God & Kings Screenshot Analysis

The green icon of those warriors is in the style of a Mayan hieroglyph, so yes, I'd say those are Mayan UUs. Could be Ethiopian, possibly but I doubt it.

Yes, the unit does look Mayan. If they were African, I believe shields would be pronounced enough to be noticeable. Of course they could still be Ethiopian, but Zulu seems to be out the window, at least from the POV of that screenshot.

I do feel that since they have the three main Indian South American civs, then there should be three North American Indian civs (American Indians, Sioux and perhaps Apache or Pueblo to go with the Iroquois), and Three African tribal civs (Mali, Ethiopia, Zulu, or perhaps Congo, maybe Nubia).
 
Yes, the unit does look Mayan. If they were African, I believe shields would be pronounced enough to be noticeable. Of course they could still be Ethiopian, but Zulu seems to be out the window, at least from the POV of that screenshot.

I do feel that since they have the three main Indian South American civs, then there should be three North American Indian civs (American Indians, Sioux and perhaps Apache or Pueblo to go with the Iroquois), and Three African tribal civs (Mali, Ethiopia, Zulu, or perhaps Congo, maybe Nubia).

Mali would be sort of redundant with the Songhai in it, and the American Indians don't really make sense if they're already including other real American Indian tribes, but overall I agree and would appreciate more diversity in the game.
 
I might be the only one, but I really wanna see Sitting Bull back, I just loved his leaderhead for some reason (don't know why) besides, I can already imagine Civ 5 version of his leaderhead (or someone from a Native American tribe)
 
Yes, the unit does look Mayan. If they were African, I believe shields would be pronounced enough to be noticeable. Of course they could still be Ethiopian, but Zulu seems to be out the window, at least from the POV of that screenshot.

I do feel that since they have the three main Indian South American civs, then there should be three North American Indian civs (American Indians, Sioux and perhaps Apache or Pueblo to go with the Iroquois), and Three African tribal civs (Mali, Ethiopia, Zulu, or perhaps Congo, maybe Nubia).

Ethiopia was not really tribal per se. But I really do want them in, Ethiopia, Zulu and Sioux would be awesome to have to join the six confirmed.
 
I do feel that since they have the three main Indian South American civs, then there should be three North American Indian civs (American Indians, Sioux and perhaps Apache or Pueblo to go with the Iroquois), and Three African tribal civs (Mali, Ethiopia, Zulu, or perhaps Congo, maybe Nubia).

I know you probably didn't mean it, but the only South American civ we got is the Inca.

Nevertheless, it's hard to give the North American Indians you mentioned the same weight the Inca, Mayans and Aztecs had in history; they may be great in Western Genre and USA national history, but I must say the Iroquois is just enough.
 
I know you probably didn't mean it, but the only South American civ we got is the Inca.

Nevertheless, it's hard to give the North American Indians you mentioned the same weight the Inca, Mayans and Aztecs had in history; they may be great in Western Genre and USA national history, but I must say the Iroquois is just enough.

Actually, we have three

The Aztecs, the Mayans and the Incas.

however, The Aztecs and pretty much Mayans are pretty much in central America.

And to be honest Mexico and up is usually considered North America anyways.. is it not?
 
I know you probably didn't mean it, but the only South American civ we got is the Inca.

Nevertheless, it's hard to give the North American Indians you mentioned the same weight the Inca, Mayans and Aztecs had in history; they may be great in Western Genre and USA national history, but I must say the Iroquois is just enough.

Yep of the overall greatest of Native American Civs (not looking at regional greantess) I say some of the most important have already been included.

A few select more I consider as the most important:

1. Chachapoya important power that brokered trade and power between Andes and Amazon. Built large cities engaged in warfare against the major powers for centuries (Inca, Huari, Spanish, etc.)

2. Toltec have been mentioned as well. They will never get in and I have never mentioned them but they are an interesting and important civ too. Tulum and their civilization shaped Mesoamerica greatly introducing the main forms of Human Sacrifice we know today of the region, the Great Prophet/Military leader Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl shaped Mesoamerican religion and power as we knew it last. City style great changed due to the Toltecs, etc. Very influential but area is overlapped and will never be included

3. The Pueblo/Anasazi. Built a complex agricultural system, interesting architecture, and dominant in influence in their region. Not as important as the first two mentioned but still very important due to trade and interaction.

Those 3 are my top important ones still not included (doesn't mean they will).

There are others that are also interesting possibilites: Comanche, Illinois, Sioux, Carib/Taino/Arawak, Mississippians, Zapotec, Cherokee, Apache, Navajo, Tupi, Tuscarora, Seminole, etc. that would all be interesting on their own rights but that I don't think of as important influence wise. The most important of these lesser ones are bolded. Older civs like the Huari, Teotihuacan, Nazca, etc. I didn't list even though they were extremely important because their date is too old to ever truly be considered appropriately for a civ (language problems exist, city list, direct knowledge of some aspects, etc. But although if the Huns got in I guess I shouldn't ignore them)
 
Actually, we have three

The Aztecs, the Mayans and the Incas.

however, The Aztecs and pretty much Mayans are pretty much in central America.

And to be honest Mexico and up is usually considered North America anyways.. is it not?

Central America is not part of South America. I have heard some schools in the U.S. teach it is, but most of the world (and most of the US) does not consider it as part of South America. It is part of North America. Ask any Guatemalan, Honduran, etc. if they are South Americans and the answer is a resounding no.

So yes, we only have one South American Civ.
 
Central America is not part of South America. I have heard some schools in the U.S. teach it is, but most of the world (and most of the US) does not consider it as part of South America. It is part of North America. Ask any Guatemalan, Honduran, etc. if they are South Americans and the answer is a resounding no.

So yes, we only have one South American Civ.

Damn, I'm having difficulty phrasing this.

I guess I'll only say this. we need more Northern North American Nations/Native "Indians"/Middle North America?

I still think we have enough "tropical" civs (Aztec, Inca and Mayas) I know it's not the best way to call them that, but it's the closest I can get.
 
Damn, I'm having difficulty phrasing this.

I guess I'll only say this. we need more Northern North American Nations/Native "Indians"/Middle North America?

I still think we have enough "tropical" civs (Aztec, Inca and Mayas) I know it's not the best way to call them that, but it's the closest I can get.

I know this is a game with mostly Americans playing it so I think we could get 1 more (2 if extremely lucky) Native American Civs. Most likely in America. I think we could get the Sioux, Comanche, Pueblo/Anasazi, Apache, or Inuit of these.

But not trying to be nitpicky, the Inca are not a tropical civ by any means. And the use of Tropical is fairly subjective too. Its not like Mesoamerica looked like the comedy which is Apocalypto. Most of the Jungles in Mesoamerica had been cut down in the areas most populated by Mesoamerican Civs. In fact some documents even make a point how some Spaniards were amazed when Jungles grew in some of these areas (because the Jungle had been removed and they didn't know that was how the land was at one point).
 
Mali would be sort of redundant with the Songhai in it, and the American Indians don't really make sense if they're already including other real American Indian tribes, but overall I agree and would appreciate more diversity in the game.

No I meant them to be called by tribal names. Mali is not Songhai either. And oops I meant that Aztecs, Inca, and Mayan go together or are thought of together. Lets not get technical . Lol
 
No I meant them to be called by tribal names. Mali is not Songhai either. And oops I meant that Aztecs, Inca, and Mayan go together or are thought of together. Lets not get technical . Lol

The Maya and Aztecs are... the Inca are not. Who would ever think they go together? Next youll be hearing crazy stuff like China, Morocco, and the Nazca go together or some other nonsense.

Its not being technical, its just they are no where near the same. The Chinese and Nazca were both humans, they must be the same lets not get technical here. Their civs were really not alike.
 
The Maya and Aztecs are... the Inca are not. Who would ever think they go together? Next youll be hearing crazy stuff like China, Morocco, and the Nazca go together or some other nonsense.

Its not being technical, its just they are no where near the same. The Chinese and Nazca were both humans, they must be the same lets not get technical here. Their civs were really not alike.

I think he's trying to say that if we were to include Native Americans (the ones from United States) that instead of calling them Native Americans (like they were in Civ 4) we shuold call them by their actual names (Sioux for example)
 
I don't think it's likely. The Sioux is both a broader name and a more common name. The Sioux nation included tribes beyond the Lakota. I realize their name probably wasn't their own name, but that's common for American Indians. People recognize the Sioux and instant recognition is a plus.
 
The Maya and Aztecs are... the Inca are not. Who would ever think they go together? Next youll be hearing crazy stuff like China, Morocco, and the Nazca go together or some other nonsense.

Its not being technical, its just they are no where near the same. The Chinese and Nazca were both humans, they must be the same lets not get technical here. Their civs were really not alike.

Generally when people hear Aztecs, they think of Mayans, and the Incas. I was not trying to insult your intelligence. In civ games its nice to have all three of those tribes. That's the point I was trying to make. And thats why I said not to get technical.
 
Generally when people hear Aztecs, they think of Mayans, and the Incas. I was not trying to insult your intelligence. In civ games its nice to have all three of those tribes. That's the point I was trying to make. And thats why I said not to get technical.

I agree.
We have to think like marketers sometime when we guess civs and things like that.
As long as we respect these differences, no one is offended.
 
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.
 
Aren't Mayans and Aztects also South Americanish?
Well, Mesoamerican to be precise, but I think many people wouldn't really differ meso- from South-America.
I think most people think of 'North-American' (eg. Sioux, Iroquois, etc) and 'South-American' (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, etc.)
 
Aren't Mayans and Aztects also South Americanish?
Well, Mesoamerican to be precise, but I think many people wouldn't really differ meso- from South-America.
I think most people think of 'North-American' (eg. Sioux, Iroquois, etc) and 'South-American' (Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, etc.)

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.
 
Top Bottom