SolInvictus
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 183
Why did they have to scrap them? I keep seeing the Pueblo mentioned as a scrapped civ, but I can't find why they did that.
The Pueblo government found it offensive on religious grounds.
What Native American tribe do you expect/want?
- Thread starter ImperialChaos
- Start date
The Pueblo government found it offensive on religious grounds.
Why did they have to scrap them? I keep seeing the Pueblo mentioned as a scrapped civ, but I can't find why they did that.
Spoiler :
Unfortunately, yes.
The explanation from the devs can be found here:
The Pueblo concept had some kind of Espionage bonus and bonus to cities build near Mountains. Which would have made them truly unique, since no Civ have bonuses like that...
Olleus
Deity
Sioux is probably the safest bet.
Inuit would be the most interesting. We have forest civs, ocean civs, desert civs, jungle civs, but no tundra civs. Having one would be nice.
Inuit would be the most interesting. We have forest civs, ocean civs, desert civs, jungle civs, but no tundra civs. Having one would be nice.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
Which one do I want? None at all, not even the Iroquois. There are a bajillion civs more deserving of a spot in the upcoming BNW rather than a random north american tribe with no influence or whatsoever in shaping the current modern world (note how it is called "tribe" and not "civilization" for a reason). Americanocentrism at its finest.
That being said, my bets are on the Cherokee, since they would fit nicely in the civil war scenario, me thinks, not to mention that they are far more known by the general public than the Navajo, for example.
That being said, my bets are on the Cherokee, since they would fit nicely in the civil war scenario, me thinks, not to mention that they are far more known by the general public than the Navajo, for example.
True_Candyman
Emperor
Interesting how your criteria for inclusion is an influence in shaping the modern world. How do you feel about the Celts? Considering that it's an entirely manufactured civ, i don't see how it could have had any more effect on the modern world than Peter Pan.
2 Things i say i response to you.
Firstly, it is foolish to suggest that North American "tribes" (in the same way that Rome or greece were "tribal" in some cases) haven't had an impact on modern North America.
Secondly, this isn't a game about modern history it's about the passage through time. Each and every era is as important as the next, so significant powers be they international or regional are just as important in North America in the year 1000 as they are in Europe in the 1800's.
As a final note, i recommend reading some work of Timothy Pauketat and Linda Cordell. There are some amazing civilizations in North America if you care to look for them.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Well, none are safe from hurricanes
On topic, despite strong arguments for the Cherokee, I still think fireaxis will go for a plains/west tribe. It's just something I see happening.
While the Cherokee are cool, I'm partly concerned that they were an Iroquoian-speaking tribe in a sea of Algonquin tribes. While it's certainly not unusual to repeat the same language group (*cough*Germany, Austria, England, America, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands*cough*cough*), one fun thing about Civ5 is hearing the languages in the game and getting to feel the linguistic diversity. It's why I would prefer an Algonquin leader or a more western leader.
ImperialChaos
President
I don't think that matters to the developers. I can't understand anyone besides Washington, Elizabeth and sometimes Darius when he says something close to "Venezuela". Dialects are probably of least concern. Still, I think it'll be a western tribe, for instance, look at their interest in the Pueblo.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
I feel equally bad, to be honest. They were yet another terrible choice also based on nationalistic ego-pandering. The criteria for picking civs in this game showed quite a lot of all around historical ignorance, yes.
Oh, sure. You Americans are all now speaking languages derived from Native North American tribes now, following their code of laws, enjoying the marvels of their artistic and scientific works and practicing their religion en masse, yes.
Sorry, but cultural relativism is a bunch of hooey. There were civilizations that were undeniably and objectively far more influential and advanced than others, and to equate tribes with civilizations is a false equivalence as well. Yes, every civ eventually started as a tribe or a group of clans, yet not every single tribe evolved into a civilization of their own. Sedentarism and most importantly, urbanization and a stable structure of goverment and bureaucracy defines and marked the difference between one and another. The only native american tribe that remotely approach these requisites were the Iroquois, and still, they were more or less as cohesive and relevant as the Gauls.
Oh, I concur with you, this game is about history afterall, not "modern day conflicts 101". That is why leaving some far more relevant civs for their region and timeframe such as the Summer, the Khmer or the Ashanti in favour of a semi-nomadic tribesmen with nothing that resembled a state, diplomacy or urban centers (some of the aspects that this game focuses about) strikes me as erroneous.
Thanks for the recommendations, will try to read some of their books, or at least have a nice wikipedia-hunting
That being said, I highly suggest you to read about the works of Bryan Ward-Perkins, Jared_Diamond or V. Gordon Childe. "Civilization" is not a concept born out of eurocentrism nor vanity.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Its odd, a lot of those authors you mentioned are highly critiqued by experts in their subsequent fields.
Diamond particular is a funny case. He is only a Professor of Geography, I recommend to you reading "Questioning Collapse" where we have a chapter by chapter refutation of every chapter Diamond wrote in Collapse and a lot of Guns, Germs, and Steel by environmental experts, historians, archaeologists, economists, etc.
Diamond particular is a funny case. He is only a Professor of Geography, I recommend to you reading "Questioning Collapse" where we have a chapter by chapter refutation of every chapter Diamond wrote in Collapse and a lot of Guns, Germs, and Steel by environmental experts, historians, archaeologists, economists, etc.
mitsho
Deity
Civilization is a computer game, not a "ranking of the most important historical cultural amalgations/civilizations". A simulation would be pretty boring, don't you think?
Why these "tribes" (I don't want to debate you on that) are included is because it's cool to play as them, to see their (I'm guessing) magnificient leaderscreens and hear them talk in their language. I for one have no idea how Comanche sounds (if that's what their language is called).
Now I'm not saying that they should kick history out of the door and go completely by Fantasy, but simply that having "civilization status" as a condition for civ inclusion is silly.
True_Candyman
Emperor
At least we agree on something then!
I think i should start here by saying i'm not actually American, i'm English
And since you've mentioned a code of laws, the american constitution certainly owes some of its merits to the Iroquois. Culturally, there hasn't been any kind of absorbtion, but there's certainly an argument for the significant levels (among some of the population not all) of modern american xenophobia being rooted in the early attitude and treatment of native americans. If you look towards South and Central America you actually find pre-columbian rituals and festivals still performed in some areas and geographically the native americans had quite the impact, desertifying much of what was fertile in the south west through over farming. There's some for starters.As for undeniably more influential civilisations - it all depends of who your comparing it to. Portugal means nothing in the American Southwest, just as Pueblo means nothing in Portugal. Yet Portugal is a greater and more influential civilization? I know this is a simplification but we also have to take into consideration timescale. Portugal was only influential in the iberian peninsula and marginal in western europe during the reign of the pueblos. The Pueblo controlled an area comparable to modern germany and vassals beyond that. It's trading links spread south further than ecuador and north to canada. For around 1000 years, the pueblo were far more influential than Portugal in their region, and spread that influence over much of a continent and a good portion of another. It's all about context.
You seem to have this idea of native americans as "tribal" stuck in your head. Try to approach them with an open mind and you'll see things differently. The Cahokia were comparable to mesoamerican states like the Aztecs and the Mayans. The Aztecs had a empire and a state, the Mayans had numerous city states, and the largest urbanised areas in the world contemporary to their height. So remind me, why are the Iroquois the closest? And if you mean north american indigenous peoples, then why do they have a more sophisticated society than the pueblo or the cahokia? Or are you perhaps asserting such because you are under the assumption everything in north america was "tribal"?
I agree the Sumer and the Khmer are both well worth a spot in the series, i've been disappointed not to see them so far but i'm sure they'll arrive sooner or later. As to the Ashanti, i agree too. But it's interesting you've picked an empire who was also once considered "tribal". Fortunately enough of them survived and remained un-marginalised to enable their histories to be rewritten
A lot of what you are writing does come across that you don't have a great deal of knowledge of pre-columbian north america, and that's fine. But you are asserting a great deal based on limited and outdated information about the native american peoples.
