What civilizations do you WANT in?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still, the more you study the more you learn. So every night i say a little thank you to Timothy Pauketat and hope to God he gets more funding.

;) Will do.

Sargon never was the leader of the sumerian civilization, but the akkadian one (which Babylon and Assyria are both). Although the territory was the same (enlarged by Sargon and his descendants until up to the dynasty demise), sumerians and akkadians were ethnically different, akkadians being semitics (like arabs, hebrews, ...), while sumerians ... where that's what is th most interesting with sumerians : they don't belong to any ethny we know ! Besides, Lugalzagesi has the problem of being to short lived, and his conquests were completely shadowed by Sargon of Akkad (who, by the way, made Lugalzagesi walk on a donkey in front of his troops, after his loss). Instead of going with people like Gilgamesh, I'd go with somelike Ur-Nammu or his son Shulgi, who really made a unified sumerian empire, and who really existed and made a long lived royal career.

Agree. I find Queen Kubaba most fitting and interesting. A Mesopotamian female leader would be something truly different! :)
 
I'd like to see some more african civs, like the Ashanti, Kongo or Zimbabwe. :D
Besides those I'd love a freedom oriented Gran Colombia Civ.
Wouldn't mind the inclusion of Civs like Vietnam, Israel, Pueblo, and the Timurids either. :p
 
...The Comanche...have a long and successful history in the region before the arrival of the Americans.
The Comanche pretty much decided they didn't feel like being forever Shoshone, so they moved south and started raiding everyone but each other, around the same time they got some of the horses from the Pueblo Revolt.
So, I mean, they were Comanche before Americans came around, but that's mainly because Americans were still British and didn't care about much west of the Appalachian Mountains.
They're mostly famous for raiding and fighting Americans, though. Kind of like the Sioux.

I would love to see either one of them, but the Sioux and Comanche are kind if similar, at the end of the day.
 
And Mexicans/Texans. They are still a better choice than the Sioux though if you want a resistant 'culture', because they weren't simply successful for one battle.

Others were proposing the Comanche because they are similar to the Sioux (well known in the US, fought against much more and much longer and a more successful fighter than the Sioux ever were, controlled massive territory post Colombian), but relatively they are in the same boat. A better choice than the Sioux though still (but so are most major Native Civs)
 
I don't want to offend anyone, but seriously : If another native american is added, which I don't mind, why would you a third ? All I want to say is that most of them lived as nomads, or little villages, not even creating a real "state" or even "civilization". I'm not saying they shouldn't be included at all, and I believe that 2 amerindians is perfect, 3 are just too much. I'm really trying to get out of an eurocentrism, but still, why not suggest something like the Tarasc kingdom, who were the aztecs rivals and created a state, instead of north american tribes, whose cities are mainly taken from battlefields ?
 
Israel
Ukraine
Tibet
Canada
Australia
Mexico
Sioux
Navajo
Scotland


That would pretty much do it for me.
Israel is the most glaring from the above list.
 
I don't want to offend anyone, but seriously : If another native american is added, which I don't mind, why would you a third ? All I want to say is that most of them lived as nomads, or little villages, not even creating a real "state" or even "civilization". I'm not saying they shouldn't be included at all, and I believe that 2 amerindians is perfect, 3 are just too much. I'm really trying to get out of an eurocentrism, but still, why not suggest something like the Tarasc kingdom, who were the aztecs rivals and created a state, instead of north american tribes, whose cities are mainly taken from battlefields ?

City list names can still be taken from settlements that did/do exist (e.g., Pueblo), the names of bands (most Native Americans), or from community names used today (again, most Native Americans). At the worst, they can get city lists from the civ's names for locations where they settled in their territory, a precedent set by Polynesia.
 
I don't want to offend anyone, but seriously : If another native american is added, which I don't mind, why would you a third ? All I want to say is that most of them lived as nomads, or little villages, not even creating a real "state" or even "civilization". I'm not saying they shouldn't be included at all, and I believe that 2 amerindians is perfect, 3 are just too much. I'm really trying to get out of an eurocentrism, but still, why not suggest something like the Tarasc kingdom, who were the aztecs rivals and created a state, instead of north american tribes, whose cities are mainly taken from battlefields ?

Problem is most of the actual settled native American civilizations - most prominently the Pueblo and the Mississippians - had to abandon their urban sites by the times the EUropeans arrived, possibly because of the Europeans arrived, and we know barely anything about them in terms of leadership and organization, making it difficult to make a reasonable civ out of them. The descendants of these peoples - such as the Hopi and Zuni for the Pueblo, and the Shawnee for the Misssissippians - are still alive, though, so there's that. Additionally, you don't need big cities to create a political entity, a state as you call it. The Iroquois Confederacy was a functioning state that the Europeans were careful in their dealings with, for instance; the Cherokee 'state' was one that successfully adopted some European ways (such as slavery-based plantations to boost commerce) and also tried to negotiate their way but failed. The native Americans definitely had states, but they might not be states in the classic, European sense.

The case with taking city names from battlefields is really only relevant to the truly nomadic native American groups such as the Sioux. Other groups have at least archaeological sites where settlements have been found.
 
A lot of us would be happy with non-American native civs, just we don't expect it. The Chachapoya, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Tiwanaku, etc. would all be civs I would love to see. But most of us expect an American focus. The Pueblo did form a fairly extensive empire in the Pre-Colombian era and tried to re-unite under Popey (And briefly did reunite as a common state under Popey's leadership). The Mississippians were a culture of city-states whose descendants could connect to their past while hitting the Post-Colombian notes we expect the developers want
 
Ancient Pueblo People, for the amazing archaeology related benefits they could get .
Italy, for the spectacular renaissance environment they could provide.

(But they won't be in for shure.)
 
Israel needs to be in, even though other civs (Babylon, Assyria) cover their current territory. Other civs that NEED to be in because they cover territory currently not claimed are:

Cuba- Caribbean
Australia- Australia (duh)
Congo- Middle Africa
Gran Columbia- Northern South America
Argentina- Southern South America
Canada- Northern North America
Somalia- Eastern Africa
 
Frankly there are plenty of better Mesoamerican possibilities than the Tarascans
 
I think that, by relevance, it would be interesting to see a civ like the Sacro Roman Empire or Israel in the game. Also, there are lots of native american civs that fit well. African civs like the Niger are interesting, but they added a lot of African civs in these expansion. If they`re going to put another european power, I'd guess that one will be Romenia because of its peculiarities. =)

If there are excentric possibilities, why not aborigenes or the pigmeos. Well, I don't think so...
 
The Comanche pretty much decided they didn't feel like being forever Shoshone, so they moved south and started raiding everyone but each other, around the same time they got some of the horses from the Pueblo Revolt.
So, I mean, they were Comanche before Americans came around, but that's mainly because Americans were still British and didn't care about much west of the Appalachian Mountains.
They're mostly famous for raiding and fighting Americans, though. Kind of like the Sioux.

I would love to see either one of them, but the Sioux and Comanche are kind if similar, at the end of the day.

I know, they are both pretty desperate and i'd rather have neither. But people seem set upon the idea of a plains people. At least they have some history before america gives them freedom. At the end of the day though, you are right, almost any modern plains tribe will be pandering to ideals of the wild west.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom