- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,938
Second from the left does have a mustache.
Cascadia!
If they choose the Cherokee tribe who would be a good civ leader? Seqouia?
Though I would prefer her original Cherokee name Nanyehi ("One who goes about").
I think it's quite likely that any Indian leader would have their traditional name rather than adopted Christian name. Otherwise, it would weird some people out.
BTW, I do think Sequoya is the most well-known Cherokee, but I agree that he is not the best leader choice. It's cool that he invented an alphabet, though.
Especially when he couldn't actually read Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, which I think were the alphabets that inspired the Cherokee syllabary.It was really an incredible accomplishment for one person. It takes most societies ages to do the same thing as this one guy.
He wasn't a scientist, though. He was a silversmith. If he must be added, he'd probably be an engineer.If the Cherokee do get added I could see Sequoyah being added to the GP list. Probably as a Scientist.
Ah, well, I didn't actually look at it that way. Seeing as his invention caused the rise of literacy among his tribesfolk, that does make sense.I say scientist because scientific progress is represented as literacy in the game and his accomplishment in that field is pretty extraordinary.
The only problem I'd have with adding the Cherokee right now is that, with the Iroquois being the only Native American civ currently available, it would be weird to have another Iroquoian language-speaking group from the Eastern Woodlands be the only new option. (That's assuming there aren't two Native American civs being added with BNW, which, let's be honest, it doesn't look like there will be.) Adding the Cherokee with no Great Plains, Southwestern, or Pacific Northwestern options would be about like adding the Portuguese if Spain were the only other European civ. Both Spain and Portugal are interesting and important and deserve to be in, but wouldn't we all say, "Another Latinate Iberian civ? Shouldn't they have gone for the Germans or the English or something?" So don't misunderstand; I would love it if the Cherokee were in. I would just think that maybe they should have picked a couple of more different Native groups first.
The only problem I'd have with adding the Cherokee right now is that, with the Iroquois being the only Native American civ currently available, it would be weird to have another Iroquoian language-speaking group from the Eastern Woodlands be the only new option. (That's assuming there aren't two Native American civs being added with BNW, which, let's be honest, it doesn't look like there will be.) Adding the Cherokee with no Great Plains, Southwestern, or Pacific Northwestern options would be about like adding the Portuguese if Spain were the only other European civ. Both Spain and Portugal are interesting and important and deserve to be in, but wouldn't we all say, "Another Latinate Iberian civ? Shouldn't they have gone for the Germans or the English or something?" So don't misunderstand; I would love it if the Cherokee were in. I would just think that maybe they should have picked a couple of more different Native groups first.
I really, really do think it's a shame that they gave up on DLC so easily. I don't know, maybe I'm in a small minority for enjoying it, but I think they could have given us several of those civs by now without having to worry about fitting them into the small number of slots available for an expansion pack. I would have loved to have had the Comanche, the Sioux, and the Apache all available. I would have especially loved to see the Haida or the Tlingit (see also: my location), even though that will probably never happen, because the totem pole would have been a very cool UI. I'd also love to have the Cherokee, but not just the Iroquois and Cherokee and none of the others.
Yeah, one of the main reasons I'm against the Cherokee is because they are an eastern tribe and, in my opinion, can be represented to an extent with the Iroquois.
Ethiopia is hidden by barbarian colors.Yeah, one of the main reasons I'm against the Cherokee is because they are an eastern tribe and, in my opinion, can be represented to an extent with the Iroquois. I know the Cherokee are Southeast and the Iroquois more Northeast, but I really want a western tribe. Maybe the tomahawk barbarian is being overblown? Has fireaxis ever hid a civ under the colors of the barbarian?
I would be fine with the Sioux/Apache after the Cherokee, Mississippian, and Pubelans get in. My main problem with the Sioux and Apache is they never built cities. That is why I don't like the Huns either.I wouldn't go that far. Saying the Cherokee can be represented by the Iroquois is like saying that the Dutch, Austrians, and Swedish can all be represented by Germany because they live in the same part of Eurasia and speak similar languages. There are plenty of differences between the Iroquois and the Cherokee, and it would be perfectly valid to include both as separate civs. However, if the final, complete version of Civ V is only going to have two Native civs from the whole of the North American landmass north of Mesoamerica, it would be strange to have them be two groups who are closely related, speak closely related languages, and lived very near each other. It would make more sense to add an unrelated civ or two from farther away first, like the Sioux and the Apache for example, and then add the Cherokee.
I wouldn't go that far. Saying the Cherokee can be represented by the Iroquois is like saying that the Dutch, Austrians, and Swedish can all be represented by Germany because they live in the same part of Eurasia and speak similar languages. There are plenty of differences between the Iroquois and the Cherokee, and it would be perfectly valid to include both as separate civs. However, if the final, complete version of Civ V is only going to have two Native civs from the whole of the North American landmass north of Mesoamerica, it would be strange to have them be two groups who are closely related, speak closely related languages, and lived very near each other. It would make more sense to add an unrelated civ or two from farther away first, like the Sioux and the Apache for example, and then add the Cherokee.