God & Kings Screenshot Analysis

I'd rather see it as Northern American- (with several subgroups), Mesoamerican-, Amazonian-, Andnean- and Patagonian- indians.
Andnean and Mesoamerican indians may seem similar, but it'd be like confusing English with Arabs.
This is straying to off topic now, I agree that South America needs more civs.
I'd like either the Mapuche, the Tupi-Guarani, Brazil, Gran Colombia or the Chachapoya
 
To be fair, the most impressive South American civilization was the Inca. And, if you move away from Andean civilizations (which, in fairness, I think you would have to do), they're not well-documented. The best was an Amazon river civilization that collapsed before it could be documented (can't remember if it was pre-Columbian or collapsed due to small pox). The rainforest receded to cover it up and I don't think they ever had a written language. Modern Amazon tribes, unfortunately, don't really qualify for any reason beyond geography.

Modern nations, that were former colonies, can be candidates. However, the trick is long-lasting impact as the top in the region or world. South America has shifted too much to predict the future with any confidence. Gran Colombia, for example, collapsed. Argentina used to be really significant and then fell as well. Brazil is a good candidate, but it's still too early.
 
Here is the thing most people would differ though. Most people are annoyed that they would be thought of as the same. Really anyone not brought up in the system where everything south of the U.S. is the same. The rest of the world does NOT teach that Mesoamerica and South America are remotely similar. Its just bad teaching in the U.S.

You can't say people think they are the same because the system of education in the U.S. is poor. And moreover you can't impose a terrible education on the rest of the world who doesn't think like that. Its the same reason we won't get a civ like Tibet or Israel because it offends and annoys people. The fact that there is NEVER representation in South America beyond the Inca is quite frankly, annoying.

My dog is a Lhasa Apso named Theo. I would love to have Tibet as a civ.

I think it is because of the influence the Incas had. I would not mind seeing some other South American countries as civs. I would love to see Venezuela and Simón Bolívar added as a civ. The Muras would also be a interesting choice. They harassed the Portuguese in Brazil during the 1760s and 1770s.

By the way, I am from the United States old chum. We are not all so badly taught. In any case, I do have to agree with some of what you say. I was in a history class once, where only 3 people out of 25 could tell the professor something they knew about Egypt. That is very sad. When he asked me the question, I mentioned the war chariot.
 
My dog is a Lhasa Apso named Theo. I would love to have Tibet as a civ.

I think it is because of the influence the Incas had. I would not mind seeing some other South American countries as civs. I would love to see Venezuela and Simón Bolívar added as a civ. The Muras would also be a interesting choice. They harassed the Portuguese in Brazil during the 1760s and 1770s.

By the way, I am from the United States old chum. We are not all so badly taught. In any case, I do have to agree with some of what you say. I was in a history class once, where only 3 people out of 25 could tell the professor something they knew about Egypt. That is very sad. When he asked me the question, I mentioned the war chariot.

I remember the day in Middle School when 10/25 kids in the class thought the Dutch were from Denmark and me and another friend were the only ones that said they were from the Netherlands. My language arts teacher even thought Holland was a country. Point is, we have to consider what civs are common knowledge and which are not.
 
I remember the day in Middle School when 10/25 kids in the class thought the Dutch were from Denmark and me and another friend were the only ones that said they were from the Netherlands. My language arts teacher even thought Holland was a country. Point is, we have to consider what civs are common knowledge and which are not.

Holland is a country to my knowledge.
 
Holland is not a country. Holland is part of the Netherlands. It's the largest part, but it's only a part. As Dutch people like pointing out, calling the Netherlands "Holland" is like calling the United States "California."
 
Holland is not a country. Holland is part of the Netherlands. It's the largest part, but it's only a part. As Dutch people like pointing out, calling the Netherlands "Holland" is like calling the United States "California."

Well this might be a language thing. At least in my language (Finnish) the country is almost always called Hollanti (= Holland).
 
Fair enough, it does depend. Just like Magyarország is Hungary in English. However, it's almost certainly a misnomer that stuck. In the Netherlands, Holland is only a part of the whole, not the whole. In English, this is also true. We call it the Netherlands out of recognition that it is more than Holland.
 
The real thing is that south america has one civ right now, the Incas. And they were located pretty close to the pacific coast, so 90% of the territory of s.america is not represented on ciV.

N. America has the Iroquois, America, Mayans and Aztecs.

S. America needs at least one more civ (like sub-saharan Africa needs too). I think that if they decided to go with the Huns as a Civ, all objections to the Tupi-Guarani doesnt make sense now. Tupi didnt have cities, huns didnt have cities...but, they had a significant impact on history.

Others s. americans candidates are: Brazil, Argentina, Gran-Colombia or another indian tribe or pre-colombian civ, like the Chachapoya.

