What is up with the Indian names? Why is Hiawatha Ayenwatha, Geronimo Goyathlay, and Chief Joseph... I don't even remember that long-ass name! Why is it Ni-Mii-Pu instead of Nez Percé or Dinnehih instead of Apache? Come on, put in the names everybody knows. After all, what do people scream when they're falling from planes?

... After all, what do people scream when they're falling from planes?

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRGGGGG.....Doh! :lol:

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRGGGGG.....Doh! :lol:

I meant willingly. :D

You know, I went back and forth on this. You raise two different issues:

1 - names of leaders

In the end, I went with the original name because the English name was often given to them by someone else (unlike Civ leader names which are often Anglicized versions of their original names).

Geronimo, for instance, was a name given to him by Mexican enemies with reference to St. Jerome. So why use this rather than his given, proper name? I understand completely that this is the name people know, but why not learn something new? :) You read it once or twice, and there you go.

2- Tribe names.

Well, this is part of a larger issue. I created population groupings based on geography. This comes with its share or controversy. Because of the way they were grouped, I used a more generic name rather than the name of one tribe. This issue may be re-addressed in the future.

Well, by that logic, Sitting Bull would still be called Tatanka Iyotanka. Obviously, using the original names wasn't Sid Meier's intention.

And I still can't bring myself to remember Chief Joseph's real, excessively long name. Hell, I had to wiki Sitting Bull to get his name.

I've been thinking about responding and I have to agree with the Madman: from the civ list it's completely unclear who the more exotic tribe names are supposed to represent. It would be more practical to keep the original names as Civpedia texts only - not to offend any Native speakers, but the popularized names are just better known and using the correct names will not make it better any time soon. (I realize this is a tricky issue and the final decision is ofcourse up to CIV Gold Team.)

I don't have a problem changing to the leaders name to more well-known versions. But the tribal arrangements are a little tougher to change on the fly. I had someone mention they'd like to see a change, but when I requested his help in doing so, he disappeared. :)

It's not a small undertaking to re-jig 10 civs (not to mention splitting leaders, UUs and UBs where appropriate, and having to create new ones as warranted). If someone is willing to throw their hat into the ring, great.

I'm not suggesting a general overhaul: I only meant to point out that for a first encounter it might be better to have somewhat familiar names. (When implementing CIV Gold's Patch 2 version with my scenarios I had some trouble determining which units belonged to which civs, because of the exotic sounding names used.) I do applaud the effort to use genuine names, but if the indigenous names are unknown outside the sphere of the native speakers, it might be better to have them in the Civpedia for those interested. (If it were possible to use both the original and the westernized names in the description, that'd be perfect maybe, but that seems impractical. I realize the difficulties in decisions such as these and ultimately it's up to CIV Gold Team.)

Anyway, I'd keep the tribal arrangements as is.

The unit names are a bit confusing, but if I didn't use them we'd be stuck with a lot of "Mohawk Archer", "Ojibwa Archer", "Cherokee Warrior". Those are a bit too bland for my tastes, and considering Firaxis went with names like Cho-Ku-Nu, Quechua and Hwacha, I thought it wasn't too far out to use Ayastigi or the like.

I'll revisit the idea for 5.0.

Errr... OK, I didn't mean the unit names, just the civs they're meant to belong to.

Also, the new unit names - as CIV Gold in general - are more consistent than the Firaxis ones ;)(which, basically, are a bit of a mess name- and otherwise).:crazyeye:

I do applaud the effort to use genuine names, but if the indigenous names are unknown outside the sphere of the native speakers, it might be better to have them in the Civpedia for those interested. (If it were possible to use both the original and the westernized names in the description, that'd be perfect maybe, but that seems impractical. I realize the difficulties in decisions such as these and ultimately it's up to CIV Gold Team.)

The CivPedia mentions Sitting Bull's real name.

I've got a suggestion for a change...

The Upaajut Empire should be the Eskimo Empire. Not Inuit, because that would limit the Empire to that particular group. I realize that it may not be exactly P.C., but it's more recognizable. The leader's name, likewise, should be Marten Jumping.

As I understand it Inuit is not what they call themselves.;)

But I'm interested to know: who's Martin Jumping?