UkraineNotPuny
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 28
I think mods need to close this thread soon.
it's becoming Israel-like troll-bait very quickly.
it's becoming Israel-like troll-bait very quickly.
True_Candyman
Emperor
It's not exactly unruly right now, it's just debate over the relevance of native americans in the series. I see it as pretty important to have such debates in the context of these threads since they are pretty under-represented in civ and partially due to fan perceptions.
We can't expect any native american civs if everyone thinks they are tribes of feathered men running round with sticks.
Villager720
Warlord
I agreed with most everything you said except that point. Culturally the various First Nations have had an impact across NA. (Im sure its the same for SA, but I don't personally have experience with regards to that)
Lets start with the linguistic legacy. States, cities, counties, mountains, rivers, and valleys across NA take their names from the various languages of the Amerindians. I assure you, Mississippi and Potomac are not Anglo/Germanic words. Perhaps not the largest contribution in world history, but it was asserted earlier that "we Americans" don't commonly speak native words/languages. Oh, and the use of Native languages by the US as code in WW2 shouldn't be forgotten.
The Amerindian cultural/culinary legacy in some case reaches across the modern world. Lacrosse anyone? Corn, potatoes, squash, tomatoes, blueberries, peanuts, and tobacco were all cultivated by First Nation peoples and then exchanged during trade, revolutionizing cuisine, and economies, around the world. And then there's the regional influences that, while not international in scope, have helped shape cultural and artistic identities around NA. For example: the Southwest still relies heavily on Native art styles and motifs in everything from architecture to their state flags.
True_Candyman
Emperor
I apologise. I phrased that badly! I meant there weren't the kind of levels he was suggesting of cultural absorbtion, that's my bad. The culture of the North East i'll admit i'm not entirely brushed up on so you'll have to forgive me on that. Food wise i didn't get into though, i could've gone on for hours but i figured i'd made my point.
Thank you for adding to it though! It's always good to bring more knowledge to the plate.Heart Break Kid
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 174
Native American tribes having no influence on America today is a very ignorant stance. Especially if you go to a Caribbean nation.
I mean the total other side of the world ("the new world") was filled with indigenous people...so...wouldn't they be considered influential by that merit? I mean it's almost as if the standard to what is important and what isn't is whether European culture was affected by it.
I mean the total other side of the world ("the new world") was filled with indigenous people...so...wouldn't they be considered influential by that merit? I mean it's almost as if the standard to what is important and what isn't is whether European culture was affected by it.
ImperialChaos
President
Yeah, this thread is about civilizations we want in a video game. Let's keep it about that.
Ikael
King
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 873
Sorry for derailing the tread, folks I will try to stay on topic and leave the history discussion for private messages.
That being said, I really liked the early concept that Civ V's team had for the Pueblo civilization. Terrain based skills, albeit hard to balance (they do depend on the map randomization), they do add lot of flavour and realism to the game. Not only several civilizations were famous for taming territories hostile to other people as it was the case of the Pueblo, but also these type of skills forces the player to act and play different than usual (see also: the Incas and their terraces).
If another native American civ would to be included, I would love if they would opt for that angle, game design wise. Bonus to plains (Apache) or desert tiles (Mohave) would be awesomesauce, we need more of these!
That being said, I really liked the early concept that Civ V's team had for the Pueblo civilization. Terrain based skills, albeit hard to balance (they do depend on the map randomization), they do add lot of flavour and realism to the game. Not only several civilizations were famous for taming territories hostile to other people as it was the case of the Pueblo, but also these type of skills forces the player to act and play different than usual (see also: the Incas and their terraces).
If another native American civ would to be included, I would love if they would opt for that angle, game design wise. Bonus to plains (Apache) or desert tiles (Mohave) would be awesomesauce, we need more of these!
HeraldtheGreat
King
Indeed. Honestly, who can imagine a world devoid of pizza?
Trying to revert the process now, with less-than-100-word-posts and emoticons.
Similar threads