North America only has America and Iroquis.

Mayan and Aztec are Central America.

Frankly if the school system is now teaching only North and South America, then the education system here in the US is in even worse shape than I thought.
 
I would much rather have Tupi as a new civ than Sioux. Then there would be 2 in NA, 2 in CA and 2 in SA.
 
North America only has America and Iroquis.

Mayan and Aztec are Central America.

Frankly if the school system is now teaching only North and South America, then the education system here in the US is in even worse shape than I thought.

Central America is not recognized as a continent (I don't think anywhere in the world). It might be a region, though, like the Middle East. It is absolutely correct to say Central America is part of North America and that is not a comment on the American educational system.

However, just as we distinguish between the Middle East and the Far East, it is reasonable to distinguish between Central America and North America for civilization diversity purposes (not that I think geographic diversity should be the paramount concern).
 
Fair enough, it does depend. Just like Magyarország is Hungary in English. However, it's almost certainly a misnomer that stuck. In the Netherlands, Holland is only a part of the whole, not the whole. In English, this is also true. We call it the Netherlands out of recognition that it is more than Holland.

It's kinda like calling Great Britain England. And in that regard, they might use Holland in civ5. Holland was, just like England, the dominant independent region which accomplishments were widely recognized as a great civilization.

But back to the screenshots. ;)
 
I think they're making some buildings require Oil to build. Notice the supposed Autoplant being built in that one screenshot of Amsterdam. It'd be the perfect candidate.
 
It's kinda like calling Great Britain England. And in that regard, they might use Holland in civ5. Holland was, just like England, the dominant independent region which accomplishments were widely recognized as a great civilization.

But back to the screenshots. ;)

Actually, they never named The Netherlands "Holland" in any of the Civ game, and neither will they be called so in Civ 5.
 
Frankly if the school system is now teaching only North and South America, then the education system here in the US is in even worse shape than I thought.

If they are now teaching it that way, they finally caught up to the rest of us. :mischief:

Central America is not recognized as a continent (I don't think anywhere in the world). It might be a region, though, like the Middle East. It is absolutely correct to say Central America is part of North America and that is not a comment on the American educational system.

However, just as we distinguish between the Middle East and the Far East, it is reasonable to distinguish between Central America and North America for civilization diversity purposes (not that I think geographic diversity should be the paramount concern).

This is mainly the problem. Continental wise, it's only 'north & south', but 'culture historical' wise, there's a distinction between Canada/US and Mexico Peninsula/Caribbean. Given or take that the Caribbean is also usually cut out.

Of course, there are disagreements about 'which' continents exist, but never Central America (weirdly, some don't believe in Antarctica).
 
It's kinda like calling Great Britain England. And in that regard, they might use Holland in civ5. Holland was, just like England, the dominant independent region which accomplishments were widely recognized as a great civilization.

The difference is England had a separate civilization that was distinct from Scotland. The union was a political one. Holland wasn't really ever all that separate from other provinces.
 
It's kinda like calling Great Britain England. And in that regard, they might use Holland in civ5. Holland was, just like England, the dominant independent region which accomplishments were widely recognized as a great civilization.

Yup, Holland is just two provinces which are known due to their role during the Dutch golden age. Actually, in some parts of the Netherlands Dutch people don't like other dutch people from Holland so much. :p
 
Regions of the world for diversity purposes should be more than continents. For example, Oceania is not a continent, but a region of the world.

I would say North America, Central America, and South America are all separate regions.
Europe I would split between Western, Eastern and Scandinavia.
Africa I would have North Africa and Black Africa.
Asia is the Middle East, Far East, south East, Steppes, and Indiana Subcontinent.
Australia and Oceania are the other two.

So far I would say we have geographic balance as follows from the 31 known civs:

2 North American
2 Central American
1 South American
3 North African
0 Black African
1 Scandinavian
7 Western European
4 Eastern European
2 Steppes
3 Middle East
1 Subcontinent
1 Southeast Asia
3 Far East
1 Oceania
0 Australia

If you're looking to balance things a little bit while still including noteworthy civilizations, I think Black Africa needs at least one civ, but would be better with two, and after that I'd say Southeast Asia or North America would be excellent.

Ethiopia and/or Zulu or Kongo.
Mississippi or Sioux and/or Khmer.

My wish list would be to have Ethiopia, Khmer and Mississippi as the last three, with Zulu being a pre-order DLC bonus and eventually a Portugal/Kongo DLC released like the Spain/Inca pack. However, if I'm guessing the most likely, i'd guess:

Ethiopia
Sioux
Khmer

But given that we have the Huns, and I NEVER would have guessed that ... who knows?
 
Top Bottom