Brave New World's 9 new Civs

Status
Not open for further replies.
3) The whole Hungary, Vietnam Vatican etc is just a joke, couse they noticed, that you gauys at civfanatics are reading and they decided to make fun of you by throwing some wild ideas and laugh while you try to decipher what they mean.
Somehow I like that. :goodjob:
 
Or to put it another way, even if it is the Shoshone, this expansion alone still has more Europeans than the entire game has Native Americans from outside the traditional Mesoamerican/Andean regions. This needs to be fixed.

Fixed? So you imply this is some kind of bug? It is absolutely justified to have a representation of Europe that is higher than all the others for various reasons. This has been discussed and proven over and over again.
 
Or better yet, Michael Jackson/Johnny Cash/Elvis Presley of the United States.
Johann Sebastian Bach of the German Empire.
Justin Beiber of Canada... Yeah, and you that Canada alone would be bad. :lol:

I would prefer Celine Dion over Justin Bieber as the leader...they are both females, but I think Celine would have more nerve. ;)
 
@Wigwam

I dont think Sacagawea is really known outside USA. Anyway having several NA Native tribes is stupid IMO, when there would be so much better options from Africa and South East Asia.
 
The game needs more Native American civs. It always has. Though they've been pretty good about including Mesoamerica and the Inca (and America as the one post-colonial civ), they've tended to ignore the rest of the American landmass. So far they've only ever had one token Native American civ at a time apart from those. And while I understand the argument against including more (they tended not to build cities, so to what extent they could be called "civilizations" is debatable), it still feels like a glaring omission to have such a geographically enormous and culturally diverse area get glossed over so much when they're so eager to throw in every country Europe ever had, apparently now even including Venice. I don't know how believable this Shoshone thing is, and if the leader really is Sacagawea I'll get a concussion from banging my head on the wall, but I will be thrilled to have another Native American civ if they're in. I would have been thrilled with the Pueblo, and if it's the Sioux or the Shawnee instead, or heck, the Tlingit or the Tupi, I'll be just as thrilled.

Or to put it another way, even if it is the Shoshone, this expansion alone still has more Europeans than the entire game has Native Americans from outside the traditional Mesoamerican/Andean regions. This needs to be fixed.

Duly noted. I do think another Native American Civ would be a worthy addition and would help to counter-balance the obvious pro-European bias of the CiV world map - I just personally don't find Native American cultures as interesting as other cultures and so would probably never play them, unless their uniques sounded really interesting. I think I would have much preferred the Kongo or Vietnam. That said, the Pueblo did sound really cool, and I am genuinely a little sad they got cut.

Churlish of me, I know... I still haven't even played as Hiawatha properly :mischief:
 
The Pueblo definitely would have been a great choice. They just did everything differently and really stood out. The Haida, imo, would be another that stands out (Totem Poles are pretty cool). I don't mind a Tipi Civilization. I think they're less than ideal and I probably would have picked the Sioux if I were to pick one. Tipi civilizations are what most people think of when they think Native Americans, though, so I guess that's an argument for them. However, their nomadic status bugs me a bit. Al-Iskander's map on the other page is a good example because it's essentially the area in which they traveled, not the area in which, at any given time, they had complete control.
 
Fixed? So you imply this is some kind of bug?

Yes, I'm saying it's broken. They need to stop ignoring or treating as token regions as diverse as the Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia at the same time as they make fine distinctions between very similar European countries. Distinguishing between Spain and Portugal, or Germany and Austria, or Denmark and Sweden, is fine. I'm not saying I want any European civs taken out. But to make those distinctions and then decide that including the Iroquois means the Native Americans are covered is broken. They need to stop making civs as tokens and start paying as much attention to non-European peoples as they do Europeans.
 
@Wigwam

I dont think Sacagawea is really known outside USA. Anyway having several NA Native tribes is stupid IMO, when there would be so much better options from Africa and South East Asia.

Outside of the US, has anybody heard of the Shoshone at all?

I do agree with you, though, about not really needing another North American tribe. And the Shoshone are a particularly odd choice, if it's true.
 
Outside of the US, has anybody heard of the Shoshone at all?

As a non-American, I have not (although see above about my lack of knowledge of NA tribes in general).
 
I never heard of the Shoshone admittedly. I needed to research them when I found out about their possible inclusion. For most average Americans the Sioux, Iroquois (Mohawk especially), Cherokee, Navajo, Apache, and Comanche are probably the most well known. I've heard of Sacagawea, though.
 
I never heard of the Shoshone admittedly. I needed to research them when I found out about their possible inclusion. For most average Americans the Sioux, Iroquois (Mohawk especially), Cherokee, Navajo, Apache, and Comanche are probably the most well known. I've heard of Sacagawea, though.

I believe this is typical for most Americans.

I was raised on a childhood diet of Westerns and Louis L'Amour novels, and I lived for a few years in Idaho and Wyoming. So my interests from there led me to learn more about Native Americans. I probably know a bit more than your average American guy.
 
I'm from Ukraine, and I have read about Shoshones in some novel about native americans. It was pretty good, but (shame on me) I can't remember the title of it. And I know Sacagawea thanks to Night at the Museum:)
 
@Wigwam

I dont think Sacagawea is really known outside USA. Anyway having several NA Native tribes is stupid IMO, when there would be so much better options from Africa and South East Asia.

Amen. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are two areas where you still have massive, massive empires - and not just one or two, but choices to choose from - which is why if they make a DLC I would expect them to be the two front-runners.

Having said that, I'm happy they are including another Native civ. I think it is necessary because they have been so integral to American history - certainly to a significant degree in Colorado. People outside of the United States seem to know very little about various tribes so I'm never going to protest the devs throwing in more
 
Yes, I'm saying it's broken. They need to stop ignoring or treating as token regions as diverse as the Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia at the same time as they make fine distinctions between very similar European countries. Distinguishing between Spain and Portugal, or Germany and Austria, or Denmark and Sweden, is fine. I'm not saying I want any European civs taken out. But to make those distinctions and then decide that including the Iroquois means the Native Americans are covered is broken. They need to stop making civs as tokens and start paying as much attention to non-European peoples as they do Europeans.

They're just trying to make a compelling game that will sell. Like it or not, European influence was far reaching and it's why there's the political struggle with anti-colonialism today.

So in the end... this is why the game is customizable and moddable. Missing a pet civ or a collection of civs you'd like to see? Make them. I have. The mod community allows Firaxis to bypass this issue.

I really don't think they "make those distinctions and then decide that including the Iroquois means the Native Americans are covered"... I think they make distinctions, yes, and then weigh it against who the majority of their target audience will be interested in playing with. If they produce a DLC of just North American native tribes, predict how well it'll sell in the European and Asian markets? Expansions work because they get all their audiences interested... DLCs have failed because they target specific markets and the others ignore them.
 
I'm from Ukraine, and I have read about Shoshones in some novel about native americans. It was pretty good, but (shame on me) I can't remember the title of it. And I know Sacagawea thanks to Night at the Museum:)

Heh nice - forgot about that movie :lol:
 
If this is the same user who posted about the Shoshone, I feel happier now - since then it appears it would just be an illogical rumor rather than fact :)

I don't think it was, the great dictator posted the vietnam mumbo jumbo. I'm pretty sure azzazell who said the original.

If it is a blob civ with the other great basin civs like the Ute (yay) maybe that might mean other tribes leaders could lead, just throwing that out there (Chief Ouray, Chipeta, some other tribal leaders not from the Ute.)
I've heard a lot of talk about people how bad a choice sacagewea, but I've only heard two people give suggestions for alternatives. What leaders from the Shoshone could be used?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom