that way we cover all people of the world. Why native americans, did they take power over a quarter of the worlds land mass, did they even unite at anypoint and make a real civilization, wait they had a culture but they where not a civilization. They are not needed, they have done nothing, and most importantly they probably only want them in order to shut up people saying they only do the majorities nations. You know what, thats a GOOD reason, the majorities where the civilizations. C'mon gypsies civilization. You cannot say there is any reason to have them in the game. Anztecs, Incans and there should be Mayans, all American and just south of where the indians where, they didn't make a civilization. They had/have a very well developed culture, but everybody has. Don't unite groups for the sake of a civilization.

The Expansion most likely will include:
(1) Netherlands
(2) Portuguese
(3) Babylon
(4) Sioux

(5) Austria
(6) Abyssinia
(7) Hittites (Unkown language)
(8) Iroquis
(9) Mayans (Unknown language)
(10) Siam

Countries that fit the theme beyond the sword
(11) Israel (religious calling)
(12) Inuits (acheiving independence through diplomacy in Nunavut)
(13) Australia (also acheived independence diplomatically)

Other civs I wish to see:
(14) Cherokee
(15) Armenia
(16) Assyria
(17) Apache
(18) Vietnamese
(19) Malay
(20) Hawaiian
(21) Poland
(22) Illyria
(23) Serbia
(24) Dacia

AMERINDIANIs "Amerindian" even a word?

edit: wow, it is too. The thing is, the definition (according to Google) is: "any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived"

So it's back to square one there.

@ Saim:
then once again, i have misunderstood the comment. i apologize

@ Watiggi:
yes it does. the point is that it would unify the tribes under one term that would represent the people as a whole. seperate divisions would be excluded, i.e. Maya, Inca, Aztec, etc. whilst others; Cherokee, Apache, Comanche, Iroquois, Souix, etc. could remain inside this generic term. i want to see a new south american civ... representing the Amazon. the Arawak indians could fill this spot. but otherwise, i see no new "New World" civs that could be represented.

I think that was the point. Oh... stop putting different peoples in group.

I am Australia as you should have guessed from my name being our greatest PM, but I think that as far as new civilizations go, australia is as its own power only 106 years old or from colonial rule 219. I personally would not mind if australia was in the game, but I don't think it is really needed. Though economically we are a powerhouse compared to our population. Australia is too young and not exactly the most know country in the world. Several years ago whilst in the USA an american asked me what it was like living in a country without electricity. Hmmm...

Lets think, the leader would be obvious, Sir Robert Menzies, either him or Warne. Now the capital would in my opionion should be put as Sydney, but thats because it was the first settlement. The game goes by modern city significance for nations that still exist so I think the list would go something like...

1. Canberra
2. Sydney
3. Melbourne
4. Brisbane
5. Perth
6. Adelaide
7. Hobart
8. Darwin
9. Newcastle
10. Wollongong
11. Townsville
12. Cairns

After that it becomes more difficult to decide on significant cities, but yeah. I still would see no reason why they would deserve a position in the game. Apart from there dominance over sport, a little under in the Rugby heading into the world cup but yeah, 3 cricket world cups in a row. Nearly beat Italy in the round of 16 in the soccer world cup, and probably would have if it wasn't for incompetant referees and Italian diving. Really it was a pathetic way to beat a team like Australia, oh and before anyone says anything about the red card I have one simple thing to say, "Match-fixing" (note: doesn't say anything about the red card becuase the red card was probably not fair either, damn I hate that referee). Oh, AFL (its not Aussie Rules, any who calls it that is retarded) is a horrible sport, nearly as bad as Peter Beattie is a leader. So yeah, I don't think australia will or should get a spot in the game.

I've changed my mind, the New Zealand Maoris' deserve a position.

then what do you want? different tribes? that would take way too long and would fill way too much space! the Iroquois could seperate because of the (for lack of a better term) agreement that they made with their surrounding tribes. Aztec is seperate because of its significance to the modern world. they wer the first people to become colonized by the europeans. and the indian tribe that they represent is much to small to be of any significance. but they are in. same with Inca, and Maya. they would be in the game because of their significance to the modern world. since europeans first landed in the americas, the whole of the tribes have been killed off. only a few tribes remain. and they are not 100% pure Cherokee (or other tribe) because their population has become diluted by the "white man". what we have been doing to them is nothing more than a genocide. it was no called as such. but for 400 years, the "white man" has been in a state of undeclared war with amerindians.

australia, meh, i dont know much so i cant say. i would be cool to see.

it's not AFL anymore. it is NFL. the two divisions were unified and split into the AFC, and the NFC. this is where the superbowl was founded. but otherwise, american football is not as brutal as it once was. bring back the lethar helmets and pads and then it may be able to compete with aussie style ball.

