Zulu as a major empire? Do you honestly believe they were a major empire? By no means is that why they have been added to civ ever. There are plenty more significant empires in Africa that were actually empires (Zimbabwe, Benin, Kongo, etc.)
Zulu doesn't rank remotely close. But doesn't mean they won't get added.
I don't view native americans as "barbarians" in the sense of being bloothirsy or agressive (we Europeans got that part covered), but from an objective point of view, they carried really little weight in the world's history or in shaping the current world. Very small urban popullation, barely influenced any other civilization's culture, few technological breaktroughts, the only ones that were able to rise into a cohesive political entity beyond the tribe was the Iroquois semi-federation. If looking for truthly important native American civs, one has to look further south (Mayans, Aztecs, and specially the Incans).
Which is why not every civ in North America is suggested.
But civs like the Comanche and Anasazi had important and significant impacts on their regions. The Anasazi/Hohokam lasted for what 700 years? They were the conduit of power in the Southwest and a major trading power in the Americas
Moderator Action: This is not the history forum and we have gotten into this too many times. Please let us get back to which civs might be included instead of arguing the historical merits of each civ. There are too many frames of reference to have that discussion here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I don't view native americans as "barbarians" in the sense of being bloothirsy or agressive (we Europeans got that part covered), but from an objective point of view, they carried really little weight in the world's history or in shaping the current world. Very small urban popullation, barely influenced any other civilization's culture, few technological breaktroughts, the only ones that were able to rise into a cohesive political entity beyond the tribe was the Iroquois semi-federation. If looking for truthly important native American civs, one has to look further south (Mayans, Aztecs, and specially the Incans).
There were large agricultural civilizations in North America. The Mississippians and Anasazi were just as powerful and influential as any Ancient European empire. As far as their influence in the area was concerned they are just as deserving of inclusion as the Assyrians, Greeks, or Carthage.
The Missisippi river civilization was pretty widespread and sophisticated, the only problem is they didn't leave being a decipherable writing system so nobody knows anything about their leaders and such, and by the time the Europeans arrived their only major descendants were the Natchez (I think... well, I do remember the Spanish did come across a few of the Mississipi river cities before their collapse).
Maybe that problem with other Native Americans is that they really aren't classified as "civilizations". Really only nations of America that can be classified as such are the famous Aztecs, Inca and Maya. If we had more natives, why don't we have all the indigenous peoples of Russia, like the Mari, Yakutia and so on, the Finnish Sami or like that?
Personally, I believe that because this Brave New World concentrates mainly on modern ages, we will se mainly modern civs coming in this game excluding a couple of ancients, like the Assyrians. Some guesses:
Zulu/Bantu whatever they like to call it, because of Scramble for Africa Belgium, a major player in African colonisation, SfA again, hope not Leopold as a leader Italy, Renaissance to modern (remember, Greece wasn't a unified country too until modern times!) with Florence or "Roma" as the capital, because of SfA and the whole theme of this Xp, culture and trade! Portugal A no-brainer... we need to have it already
Then, Poland and the Fertile Crescent civ, Assyria maybe,
and three others which I hope are not from Europe!!
f. ex. Kongo, Sioux (for compromise to all Native American-lovers)?
Mississippians have always been an interesting suggestion/Civ but as already mentioned it would be too hard to establish a leader, units, etc. Plus there are more "well-known" civs like the Anasazi in the US that would probably beat them out if it was ever focused on. Civ Tradition practically means though we get a plains civ and the Zulu, whether they are deserving or not is a bit irrelevant.
We had a trade based scenario back in BtS, can't remember the name, and it had the Timurids as a playable civ.
I know that the Timurids were great conquerors, but what about commerce?
They were located right on the Silk Road, so they should have been quite rich. Maybe the Timurids are among the 9 civs as a warmonger-commercial civ?
Actually I think there may be some merit to that with the trade routes in place and Brazil's role as a leading nation in South America. It would emphasize trade and provide some geographic balance, appeal to a large demographic and fit with the World Congress idea.
Now I'm wondering if they have Brazil whether they'll also include another modern civ - I would think that having only Brazil as a modern civ would be a bit awkward.
Now I'm wondering if they have Brazil whether they'll also include another modern civ - I would think that having only Brazil as a modern civ would be a bit awkward.
I mean something besides USA and Brazil. USA's pretty much a given for any Civ game, so it sort of doesn't count in a way, but anyhow having just USA and Brazil would be a bit awkward in my opinion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
