[BtS MOD] Wolfshanze 1850-1920 Enhancement Mod v2.0

[Couch Tomato]

I will, however, add some more native american leader heads to the tribe in the next release... I don't think Sitting Bull should have all the fun by himself... then, whatever leader you get, that will be the tribe of the game... start a new game, get a different tribe with a different leader.

That works well for me.

 

[phungus420]

Well Wolf I strongly disagree, I rather enjoyed your rant on the subject though. At the end of the day it's your mod and your vision.

 

[Zedek]

Hey,

I do have a question. I would love to get the Indonesia or the Carter-Earth map running together with the Wolfshanze Mod.
But if i try to just copy one of those into whether Public Maps or Private Maps of Wolfshanze the game crashes to the desktop.
Is there any way to get one of those maps working together with the Wolfshanze Mod?

 

[ladiesman]

For example... to me, naming the Native American tribes after JUST ONE tribe, would be like renaming the "American" Civ to "Texas". Don't you think it would tick-off the other 49 states? I'm not doing it... end of line.

I kinda don't get how you went on about being all politically incorrect and didn't care about offending native americans.........but won't change the name for fear of offending native americans. Refusing to accept their people as a civilizations is ALOT more offensive than changing the name in a game where the given name is a bit awkward.

That's the only reason I want it changed. I couldn't give to flying anus' about what tribe is represented. I just a name that doesn't sound ********. Just so happens the Great Sioux Nation or the Iroqouis Confederacy are the closest thing to a real civilization they had in history. Seems reasonable to me. But I know how to change names now, so it's your mod....name them whatever you want. I'll just change it back

That is kind of a bad example though, as you would just be labelling a group of American states as "Texas", you would be ignoring the more historically significant civilization of the land for a much more minor one. I could see if you wanted two civs, one representing the United States and the other representing just a group of states that happen in be in America...... but yeah, bad example. BUT also again, your mod. Do what you want.


Oh and as for leaderhead suggestions.....

Focus on the "one-leader" civs. Defiantly give someone else to Spain. I'm all for adding more modern-ish leaders. For Arabia maybe somebody like Ayatollah Kamenie (goes well with the recent Reagan!), or Saddam Hussein.

For some reason I want more "bad guy"/dicatator/marauding general type leaders. Only problem is some of the ones I think of don't have a civ. or at least not quite exactly....Tamerlane, Atilla, Vlad Tepes, Saddam Hussein, Castro, etc.

 

[c0d5579]

Khomeini and Timur would both be Persian - or at least my Iranian acquaintances will claim them as such. Given that the spoken language of Iran is still Farsi, it seems reasonable. Nothing wrong with pumping up Persia some more, though.

I do think that if you're going to put more leaders in, they need to be historically significant, not just who's in the chair now. Saddam Hussein, for instance, was very much an Arab nominally-socialist dictator of his generation, albeit more brutal than most. If I was going to recommend a modern Arab leader, it would probably be Anwar Sadat or Ibn Saud. Since I know there are LHs ready to roll for them, here are my personal recommendations (strictly mine), generally working my way east from where I'm sitting:

Portugal - Henry the Navigator
Spain - Franco
France - Napoleon III
England - "English King" (George III)
Vikings - Gustavus Adolphus OR Charles XII
Byzantines - Basil II OR (Theodora's LH as Zoe or Irene)
Ottomans - Mustafa Kemal
Arabs - Ibn Saud
Persians - Khomeini OR Timur

TBH, I don't really know or care enough about the pre-Columbian civilizations to give any advice on them. I think that sums it up for now.

 

[Perfxion]

Here is my two cents:
Keep the term Native Americans, but change the cities list to the different tribes. Which would get the best of both worlds. 1 "civ" but many different tribes being in the game.

 

[Wolfshanze]

I kinda don't get how you went on about being all politically incorrect and didn't care about offending native americans.........but won't change the name for fear of offending native americans... That's the only reason I want it changed. I couldn't give to flying anus' about what tribe is represented. I just a name that doesn't sound ********.

I kinda don't get how people think "Native American" is "********", yet labeling every Apache, Cherokee, Iroquois, Seminole, Comanche, Pueblo, Dakota, Huron, Abenaki, Acquintanacsnak, Algonkin, Hathawekela, Kickapoo, Mahican, Shawnee and every other tribe I didn't mention as "Sioux", is about the most king-sized ******** thing I can think of on earth, and damn insulting to boot... civilization or not... calling them all Sioux is mega-********.

 

[Phrossack]

What about a heavy cavalry unit? It would require HR and Metal Casting, as well as horses and copper or iron. Heavy cavalry would complement horsemen, rather than replace them. With 8str., immunity to first strikes (horsemen could lose this), and a lack of a withdrawal chance or flank attack, it should be fairly balanced. Cataphracts would replace them. What do you think?

 

[blitzkrieg80]

You are wrong there the different German states be it Bavaria,Prussia or all the other often called them selves Germans especially after the Napolionic wars,trust me on that I'm German and we worked so long on that "German dream of unifications 1848->1871" during the history lesson(damn it was boring as hell,we didn't get to the end of WWI that year because of that ). So the Germans can't be compared to the Native Americans.

I am wrong and you don't even understand the difference between the name (of Celtic tribe/locale origin) 'German' and Germanic 'Deutsch'? Thanks for the lesson, but I have studied quite a bit of Germanic language and culture. If you read my statement closely you'll notice I am saying Prussia does not constitute all Deutschland and that Deutschlanders do not call themselves 'German' in their own language. Germans call themselves the 'People' and not a particular tribe like Allemagne or 'those on the other side of the Rhine' as Caesar distinguishs, which was my point on identity and tribal naming. I was probably a little unclear on that as my primary point, but it's not like Prussia wasn't the agent of unification - it certainly wasn't Bavaria or Austria. Bavarians consequently are named after the Boii (Celts!) just like Bohemia, so that is just another example of identity problems

 

[ladiesman]

I kinda don't get how people think "Native American" is "********", yet labeling every Apache, Cherokee, Iroquois, Seminole, Comanche, Pueblo, Dakota, Huron, Abenaki, Acquintanacsnak, Algonkin, Hathawekela, Kickapoo, Mahican, Shawnee and every other tribe I didn't mention as "Sioux", is about the most king-sized ******** thing I can think of on earth, and damn insulting to boot... civilization or not... calling them all Sioux is mega-********.

Looking at from a different angle is all.

"Native America" just doesn't sound good. ESPECIALLY when in some games "Native America" and "America" can be on seperate continents. Plus "Native America" just strikes me as an odd name. The groups name of "Native Americans" is just fine......it just sucks as the title of the nation. "America" isn't "Non-Native Foreign Immigrants to America" or "European America". (i've actually been cleaning house with names now anyway myself.....I didn't really like "America" either. The nation names is now "United States", short is "USA", adj is "American". Seems to work out nicely. Also changed "Japanese Empire" to "Empire of Japan", "Chinese Empire" to "People's Republic of China", "English Empire" to "British Empire", and Russia to "Soviet Union".) Everything seems to work just fine. Again, YOU don't really need to make these changes. But I did.

PURELY a stylistic complaint. Since I can't think of a better name to represent the group as a whole, I went to history to find the most significant tribes, and "Great Sioux Nation" just sounded the best to me. Iroqouis might be a better historical choice though as the Confederacy was comprised of several tribes, and aimed to bring in other tribes.

EDIT -
I'm batting around the idea of changing it to the Iroqouis Confederacy and then making it kind of a "What-If" civ, replacing the city names with the different tribes. You're first cities will be the historical tribes from the Confederacy, and then the tribes coming in later would just be "What if the Confederacy lasted and expanded". Still not a PERFECT scenario, but since Civ is largely a what if kind of game, it kind of works. Calling them all Iroqouis doesn't mean you are literally calling every tribe Iroqouis, it's just the name of the...."empire"

 

[Wolfshanze]

PURELY a stylistic complaint. Since I can't think of a better name to represent the group as a whole, I went to history to find the most significant tribes, and "Great Sioux Nation" just sounded the best to me.

You can't find a "better name", because one doesn't exist... and "Great Sioux Nation" is a euphemism, they were no "greater" then a lot of other tribes.

Unless you are prepared to create about 100 "Native American" civs and name each one of them, you ARE lumping every single native american into a single, very-descriptive and specific singular tribe and ELIMINATING every other native american in North America as non-existant in Civ4.

You are, for all intents and purposes, dropping nukes down across north america and wiping out hundreds of thousands of independent native american tribes for the sake of calling every one of them a Sioux, because you can't call them what they are collectively... native americans.