I was trying out the Gold mod for CIV4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=2763) and it's awesome. I like the idea of playing the Aborigines is great, but building the unique worker can take 35-75 turns! This was very impractical, so I restarted and chose a different civ. (I would never make a worker a unique unit for this reason.) The Maori have their own civ in the mod, but a Hawaiian and Samoan leader are thrown together into Polynesian. To me that's just silly. I think individual civ distinction makes the game much more interesting and realistic than generalizing. I would rather play Sitting Bull of the Souix than Sitting Bull of the Native Americans or Amerindians. It just makes more sense to me.

OK, here's my list of the infamous ten, based on what little we know already about BtS, as well as the theme of the xpack (which I think will affect the civ selection somewhat).

-Babylonians
-Portuguese
-Dutch
-Native Americans
-Thai
-Mayans
-Austrians
-Polynesians
-Hebrews

Eh, can't think of a tenth one. OK, I will throw my weight behind the Poles.

@ WingedPaladin: yes, distinction is the key to the success. they way that i have established it is based on race. there is nothing wrong with that, but we would need to take the most famous tribes of the americas for each reigon.

Artic - Inuit
Subartic - Chippewa
Northeast - Iroquois
Southeast - Cherokee
Plains - Sioux (or Comanche)
Northwest9 - Chinook
California - Chumash
Great Basin - Shoshone
Plateau - Nez Perce
Southwest - Apache (or Mojave or Navajo)
Middle America - Aztec (already represented) Maya
Caribbean - Carib
Andes - Inca
Amazon - Arawak
Patagonia - Tehuelche

note that these are the only some of the tribes from those reigons. i only chose these because they are the tribes that i have acess to in my resource pile and therefore must be better known (if not more significant) than other tribes.

about three or so months ago. they discovered a small family buried on the antarctic peninsula. i am not sure if they were a member of a tribe that lived there, but they were identified to be similar in build and features to the american indiand than europeans or africans or asians. they were dated to be about 700 years old. they have not found any other people or evidence of a tribe that lived there. maybe we could send a few hundred inuit peoples onto the peninsula and see if the diverseify from the northern inuit. form their own tribe, and then their own race.
personally, i think that this family was either out fishing and got caught in a storm and landed on the penninsula, or had actually moved there during the ice age and eventually just died out.

What would be awesome is if they created a scenario with the major Native American or Amerindian tribes, much like they did with the Chinese families.

Neat story by the way. I really like to hear about finds where scientists and archaeologists find things that go beyond or even counter to "established history". With a physics background, I'm very aware of paradigm shift or changing in theories of how the world, microuniverse, and macrouniverse work. History works the same way science does; with new findings come new evidences and new theories of what happened in the past.

I think the Durrani Empire (Afghanistan) would be interesting, but there are more deserving civs for BtS.

@Greek Stud
Australia never achieved independence, I know I live there.

it's not AFL anymore. it is NFL. the two divisions were unified and split into the AFC, and the NFC. this is where the superbowl was founded. but otherwise, american football is not as brutal as it once was. bring back the lethar helmets and pads and then it may be able to compete with aussie style ball.

The AFL is the Australia Football League, and by football we mean victorian football, it is almost as bad as american football, but the helmets and padding make the rest of the world see you as *******. AFL is played on round ovals and there are... well screw explaining it, read about it somewhere. Oh, and only play and watch real sports like cricket, Rugby and Soccer (exept the italians, there even bigger ******* than people who play american football).

Now my real point, put the idea of little tribal peoples that have done nothing in a the void where Rann, Morris Iemma, Peter Bettie, Steve Bracks and Kevin Rudd. Aztecs, Mayans, Incans had civilizations, they had writting, they had wars, they had cities, little *****y tribes had nothing of the sort. It's a joke for them to put them in. The more I think about it polynesians are sounding better cause they had something, especially the Maoris', the Maoris' fought back the British in New Zealand and still have have a king/queen today (though it was created to match the British). Australia is still under her Her Majesty the Queen who can still overthrow the goverment at any point she wishes, and did so under labor prime minister Goth Whitlam. Just as incompetant as the modern sort. I really wouldn't mind an Australian civ, but I just don't think its worth it, but with American Indians I would say any ol' shiite would do. Oh, Saim, we do have independance, just we are not a Republic. I don't think we should be as well, like we are the Queen can still stop Rudd if he gets in are wastes the Future fund on a new fibre internet system nation wide whilst us in the country are drinking sea water.

I think individual civ distinction makes the game much more interesting and realistic than generalizing. I would rather play Sitting Bull of the Souix than Sitting Bull of the Native Americans or Amerindians. It just makes more sense to me.I would agree, but there is a big problem with making 15 seperate civs for 15 different American Indian tribes for the standard game: In random games you'd probably end up with at least one or two native american tribes in each game because of the probability of getting a tribe would be proportionately much higher than the other civs. If they were leaders of one grouped tribe, then you'd have a more appropriate chance of getting an american tribe in the game. Then if the tribe is selected, a random leader can be selected from it.

Maybe having it so that there's one Native American tribe (or insert more appropriate name) and then when say Sitting Bull was chosen as the leader (randomly or otherwise), the game would change the Native American name to Sioux, so ingame it woud be played out as "Sitting Bull of the Sioux empire". If you selected another leader, the tribe name would change accordingly. I think that'll work. Maybe even extend it to different UU's and UB's aswell.

Several years ago whilst in the USA an american asked me what it was like living in a country without electricity. Hmmm...Hehe, I was over there too a while ago in Texas and talking to some people there. One of them asked where I was from and I said Australia. Their follow up question was "did you drive over?".

Having said that, I used to live in Darwin and I've had questions from people down south asking me whether there was more in Darwin than just crossroads and a traffic light.

I say there should not even be one, if there has to be they should make it Sioux because they have chosen Sitting Bull as the leader and it should be used to fill in the gap for all those who think that in a game of war, diplomacy, empire building, city management and war there should be native tribes can have at least one, I mean the Zulus' made me think twice about their selection process.

Based on previous civ games...

Civ III (In Civ IV *, in warlords #, BTS known +)
America *
Aztecs *
Babylon +
China *
Egypt *
England *
France *
Germany *
Greece *
India *
Iroquois +? Native American
Japan *
Rome *
Russia *
Zululand #
Arabia *
Celts #
Korea #
Mongolia #
Ottoman Empire #
Scandinavia #
Spain *
Byzantine
Hittites
Incans *
Mayans
Netherlands +
Portugal +
Sumeria
Austria
So that leaves 5 that will most probably be in the game
1. Portugal
2. Babylon
3. Netherlands
4. Native Americans (they have previously used Sioux and Iroquois)
5*. Hittites
6*. Byzantine
7*. Mayan
8*. Sumerian
9*. Austrian

This leaves one, or maybe not. They might make both Sioux and Iroquois. Anyone have anything ideas about a possible last one.

@ WingedPaladin:
this would be a nice scaneario (i totally butchered that didnt i?) then they could throw in eruopean civs ingame at some point.

@ Saim:
i suggested this about two or three pages ago.

@ Menzies:
again i misunderstood. d*** i need to learn to read!

@ Watiggi:
agreed. this would be a different idea. it could work. but that would be way too many UU's and UB's. maybe just the most important. Navajo, Iroquois, Souix, and Cherokee.

back @ Menzies:
as to your last post, this seems like a major possibility. maybe Poland would be in, but i doubt it. it would just be a filler space between Germany and Russia. either Siam or Afghanistan could be a better option. if they put in both... they would either remove Sumeria or the Hittites. who knows, they may put in eleven!

I just realized that I forgot to post my list of Civs I think will be in the expansion pack.

Portugal, Holland, the Amerindians and Babylon are confirmed so:


1. Maya
2. Ayamra
3. Kongo
4. Eithiopia
5. Siam
6. Timiruds (Or some other Central Asian Civ)

My list adds 2 african civs, 2 American civs, and 2 Asian civs. If there were more room, I would add Hungary, Tibet, Byzantium, and Assyria to the list.

@09camaro and Watiggi, and anyone else concerned about the "Native American" civ: Well, if I have to name a civilization for Sitting Bull, I would be specific and call them the "Sioux". Not "Amerindian", not "Native American" because those are way too vague and actually refer to previously exisiting civilizations in the game (Aztecs, Inca), and as well the Maya, of which I am hopeful for inclusion. Or, if you absolutely insist that Sitting Bull represent more than he actually did, how about "Plains Indians"? It's not as glamorous or as catchy as Amerindians, but at least it refers to the locale where he actually led his people.

On Hitler: It is illegal to use anything Nazi for entertainment in Germany. So, if BtS featured Hitler, the Nazi dictator, you would not be able to market it.

On Austria: I would only call the civilization Austria, led by the Hapsburg family. I wouldn't include Hungary because that refers to a very specific time period in Austria's history, which was pointed out to be not the greatest of times for them. I really want to represent the Austria of Charles V, when Austria was strong and controlled vast swaths of European territory, and when the Holy Roman Empire was actually an effective arm of Austrian influence, not when it was a wreck. I somewhat agree with Menzies along these lines, it appears.

On Menzies' "Native American" Rant: I'm thoroughly confused. I kind of followed you, and I am in favor of naming specific civilizations and not regions (see above on the name of the Sioux). However, the native American civilizations of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca conquered and held on to significant empires that made great engineering and cultural achievements. The Maya built pyramids and aqueducts in the middle of the jungle, worthy of rivaling the Egyptians. That's why I'm in favor of their inclusion. Now, you start talking about natives not having a civilization...what? What is your definition of "Indians" in your last couple lines? Whatever...

@Greek Stud: I agree and disagree with your list. I like seeing the Hittites, Austria, and Mayans. I would place Sumeria and Byzantium higher on the list, simply because of the "previous inclusion" status (and yes, they were among my Civ3 favorites).

@09camaro on Aztecs: Not entirely. The Aztecs were a successful group of nation-builders, and deserve to be remembered as the imperialistic people they were. They subjugated neighboring tribes, much like the Inca, and built a rather large empire, worthy of recognition. Their undoing was the timing--these subjugated peoples tended to side with the Europeans, and ultimately civil conflict (along with disease) killed off these two Native American empires.

@WingedPaladin: I second your statement on the specific civilizations...my bias towards that should be quite clear.

Phoenix1595: You didn't mention the Hittites or Sumeria...do you not like those civilizations for some reason?

And finally on the huge list...: It's a good analysis, and I'm thinking the Civ3 civs may make a reappearance. I really don't think Afghanistan is a good substitute for any of the civs, but Siam...maybe. I'd like to see Poland or Austria in, so there's still the possibility.

The Ayamra and Timiruds I have only heard of in passing--I doubt they are serious contenders.




Wow, these threads grow pretty quickly. I'm not all that into discussing the pregame release stuff (it's all speculation, and it gets tiresome after a few days)...I may have to go on another sabatical.

Well the Timurids are a bit exotic for a civilization, but Timur/Tamerlane would make a wonderful leader, if you want for the Mongols or the Persians depends on how you define it. (Thus he would also be a candidate for a two-civ seat, like Charles V. of Habsburg for Spain or Austria ;)).

@09camaro and Watiggi, and anyone else concerned about the "Native American" civ: Well, if I have to name a civilization for Sitting Bull, I would be specific and call them the "Sioux". Not "Amerindian", not "Native American" because those are way too vague and actually refer to previously exisiting civilizations in the game (Aztecs, Inca), and as well the Maya, of which I am hopeful for inclusion. Or, if you absolutely insist that Sitting Bull represent more than he actually did, how about "Plains Indians"? It's not as glamorous or as catchy as Amerindians, but at least it refers to the locale where he actually led his people.

On Hitler: It is illegal to use anything Nazi for entertainment in Germany. So, if BtS featured Hitler, the Nazi dictator, you would not be able to market it.

On Austria: I would only call the civilization Austria, led by the Hapsburg family. I wouldn't include Hungary because that refers to a very specific time period in Austria's history, which was pointed out to be not the greatest of times for them. I really want to represent the Austria of Charles V, when Austria was strong and controlled vast swaths of European territory, and when the Holy Roman Empire was actually an effective arm of Austrian influence, not when it was a wreck. I somewhat agree with Menzies along these lines, it appears.

On Menzies' "Native American" Rant: I'm thoroughly confused. I kind of followed you, and I am in favor of naming specific civilizations and not regions (see above on the name of the Sioux). However, the native American civilizations of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca conquered and held on to significant empires that made great engineering and cultural achievements. The Maya built pyramids and aqueducts in the middle of the jungle, worthy of rivaling the Egyptians. That's why I'm in favor of their inclusion. Now, you start talking about natives not having a civilization...what? What is your definition of "Indians" in your last couple lines? Whatever...

@Greek Stud: I agree and disagree with your list. I like seeing the Hittites, Austria, and Mayans. I would place Sumeria and Byzantium higher on the list, simply because of the "previous inclusion" status (and yes, they were among my Civ3 favorites).

@09camaro on Aztecs: Not entirely. The Aztecs were a successful group of nation-builders, and deserve to be remembered as the imperialistic people they were. They subjugated neighboring tribes, much like the Inca, and built a rather large empire, worthy of recognition. Their undoing was the timing--these subjugated peoples tended to side with the Europeans, and ultimately civil conflict (along with disease) killed off these two Native American empires.

@WingedPaladin: I second your statement on the specific civilizations...my bias towards that should be quite clear.

Phoenix1595: You didn't mention the Hittites or Sumeria...do you not like those civilizations for some reason?

And finally on the huge list...: It's a good analysis, and I'm thinking the Civ3 civs may make a reappearance. I really don't think Afghanistan is a good substitute for any of the civs, but Siam...maybe. I'd like to see Poland or Austria in, so there's still the possibility.

i agree with the tribal specific leaders for the american indians. they are vague. and i stated that the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca were far more influential than other indian tribes. i said that they should remain independant. the lesser tribes such as the Souix, Iroquois, etc. should be in one massive civ, "Amerindian" if you select a specific leader, such as sitting bull, then it would go back to the tribally specific name, i.e. Souix.
i was not quite sure about the hitler stuff. so thank you.
i agree on austria.
i also agree on the aztecs. they were imperialistic, and should keep their place. i said what i said because that is true. what you say is also true.

Well the Timurids are a bit exotic for a civilization, but Timur/Tamerlane would make a wonderful leader, if you want for the Mongols or the Persians depends on how you define it. (Thus he would also be a candidate for a two-civ seat, like Charles V. of Habsburg for Spain or Austria ;)).

I used Timiruds for want of a better Central Asian civ. A better idea would be to make the Ottoman Empire just a regular Turkish Civ, put it in Central Asia, and add Timur as a leader. Persia would also be a possibility for him, since Timur was very Persianized, but I would be against him as a Mongolian leader, because he never really ruled over Mongolia, nor was he much of a Mongolian. ;P He was Turkic in orgins, so that would work better. In place of Ottoman Turkey, I would add the Hittites.

Making Timur a persian leader would be like making Mehmed a Byzantine leader. Timur didn't rule Mongolia, but he did try to revive the Mongol Empire.

And I agree with you, the Ottomans should be renamed Turkey, but what do you mean by put them in Central Asia and add Timur as a leader? Remove Mehmed you mean? And how could one 'put them in Central Asia'?

You have misunderstood me. Meso-American CIVILIZATIONS good, little tribal folks that didn't make cities bad. I do not count Aztecs, Incans, Mayans... as part of that definition. To be a civilizaiton you at least need a city and Aztecs, Inca... all had them. Stop putting them and native americans together, yes I know my termanology is a bit off, but you know. I have great respect for the Meso-American civilizations, but not for tribal peoples. Look we have a hut, we're a civilization now. Uggg... I generally use the word native for peoples who have not made cities or an actual civilization of some sort.

Well, but Timur in any case cannot be a ottoman leader since he was the one to defeat them and so saved the byzantine Empire another half decade or so of life... ;)

Why do people keep thinking that Timur should/could be persian leader? He basically razed Persia. How about putting him as a leader of Timurids?

Why do people keep thinking that Timur should/could be persian leader? He basically razed Persia. How about putting him as a leader of Timurids?
The Timurids...? WHY should they have a place in Civilization? Why?!

I don't care about Timurids. Just too many people seem to want Timur in the game either as a persian or mongol leader, which is quite stoopid.

Making Timur a persian leader would be like making Mehmed a Byzantine leader. Timur didn't rule Mongolia, but he did try to revive the Mongol Empire.

And I agree with you, the Ottomans should be renamed Turkey, but what do you mean by put them in Central Asia and add Timur as a leader? Remove Mehmed you mean? And how could one 'put them in Central Asia'?



Sorry, I meant renaming the Ottoman Empire as Turkey, and make their cities Central Asian (which is more historically accurate), with Samerquand as the capital. Mehed can still be a leader, but Timur should be added as one of their leaders.

If not that, then I think there should be some civ added to represent Central Asia.

Minoan, that's like totally re-writing history, Timur, despite being of Turkic origins hated the Ottomans and saw Yildirim Bayazid as his number 1 rival.

You have misunderstood me. Meso-American CIVILIZATIONS good, little tribal folks that didn't make cities bad. I do not count Aztecs, Incans, Mayans... as part of that definition. To be a civilizaiton you at least need a city and Aztecs, Inca... all had them. Stop putting them and native americans together, yes I know my termanology is a bit off, but you know. I have great respect for the Meso-American civilizations, but not for tribal peoples. Look we have a hut, we're a civilization now. Uggg... I generally use the word native for peoples who have not made cities or an actual civilization of some sort.

Would the tribes who built Adobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe) cities like the Pueblo pass your civ litmus test?

ugh... i cant decifer what people consider a civilization. they had their own distinct cultures, their own language, and their own government. what more can make a group become a civilization (other than a military strength)?

Would the tribes who built Adobe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe) cities like the Pueblo pass your civ litmus test?

SMASH, SMASH, SMASH...

... a new computer moniter, new windows, anger managment classes, $452,000 worth or alcohol, rehab to get off of said alcohol, 2 fibre glass casts for my hands and boxing gloves so at least we I punch the walls after reading this a second time I can still use my hands afterwards.

OH MY FUC... *hold in the rage*...

pain in hands later...

You know what, I give, just explain to me where the North American indians originally came from. I want to here what you. Because I really can't defend such evidence as adobe buildings.

*must hold it in...*

AHHHHHHH!!! Hagia Sofia blows the **** out of that. Or more regionally Machu Pichu, any Aztec City, any city in meso-america. I just don't get it, Aboriginals had boomerangs, you don't see me saying "put em' in pop'". They don't measure up in anything to the great civilizations, I don't even think they measured up to the Maoris' in the civilization sense. In fact, I would rather ancient brits more, they made stonehenge, the lesser know woodhenge, oh and again on stone henge, the stones were from deep within wales. Take that mudbricks *shakes fist*.

Now note: I do not think any groups of people on the planet are any smarter or dumber than any other on the planet, I do think certain people are, but not races.

KNOWN:
civs (4/10):
Babylon
Portugal
Netherlands
Sioux.

leaders(3/16)
Celts - Queen Boudica
American - Abraham Lincoln
Sioux - Sitting Bull

We were doing so well!

Hitler isn't a civ...so lets stop that talk before it even starts again...how about this for a new discussion...between Siam and Khymer, which would you choose?

Khymer, they already have a wonder.

Minoan, that's like totally re-writing history, Timur, despite being of Turkic origins hated the Ottomans and saw Yildirim Bayazid as his number 1 rival.

The Ottoman Empire isn't the only Turkish state to ever exist, you know. By changing it from the Ottoman Empire to a more general Turkish civ, it'd make more sense. It'd also allow the addition of Timur, who I feel deserves to be in the game.

You know what, I give, just explain to me where the North American indians originally came from. I want to here what you. Because I really can't defend such evidence as adobe buildings.

Something I think we learn from the game is that if we are limited on resources (ie. no stone, no marble, on desert plots, on snow plots, starting on a tiny island, etc.) our civilization cannot advance quickly. Also, if everyone around us is declaring war, science, technology, and culture often suffers as a result of focus on building troops to defend.

I believe cultural and religious concepts and priorities can put a limit on tech and building. The Native Americans of the north did not believe in land ownership because the land was sacred and living to them. It was also important to them to become close to nature and life instead of building and doing things that seemed "unnatural". Spiritualism was more evident than materialism. Under the threat of neighboring tribes, many of them followed the Buffalo focused on survival instead of settling down and growing crops and building great structures. I'm sure there were some that discovered technologies that others did not have, but lacking a widespread writing system, scientific methodology, reasoning, and mass educational system, those technologies didn't proliferate and were forgotten.

There a few interesting structures that have survived mostly with religious meaning, as it is religious structures that survive the best with most cultures. The Serpent Mound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_Mound) is rather curious and is thought to have astronomical significance in its alignment and time of being built. The Mayas, Incas, and Aztecs were good at building great religious structures which is why they are so admired here. I've mentioned the Adobe of the North American southwest.

There are many places that have carved pictographs that give evidence of their lifestyle. The Mi'kmaq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%27kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing) of Canada have a system of writing that resembles Egyptian.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-micmac.html

Then there is the Mystery Stone, otherwise called the Decalogue stone (http://www.webcom.com/mhc/archaeology/decalogue-introduction.html) found in New Mexico near Los Lunas written in Paleo-Hebrew with some Greek letters: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.html

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/loslunas.jpg

Latter-Day Saints, also known as Mormons (http://www.mormon.org), believe people sailed to the American Continent from Babylon (Jaredites ~2500 to ~2200 BC) and Jerusalem (Nephites & Lamanites ~600 BC).

http://www.ocii.com/~cmeek/images/BoM_TimeLine_2.jpg

This belief stems from The Book of Mormon (http://mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b4f4055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a 94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=cbe36db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____) . The writing on the golden plates from which The Book of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_mormon) was translated was said to be originally written in "Reformed Egyptian." There has been archaeological evidence (http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html) found to support the writings found in the Book of Mormon.

Latter-Day Saints also believe that Adam & Eve originated in the garden of Eden located in what is now Jackson County, Missouri on the North American Continent. The world wide flood then happened effectively wiping out civilization in what we call the "New World" and Noah's Ark landed in what is now considered the "Old World."

There is strong evidence that people from Asia migrated over the Bering Strait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behring_Strait) during the ice age or when the ocean level was lower. DNA evidence suggests origin from both Asia and the Mediterranean, although the latter has been harder to find. I believe this is due to the dominant nature of Asian genes (ie. in genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics) brown eyes are "B" while blue eyes are "b").

"A 1998 DNA study conducted by The Center for Molecular Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA has discovered a mitochondrial DNA strain in some 3% of Amerindians called "Haplo-group X" which supports a pre-Columbian migration of caucasians to the Americas. Haplo-group X is NOT found in Asians, demonstrating it did not come across the Bering Strait."

Amerindians have a physical appearance and bone structure unlike other races evident of human evolution and perhaps ancient racial mixing.

...too much stuff...

Amerindians have a physical appearance and bone structure unlike other races evident of human evolution and perhaps ancient racial mixing.

this is interesting. i have deep connetcions with the south, particullary Louisiana. my family originates from here. one of my cousins ended up marrying a ,i forget the tribe but i think it is, comanche man. he said that they're people are pretty much dieing out. they have been mixed with other races so much that to see a pure amerindian person is less likely than being in a plane crash, which is less likely than being struck by lightning. that is why that the reservation that he used to live on does not allow people of non-amerindian decent to enter marry and live inside the reservation. he was a 100% amerindian, so was his sister. i went to visit them and the way she looked (facial structure, build, etc.) was totally unlike anything i have ever seen before. they did not look in the least bit white, nor asian (other than the hair color). so they then took us up to canada to visit some other relatives. as we went north, we stopped on reservations. and at each reservation the hair color grew steadily lighter. the lighest it got i think was similar to a "dirty blonde" and then it grew darker. the "dirty blonde" was close to the border. ummm... i just lost my train of thought...

i just found something out. people who are of mixed amerind and european or other non-amerind decent are known as mestizo... hmmm... so mexicans are mestizo. that makes much more sense than latina (or latino) and is probably much more excepted than these terms or wetback or beaner... if i offended you, then whatever. these are terms that people use to describe these people and, while offensive, still symbolize your race.

that makes much more sense than latina (or latino) and is probably much more excepted than these terms or wetback or beaner... if i offended you, then whatever. these are terms that people use to describe these people and, while offensive, still symbolize your race.

That makes it acceptable then? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

one of my cousins ended up marrying a ,i forget the tribe but i think it is, comanche man. he said that they're people are pretty much dieing out. they have been mixed with other races so much that to see a pure amerindian person is less likely than being in a plane crash, which is less likely than being struck by lightning. that is why that the reservation that he used to live on does not allow people of non-amerindian decent to enter marry and live inside the reservation.

