Civilization 4 hates Native Americans

kenoyer · Sep 29, 2005

According to the preview information the Iroquois are no longer an available tribe. None of the the North American Native American civilizations can now be played in the stock game? I actually have a Native American friend who was dissapointed he couldn't rewrite history and stick it to the white people.

The only Native American tribe I saw on the preview page was the Cherokee, listed as barbarians. :mad:

What happened?

Lucky The Fox · Sep 29, 2005

Who knows for sure? If it makes you feel any better, notice how the Babylonians were left out as well.

trotskylite · Sep 29, 2005

they'll be in the expansions

and they can be modded in

don't get worked up

Butcher_Bill · Sep 29, 2005

I agreed with you totally

. They should have included the Iroquois or a other equaly American Native civilization.

kenoyer · Sep 29, 2005

I don't know any living people who identify themselves as Babylonians. :confused:

Global Nexus · Sep 29, 2005

Wasn't the Incan Empire a, uh, Native American civilization...? And the Aztec Empire?

Raggamuffin · Sep 29, 2005

Global Nexus -> Exactly.

The problem is that the North American civs were to fragmented and small to be any major factor. None of them really deserves to be in Civ on their own.

troytheface · Sep 29, 2005

Because americans are now the owners of the bulk of the continent. A mix of every race on the planet. Americans should call themselves- the great genetic immunity folk"

However, one could argue that the, lets say the Cherokee, were once powerful and even now own their own land. Eastern tribes or Western tribes? Maybe they should add a more dynamic North American tribe like the Apache.

mitsho · Sep 29, 2005

The preferred Inca over Iroquois/any other North American Indian civ which is quite ok (from a civ-look). When civ 4 hates north america, then can you tell me their feelings on the antiquity (MESOPOTAMIA!)

mithso

kenoyer · Sep 29, 2005

"The problem is that the North American civs were to fragmented and small to be any major factor. None of them really deserves to be in Civ on their own."

Since in Civ all civilizations start out equal, the actual world events are not a factor.

My Native American friend says one of the main reason the tribes were fragmented and small was because of diseases and better technology that the invading eurapeons possesed.

Honestly, he found your comment a bit racist.

Raggamuffin · Sep 29, 2005

Honestly I find both of you very uneducated. I have the greatest respect for the Native Americans and I admire their culture. But the reality is that even before the Europeans arrived they were limited due to their tribal system and traditions. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just that it prevented them from evolving into bigger and stronger factions.

"Since in Civ all civilizations start out equal, the actual world events are not a factor."

Then we should include every nation/civ/people who's ever walked the face of the earth.

blackheart · Sep 29, 2005

kenoyer said:
My Native American friend says one of the main reason the tribes were fragmented and small was because of diseases and better technology that the invading eurapeons possesed.

What about before the Europeans came then? There was what, a few thousand years of non unity there?

kenoyer · Sep 29, 2005

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/cahokia.html

Global Nexus · Sep 29, 2005

One of the bigger problems for North American civilizations is that a lot of the greatest ones -- like the mound builders [the Missouri?] -- had declined to a point that there's not much known about them. However, the Iroquois are greatly deserving of a place in an expansion, in my opinion. They were quite capable, and the US Constitution received much from their Confederation.

Lillefix · Sep 29, 2005

I seriously can't see the point. There are just as many native American tribes in civ4, as before. Don't you think the south american indians would be offended for not including the incas in civ2 and civ3.

doronron · Sep 29, 2005

blackheart said:
What about before the Europeans came then? There was what, a few thousand years of non unity there?

Beat me to it.

So I'll use two recent pop culture quotes to lighten the mood.

"You don't know Native Americans. I do."

"Sid Meier doesn't care about Indians."

Honestly, this is another one of those "Hey! Why aren't such-and-such in the game! If they're not in the game when it releases, I'll hold my breath till I turn blue!" questions. Go ahead. Hold your breath.

And for your information. I've got Native American ancestors. Real ###-kickers, too.

Raggamuffin · Sep 29, 2005

Yes we all know, at least the ones of us who has studied NA history, that the general biased version tought even today is that the NA were some sort of hippies who lived in small communities. That's not true of course and many of the agricultural nations were pretty advanced in city building and society wise. But the fact remains that none of them really can be considered one of the top dogs in history. A couple of hundred years more could have changed that fact, but unfortunately a couple English outcasts prevented that. And the locust of settlers that followed.

Pounder · Sep 29, 2005

It's a disgrace, they should have had more than 18 Civs in the initial release.

I never play as the Americans, I always choose one of the native Civs.

Can't stand the native drums playing while I look at the Lincoln leader head.

Why did they choose 18, why not 16 like Civ 3. Should have been 24, but we all know why the cheaped out.

Global Nexus · Sep 29, 2005

Pounder said:
Should have been 24, but we all know why the cheaped out.

Yeah, the game'd either cost over a hundred dollars on release and take two more years or it'd be released "on time" 40% complete and completely, utterly unplayable.

KrikkitTwo · Sep 29, 2005

kenoyer said:
"The problem is that the North American civs were to fragmented and small to be any major factor. None of them really deserves to be in Civ on their own."

Since in Civ all civilizations start out equal, the actual world events are not a factor.

My Native American friend says one of the main reason the tribes were fragmented and small was because of diseases and better technology that the invading eurapeons possesed.

Honestly, he found your comment a bit racist.

Actual world events are a factor because the civs are taken from the actual world. (and not all civs start out equal... 18 civs start out as potential players and another 30-100 start out as barbarians, and the rest start out as names in city lists or out of the game altogether)

Unfortunately all the pre-Columbian US Natives (not North Americans because Aztecs made it in) fall into the same boat as the Bulgarians, the Turks, the Koreans, Carthaginians, Celts, Irish, Scottish, Autralians, Austrians, Texans, New Yorkers, Californians, Aryans, Polynesians, Maya, Portugese, and Corsicans of not having enough

1. customer base
and/or
2. Historical impact (as judged by the customer base)

to make it in to the top 18.

For reasons of geographical balance they will probably be in any expansion that adds more than say 4 civs, but if he wants to play cowboys and eurasians then he'll have to rename the Aztecs or Incas for now.

(and the fragmentation and smallness, although enhanced by the Europeans, predated them due to reasons such as geography totally separate from race.)

Civilization 4 hates Native Americans

Chieftain

Prince

Warlord

Proud Praetorian

Chieftain

Terran Confederate

Warlord

Deity

Deity

Chieftain

Warlord

unenlightened

Chieftain

Terran Confederate

I'm serious. You can.

King

Warlord

Phaethon was here

Terran Confederate

Immortal

Similar threads