Marten Jumping is Thanadelthur.

'Inuit' is fine, but as noted leaves out the Aleuts and Yupiks. 'Eskimo' is considered derogatory.

"Eskimo" is only derogatory depending on who you ask, really...

Eskimo is really the only generally known term to dump the Inuits and Yupik together.

"Eskimo" is only derogatory depending on who you ask, really...

Eskimo is really the only generally known term to dump the Inuits and Yupik together.

I don't disagree, per se. Our pro football team here in Edmonton is called the Eskimos, and has been for decades.

But I promise you that if it were the Eskimo Empire I'd get a dozen people in here telling me it was the wrong move.

Well, it ain't exactly putting Shaka or Mansa Musa in charge of the N!@@#& empire, but, yeah, there'd some resistance.

There have been movements to use Inuit as term for all those northern tribes. The Arctic Empire is also a possibility... We need a poll or something to solve this.

There have been movements to use Inuit as term for all those northern tribes. The Arctic Empire is also a possibility... We need a poll or something to solve this.

I did that ages ago. People are surprising apathetic unless you hit something they are particularly keen on.

To wit, after over 20,000 downloads, there are exactly 3 of us in here talking about this. :)

Maybe because most DLers like to play more than to post. (Personally I'd like to see more feedback as well... But I think there have been more posts about tribe names and such.)

I agree that there could be some regional name for each group of tribes. I hardly see how "Plains Indians" or "Coastal Indians" would be offensive. Maybe "Pueblo Tribes" if "Tribes" is a less offensive term than "Indians".

I agree that there could be some regional name for each group of tribes. I hardly see how "Plains Indians" or "Coastal Indians" would be offensive. Maybe "Pueblo Tribes" if "Tribes" is a less offensive term than "Indians".

The first editions of my First People's mod - from which these civs are taken - used the geographical names used by anthropologists: Woodlands, Arctic, Plains, Plateau, Great Basin, etc.

I ended up changing those because many people complained that they didn't sound authentic enough, and that they were too generic. I don't think those names are offensive, and those groupings did form the basis of the civs I've included in Gold, but people felt the fit wasn't right.

@Wyz
Well then let me give you a great big thanks for all the hard work you did in developing these native people civs! I was waiting for them and CivGold v.4 to do a "Colonization" map for Civ Gold. Great work! If you could, would you download the map I have posted in my Civ Gold Colonization thread and check the placement of the various tribes? I tried to place them based on the Civ info file and game play conciderations. It's kind of sad that as an American I probably know more about European civs and history than the people who first settled here.

I don't have a problem changing to the leaders name to more well-known versions. But the tribal arrangements are a little tougher to change on the fly. I had someone mention they'd like to see a change, but when I requested his help in doing so, he disappeared. :)

It's not a small undertaking to re-jig 10 civs (not to mention splitting leaders, UUs and UBs where appropriate, and having to create new ones as warranted). If someone is willing to throw their hat into the ring, great.


That may have been me you are referring to in the first paragraph. It wasn't a disappearance as much as a case of being bogged down with other things. However, I would like to say that I have no problems with the mod, but as others have also suggested, the names used cause more confusion than anything. Also, I'm not a modder nor have I claimed to be. But, what I was looking for was a simple change from the names used to the name of the more recognized tribe of that particular group. The only places I think it might be appropriate to make more than a one-for-one change would be in having both the Cherokee and Seminole and both the Apache and Navajo. So you would only be replacing 10 civilizations with 12, not creating a large number of new ones. Having 14 of the most well-known Native American tribes (with the Sioux and Iroquois already included) should be enough to satisfy any player as I doubt anyone will be offended that the Kickapoo, Karankawa, Catawba, and Yaqui are left out.


Also, I'm not sure what you mean by splitting of UBs and UUs except for the two cases I noted where I think a 2 for 1 trade is appropriate. Is there a reason the UBs and UUs cannot simply be reassigned to a Civ with a more common name? I apologize if my suggestions involve more work than I realize but as I said I'm not a modder so there may be more to it than the simple changes I have mentioned.


