1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

BtS Civilizations

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Sark6354201, Oct 26, 2007.

?

Should the HRE and Native Americans be considered a civ in BtS?

  1. Yes

    20 vote(s)
    62.5%
  2. No

    12 vote(s)
    37.5%
  1. Sark6354201

    Sark6354201 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Two civilizations in BtS really bother me. The Native Americans and Holy Roman Empire. These are NOT civilizations. The Holy Roman Empire (HRE) was a collection of nations (mostly German princes) whose citizens felt very little if any allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor. The HRE's ruler held very little actual power due to the nature of the organization. Voltaire put it best when he described the HRE as being "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".

    Native American is not a civilization either. The Sioux, Iroquois, Cherokee, Creek and other Native American (Amerindian, Indian, take your pick) tribes were all unique in some form or another even if they were similar in some ways.

    I'm sure this has been brought up in some form or another already, but I've been away from the forums for a significant period of time and thus have not seen any discussion about it.

    So I'm interested to see what everyone thinks about this, hence the poll.
     
  2. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    Hurray!!!!!!!

    We hadn't had an HRE thread in days!
     
  3. Ethric

    Ethric Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    263
    Where's the "I start fires"-option?
     
  4. ComradeDavo

    ComradeDavo Formerly God

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,243
    Location:
    Europa
    It's a game designed for fun. If you want historical games, mod/design them yourself. Use custom game and dictate which 'civs' you see fit to use.
     
  5. jessiecat

    jessiecat Divine Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    Cornwall, somewhere near England
    Totally agree. But HRE gets Rome in the mods and AP as well, so Charlie can be pretty formidable in the early game. ya, the North American cultures were
    pretty diverse, though similiar in some ways, so one size def. does not fit all.
    Why doesn't one our clever modders make one of North America with, say,
    a dozen diff. cultures, like the Haida, Nootka, Cree, Algonquin, Lakota, etc.?
    I remember a scenario like that in Civ.2 which had Europeans arriving as well.
    Speaking of which, what's happened to scenarios, esp. historical ones, since
    Civ2. Nobody interested anymore? Well I miss them. Another thread maybe?
     
  6. lutzj

    lutzj The Last Thing You See

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    New England
    umm... in your ranting, you left out an option for people to choose one or the other. HRE makes no sense at all, but Native America can easily be considered a civilization, its just that plauge wiped out their population centers around the Mississippi valley before Europeans got there.
     
  7. thelibra

    thelibra Future World Dictator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Somewhere, TX
    Need more options in your poll. But in essence, my thoughts:

    HRE - don't care.

    NA's - My BIGGEST beef with this civ is that their complete and utter lack of synergy in their traits. The cool UB makes for nifty archer promotions but the civ completely lacks an Archer UU. Philosophical and Protective is about as lame a trait combination as you can get, and the start-techs include neither Hunting (as a pre-req for Archery, you know, to be able to produce the units that can use the UB bonus?) or Mysticism (required for the UB itself). And also doesn't include mining.

    So in order to develop the UB, you have to first research Mysticism, then research Hunting, then research Archery, and by this time you STILL can't mine, can't chop, and in general to persue their cool archers, you have to set yourself not one or two, but three-techs behind everyone else who by now is already producing settlers to occupy the strategic resource spaces you can't even see yet. This has to take my vote for the worst combination of starting traits ever.
     
  8. ComradeDavo

    ComradeDavo Formerly God

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    12,243
    Location:
    Europa
    I think more that it makes sense in it covers the rest of Europe (cities like Prague for example) left out in the rest of the game.
     
  9. Sark6354201

    Sark6354201 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    I wanted the make the poll as straight forward as possible, that's why there aren't a plethora of options.

    @lutzj
    Having a Native American civilization is akin to having a Sub-Saharan African civilization. There is no sub-Saharan African civilization in history, just as there is no Native American civilization. Mali is in Civ IV for good reason, it was a powerful empire that existed in Sub-Saharan Africa. Mali is not the 'Sub-Saharan Africa' civilization, it is Mali. This is the exact same thing in regards to the Native American civilization, which probably represents the Sioux.

    If Mali is not "Sub-Saharan Africa" then the Sioux should not be "Native American"

    @ComradeDavo
    Civilization is of course about fun, but one of the reasons it is fun is because it has some semblance in reality. I'm not suggesting it become a simulation or anything, rather that the game maintains some very basic principals, like only including civilizations that actually existed in history.
     
  10. Ben E Gas

    Ben E Gas King

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    935
    Location:
    Boston, MA USA
    I beleive the souix had a pretty large population and maybe could be considered a civ.
     
  11. jessiecat

    jessiecat Divine Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    Cornwall, somewhere near England
    Hate to be picky, but the Lakota or Dakota (not Sioux, that's French) didn't
    have a big population. They were nomadic after getting the horse about 1700Better bets would be the Iroquois Confederacy which covered most of New York state and part of Ontario and Quebec, also the Cherokee (the Carolinas) and the Creeks (Georgia and Alabama). All of these were agricultural and lived in towns (up to 20,000 in each in the latter case). Larger still may have been the cultures of the Mississippi basin up to 1000AD but where wiped out by plague (as somebody else mentioned earlier). Any of those would make
    excellent civs with Agricultural/Spiritual traits. I know Civ can't be perfectly
    realistic or historical, but these would make sense, anyway.
     

Share This Page