I know what you mean and understand the sentiment of the reservation in preserving the race. Pure Hawaiians are a dying breed as well. With interracial marriages rampant in Hawaii, there aren't enough pure Hawaiians to go around and no Hawaiian reservation to preserve it. There is however the island Ni'ihau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau) which is privately owned and has a higher concentration of pure Hawaiians than anywhere else in the world I think, though only a sparse population of 160.

Approximately 400,000 people in the USA claim Hawaiian ancestry. I've heard the figure for pure Hawaiians remaining being around 10,000, but living in Hawaii and not knowing very many pure Hawaiians, I believe the figure is even less than that.

I

Approximately 400,000 people in the USA claim Hawaiian ancestry. I've heard the figure for pure Hawaiians remaining being around 10,000, but living in Hawaii and not knowing very many pure Hawaiians, I believe the figure is even less than that.

Last I heard, there are only around 3000 people that are "pure-blooded" Hawaiian. That estimate is a late-1990s figure, however. It might be even less today.

Last I heard, there are only around 3000 people that are "pure-blooded" Hawaiian. That estimate is a late-1990s figure, however. It might be even less today.

I think a lot of the pure-blooded Hawaiians that are being counted are over 60. As that generation is passing, the number will drop dramatically. :(

@09camaro: Interesting... what was this tribe called?

@porto_alegre_xP: I still fail to see a good reason Brazil should be in Civ IV.

really? i dont think that the brazilians need to be a civilization at Civ IV :)
i think the indians that live in Brazil (guaranis, kaigangs, comboios, tupis, etc.) need to be a civ. i think it's prejudice think that just the inkas made a civilization in south america ;)

anyways, the name of this topic is "10 civilizations that will be in beyond the sword" and not "why the brazilians need to/can't be a civilization" :)

@ Ogedei_the_Mad:
That makes it acceptable then? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

no it does not. derogitory terms are not acceptable unles the race that they refer to uses them to describe themselves. example: black people refer to themselves as (please excuse the term) n*****s. why is it wrong for a white man to say it to a black man with the intentions being the same as when i black man says it to another (i.e. hello => what up n*****)? this confuses me. so if they can say it to eachother in a non insulting way, then i can to. and i often do. infact, my typicall greeting to people that i see on a regular basis (and who often poke fun at me) is to flip them off! while i would never do this to someone who just says hi, someone who says something like, "hey f***er! how've ya been?" then i will substitute the normal wave with the bird and say, "hey b****! ok i guess! how bout you? what's up?"

back from that tangent, these terms are derogitory! when used as an insult or as a form of domineering,it is wrong. but as a form of identification, greeting, etc. then i see it as acceptable. i have a black friend, a mexican friend, and an asian friend. people are always saying "ooh, your african american, asian-american, mexican-american" then they say "no, im black, asian, a beaner" when i say hi to them, i use these terms, but once they use the derogitory around another of their race, then i will too. the other person becomes upset and threatens me. but my friend has my back, sayin "no man, he's cool, he says n***** the same way we do." then the other guy is all like, "ooh, well, uh ok then..." and the conversation continues.

Mutual respect determines whether a normally derogatory term is offensive or just fun-poking.

Wait, what... *checking website* huh... *Checking glasses* nooo.... *checking blood alcohol level* what the hell... *playing one man russian roulette with all chambers loaded so everybody wins*

...




...



...

Okay, I'm alive its a miracle, turns out I'm not even a good shot from 0 inches. What the hell is happening here, your discussing people being 100% something, are you all a bunch of racists or just stoned. Nobody cares what race you are these days, I'm personally, Chinese, Aboriginal, Spanish, Scotish, English, Irish, Dutch, South African (I think there is probably some French and Italian, but can't verify that. Oh, and Tasmanian (not proud of that one). I don't sit around going; "I visited some Irish reletives and they are always saying there not that many pure Irish in ozland anymore", no the're cool and talk about things that are acutally interesting, like heroic war stories. Why are you people discussing what you are, I'm guessing jonny no point up there is a Morman by faith and one infintesimal amount north american indian. And unlike him I'm no longer going to quote text 4 inches above mine, people should be smart enough to look a few posts up a page. In fact on that point I'm actually not going to link to anything either, knowing this website now with 90% of all links being to wikipedia the online load of **** I think people can retype what they don't understand. I'm looking at what you wrote and going, you rather follow strange evidence of MORMANS than read recent archiological findings of southern france cavemen (basically) being found in north america (Northern United States) in the late Ice Age and before Mongols made it across the baring strait. Which was the point I was getting to. Also lets think about your point here, your saying peoples of north america were disavantaged by the land, or the resources. *rolling on the ground laughing for a while* Then you bypass the point entirely and talk about being one with the land. Now, two problems with this very inconcistent argument, (nice picture though, I really got the point because of the pictures, a rock with jibberish really makes me think of something that the rest of the drivle didn't) and the second is how does this make them an important civilization. You said they were not unified, you said they didn't use writting, they didn't make cities, they didn't... You make a badly backed point and then blow it out of the water. Nice research about the mormans by the way.

Now things that a civilization MUST have:
1. Cities
2. An effect on history
3. Existed for longer than Keating in power
4. At some point to have been even somewhat united
5. Great Culture, ahead of other at the time (eg. Pyramids of Giza, Hagia Sofia, Angkor Wat), or simply gradure
6. Could defend themselves against a soft breeze
7. Done something amazing

Do not read the following! All offense incured or comments upon here after are in no way connected to me.

I created a religion last year (well not me, but the big G). I called it awesomism, you see I had a dream and saw the archangle gabriel and he told me that he was trying to be the third archangle to revolt against god and he needed my help to create a new empire were all people would have eternal life. He told me that I was chosen because he had gotten a list of instruction onto earth near my house. He said to walk 60 yards to the west and 5 yards east. I dug down 21 feet before I found the opening to this cave where Gabriel had sent one of his minions to give me the box of Gruipoytos. The angle whose name was Sam... -uel and he was here to tell me why & how I could meet with an actual angle in the cave. He told me I was the only one who could open it. He left and I opened it and for a Magical scroll. I discovered I could read it somehow dispite the fact it was in a strange language. It was entitled 'Hskriufbnasssmityp'. This is pronounced 'Hsk-ri-ufb-na-sss-mi-typ' for those unfamiliar with Awesomism. Once I had desiphered the indesipherable text I distributed it though my local town and was laughed away. Then I met some people who were deemed 'not as smart' as everybody else and it was a new religion.

Sorry, the Native Americans of BtS weren't united at some point (see latest interview (http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788749p1.html) where Mantzaris refers to Sitting Bull as the leader of "the Native Americans"). :p

Cross that off your list.

Well... that says a whole lot of nothing. Oh, wait yes it does.



YEEEESSSSS!!!!!! MAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Maya makes up for the retarded and obviously political chioce of 'Native Americans'. They don't deserve a position, and the link you gave me says nothing. Nothing at all. Oh, and once more.

MAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

So happy, they finally added them. Thankyou, thankyou so much!!!

Oh, and seriously, you had no point apart from a 'suck it' tone.

Also lets think about your point here, your saying peoples of north america were disavantaged by the land, or the resources. *rolling on the ground laughing for a while* Then you bypass the point entirely and talk about being one with the land.

You're right, that idea is silly. It's great to see you laughing. I didn't state that the "peoples of north america were disadvantaged by the land, or the resources". I was talking about what we learn from the game. Read it again. I believe there are many resources in North America and that the different tribes worked with the materials that were most abundant in the area in which they lived and knew how to use. (Remember in the game we don't know anything about copper or iron until we learn about it and how to use it.) The Eskimo utilized ice and snow; the Pueblo used sand, clay, and mud; many used skins of animals. Apparently the North Native Americans of 2 centuries ago weren't so big about mining for metals and this is where I believe their beliefs of the sacred Earth and being in harmony with nature fit in. Central Amerindians and more ancient American civilizations did however mine for gold and other metals.

Now, two problems with this very inconcistent argument, (nice picture though, I really got the point because of the pictures, a rock with jibberish really makes me think of something that the rest of the drivle didn't) and the second is how does this make them an important civilization. You said they were not unified, you said they didn't use writting, they didn't make cities, they didn't... You make a badly backed point and then blow it out of the water.

I kind of enjoy throwing out facts and letting the readers figure out how it all ties together. Some had writing that has continued until today, but it wasn't universal. (Remember, for a long time most of Europe couldn't read and that was considered the Dark Ages, a time of warring countries and a lull for science and culture.) The fact that the Amerindians had writing and that it was related to the "Old World" is what I was pointing out. Some writing was not understood by the generations that followed thus becoming a "mystery" and "jibberish" as you say to those who could not read it just like our English and Romanized writing is "jibberish" and a "mystery" to a child in Mongolia.

Correct, the tribes of the 1700-1800's were not unified universally, but battled amongst themes which hindered their development in becoming civilized according to European definition. I believe they had been more unified previously, but the Europeans who came had no knowledge of previous generations to put into their history.

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-NM-Misc/TaosPueblo.jpg

Some tribes did make cities. I believe I made that point clear. The point of the Buffalo were to acknowledge those tribes who were travelers in teepees and did not settle in one spot to build great cities. Thus, in North America, we have a range of tribes at different stages of civilization development.

In my opinion, a civilization not being at the same stage yours is in its technological development isn't any less worthy to be called a civilization as much as a baby isn't any less worthy to be called a human than a 60-year-old adult. The Native Americans had something however that the Europeans of that day couldn't touch. I'll let you figure that out.

If you wish to proliferate and encourage the persecution, discrimination against, and mocking of Mormons and their beliefs, that is your choice.

@Menzies
I was referring to this:
Another leader who has some nice synergy between his traits and his unique building is Sitting Bull. Not only is the Native American leader Protective, which gives him powerful archer units [...]
Now, go cross the "unified at some point" off your list.