I will say, however, that if you were to run into difficulty coming up with enough names for cities for some of the tribes that is one area where I might be able to provide some assistance. In any case, thanks for a great mod.


Also, I agree that 'Eskimo' is not a good choice and in this case I would humbly suggest having the Inuit as a representative Civ for that region as I doubt there will be a large number of Aleuts complaining that they are not represented fairly.

The problem is that the Civilization's leader isn't an Inuit.

The problem is that the Civilization's leader isn't an Inuit.

Sorry, I overlooked this detail since I haven't played any games with that civ. So here is a case where changing to actual tribes would require either using a lesser-known tribe of the region or changing leaders.

With interest I have been following this thread. Personally, I lean towards using 'westernized' names and I like suggestions like 'Pueblo tribes' and don't see any real problems with something like 'Eskimo tribes'.

As I see it, it comes down to historical accuracy vs. easy/fun gameplay. I believe it's a general misconception that CIV is a game based on history. In my mind CIV is a game based on the culture of history.

For me this shows in Firaxis' choices for naming civs, cities, etc. They consistently have chosen the best known names. It shows even more in CIV Revolution (which is intended to appeal to an even bigger audience), where they have used best known civs and leaders. Noticed that it has included Cleopatra instead of Hatshepsut?

Firaxis also seems to follow a politically correct guideline. I think this was the reason behind the somewhat odd Sitting Bull/Native American Empire combo. It could also have been something a legal department (of Take2) would suggest, only to prevent any possible lawsuit. Although that would seem more likely when a game development department want to put Hitler in as a leader for Germany.

Concluding:

- historical accuracy
- historicity (= best known history)
- politically correct

Which should we as modders follow? The main thing I find important, is that whatever we choose, we should implement consistently.

Firaxis also seems to follow a politically correct guideline. I think this was the reason behind the somewhat odd Sitting Bull/Native American Empire combo. It could also have been something a legal department (of Take2) would suggest, only to prevent any possible lawsuit. Although that would seem more likely when a game development department want to put Hitler in as a leader for Germany.

Would it be politically correct to offer you a peace pipe?

Would it be politically correct to offer you a peace pipe?

It would be diplomatically incorrect to refuse such an offer from a madman of a leader :)

It would, wouldn't it?

Concluding:

- historical accuracy
- historicity (= best known history)
- politically correct

Which should we as modders follow? The main thing I find important, is that whatever we choose, we should implement consistently.

I'd say historical accuracy is the way to go.

Political correctness is just another word for (self)censorship. (And historicity is just another word for historical accuracy. The historicity of Jesus for instance would eliminate any political or religious correct humbug and cutting down the image of Jesus to what is pure historical fact - which is very little, when it comes down to it, as he isn't even mentioned in Flavius Josephus's Judaean War; which basically leaves 3 Gospels, which, in their contradictions, actually give a fairly accurate picture of the man Jesus.)

Reasoning: history (in the Greek original meaning investigation) is about truth - not in any metaphysical sense, but just the plain cold facts.

As English is not my native language, I made the mistake of using the term "historicity" (which has a different meaning), while I meant "culture of history" or "popular history".

I agree that we don't have to fear being political incorrect, we aren't selling a product, although I do think that releasing the terrible leaders as an add-on (instead of adding it to the main mod) is reasonably justified.

As a civ player I would rather fight against a leader named Geronimo for fun's sake, so I can fantasize that he's crying out "Geronimo!" when he starts a war. If I want historical accuracy, I'm not looking for it in a game.

Fun gameplay always takes precedence in my mind and if some names are difficult/annoying and are making a game less fun, then we should change it.

As a scenario maker I try to make fun games starting from a historical setting; I'd agree if something is more fun (or unbalancing to gameplay) taking liberties is certainly appropriate. (I usually explain why or if something in the setup isn't quite acurate in the attached Notes.)

If I wouldn't consider a scenario fun to play myself, I probably wouldn't make it - though I've done a few by request I'm not totally happy about.

Not being an English speaker myself, I'm not sure what you mean by terms like "culture of history" and "popular history" (the popular image of history, like in movies and books? For instance a leader known as Geronimo would't be crying out his name when attacking; that would be a historical myth, like I explained with Jesus).

BTW, still looking forward to your reviews (I get far too few IMO - which is why I may seem to focus on download numbers; there's not much else to post about, unless I create something new).

Yes, the popular image of history or perception of history, which for a lot of people is a primary source of information on history. Now, the discussion on if this is a lamentable thing, is another one.

My example on Geronimo is of course grossly historically inaccurate, but that's the point which was made in the first post of this thread. What does the average person (in this case: me) know about Geronimo, apart from the fact that his name is best known today as some sort of battle cry (for a lack of a better word)?

I think it's important (for fun's sake) that when you play any game as a leader based on a historical person, you can identify with him, even when the identification is misguided. I believe this is the reason for the leaders selection in CIV Revolution. What do they have in common? They have all been depicted in popular culture (books, movies, etc.). For another example: I wouldn't have been surprised if they had included Leonidas of the Spartans, solely because the movie 300 was such a success.

As you have aptly stated: historical myth. Do not underestimate this. Myths are a powerful thing and have a stronger appeal on the human mind than historical facts.

Furthermore, we shouldn't forget that CIV is a game (this is a gaming community, remember? :) ) and not an educational tool. It's main purpose is to entertain, not to educate. That stated, I do believe there's a boundary to creative liberty when dealing with historical figures and/or data. I myself was reminded of this when I watched that awful movie King Arthur (2004).

Appreciate the extensive reply!;)

On historical myths: yeah, they're powerful - only in historical scenarios I consider them humbug (I don't like to use Gilgamesh as a Sumerian leader for instance, when there are plenty real leaders; I may use the Leaderhead, but give him a historical name). Myths belong to fantasy (scenarios/mods), like the - sorry, but I really think so - brilliant FfH.

The movie 300 woud never have been made if the powerful story of the heroic defense of Leonidas and his Spartans (there were some others too) hadn't survived - true; but the original of this story is a historical fact of the first magnitude. (A lesser historical fact would be the destruction of Troy - there have been several -, fuelling the powerful mythical stories of the Iliad and Odyssey.)

King Arthur actually seems to have been a historical figure (though rather a local warlord than a king); I remember reading Arthur stories as a kid and finding them quite fascinating (haven't seen that movie, but in general I prefer the literal stories as I find them more powerful and imaginative).

Sure, Civ is meant to be a fun game (who'd disagree?). But to me personally part of the fun is playing with history, be it in a more historical setting (mod/scenario) or fantasy/sci-fi (I also enjoy the FF, Babylon 5 and Star Trek mods) - and indirectly in actually creating scenarios other find fun to play.

Having said all this, I think the reason why anyone finds it fun to play Civ is personal - and should be.

I agree. It's a matter of taste on a personal level, but once you start modding you still have to consider if you can appeal to the taste of your intended public. There are some good pointers to find in the HOW TO: Design a Mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173061) article.

Funny you should mention Gilgamesh, because scholars now do consider him to be an actual historical, real figure. The same goes for Troy, which was long believed to be imaginary until Schliemann excavated it's remains in the 1870's.

The first would then be an example of myth becoming truth, the second of truth becoming myth.:mischief:

(BTW, I may have a look at that article - if I ever get MOO2Civ back up again...)

Anyway, I guess we've wandered kind of off topic here - hope no one minds.

Gilgamesh is a real, historical figure. There's just lots of myths based on him.

Hey, Rastafarians considered Haile Selassie the second coming of Christ.

What I meant is that there is archaeological evidence (the Sumerian king list) which lead to scholars to "consider" Gilgamesh a historical figure and not just the main character of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I don't have a problem changing to the leaders name to more well-known versions. But the tribal arrangements are a little tougher to change on the fly. I had someone mention they'd like to see a change, but when I requested his help in doing so, he disappeared. :)

It's not a small undertaking to re-jig 10 civs (not to mention splitting leaders, UUs and UBs where appropriate, and having to create new ones as warranted). If someone is willing to throw their hat into the ring, great.

I would be willing to help if you want to take me through what you need to rejigger them. I believe that using the popular names will be for the best. One thing I'd like to see is more UU's being musketman replacements for NA Indians.