Here's a small list to remind you in your quest to remove the term "Native American", just how many native americans you're excluding and wiping off the map because of your infatuation with the Sioux...

Abenaki
Akimel O'Odham (Pima)
Alabama-Coushatta
Aleut
Apache
Apalachee
Arapaho
Arikara
Arkansas (Quapaw)
Assiniboin
Bannock
Blackfoot
Caddo
Canarsee
Catawba
Cayuga
Cayuse
Cherokee
Cheyenne
Chickasaw
Chinook
Chippewa (Ojibwa)
Choctaw
Coeur d'Alene
Colville
Comanche
Cree
Creek
Crow
Delaware
Diné
Erie
Flathead
Fox
Gros Ventre
Haida
Hidatsa
Hoopa
Hopi
Huron
Inuit
Illinois
Iowa
Iroquois
Kalispel
Kansa (Kaw)
Kickapoo
Kiowa
Klallam
Klamath
Kootenai
Kwakiutl
Lumbee
Mahican
Maidu
Makah
Malecite
Mandan
Manhattan
Maricopa
Massachusett
Menominee
Miami
Micmac
Mission Indians
Modoc
Mohave
Mohawk
Mohegan
Montagnais and Naskapi
Muskogee
Narragansett
Natchez
Navajo
Neutral Nation
Nez Percé
Nootka
Ojibwa (Chippewa)
Okanogan
Omaha
Oneida
Onondaga
Osage
Oto
Ottawa
Paiute
Papago (Tohono O'Odham)
Pawnee
Pennacook
Penobscot
Pequot
Pima
Pomo
Ponca
Potawatomi
Powhatan Confederacy
Pueblo
Puyallup
Quapaw (Arkansas)
Quechan
Sac and Fox
Salish
Santee
Sarsi
Sauk
Seminole
Seneca
Shawnee
Shoshone
Shuswap
Sioux (Congradulations, you spared these guys)
Spokan
Stockbridge
Teton.
Tillamook
Tlingit
Tobacco Nation
Tohono O'Odham (Papago)
Tsimshian
Tuscarora.
Ute
Wampanoag
Wappinger
Washo
Wichita
Winnebago
Wyandot.
Yakima
Yamasee
Yankton.
Yokuts
Yuma
Yurok

If I leave them as "Native Americans", I have included all the above as possibilities for Civ4... if you call them "Sioux", you have eliminated any chance of considering any of the tribes above in the game outside the Sioux.

 

[ladiesman]

You are, for all intents and purposes, dropping nukes down across north america and wiping out hundreds of thousands of independent native american tribes for the sake of calling every one of them a Sioux, because you can't call them what they are collectively... native americans.

Here's a small list to remind you in your quest to remove the term "Native American", just how many native americans you're excluding and wiping off the map because of your infatuation with the Sioux...

Wow....um....pretty passionate for a disagreement about a name. I mean...I didn't know thinking "Native America" sounded awkward meant I was promoting genocide. I have no infatuation with the Sioux. I couldn't tell you the difference between the Sioux, Apachee, or whatever. It's just a name that popped up in history that I thought sounded better than "Native America". Quite frankly I don't see why you're so militant about this.....and then earlier you said you don't even consider them to be a civilization....but whatever, don't change it in the mod. It's VERY easily changeable. It's your mod, do whatever you want. *I* will change the name, but that really has no effect on you or anyone else if someone is offended that I used a particular tribes name instead of another one....then....well that person needs to get the bug out their sphincter.

Again, I have no problem calling the group "Native Americans", just the name "Native America" makes no sense. Honestly as you pointed the Vikings are kinda dumb to be called that, but at least it doesn't sound terribly awkward.

I don't see how a "What If" Iroquois Confederacy is any way offensive, though. Although I suppose you think I *REALLY* what to name them the "Ingun Barbarians" and make their UB a Casino because I apparently hate Native Americans because I find "Native America" to be a dumb name for a country.

 

[blitzkrieg80]

I think the main problem is Native American is a crappy name (not to insult anybody but it is - it is what we use though, better than 'Indians' because of Columbus' mistake or a more racially-charged 'Redskins'). Just like European American and African American don't mean anything because they're too vague.

Australian Aborigines similarly have a crappy name which isn't very descriptive but represents them better than a biased wrong-name.

We should probably learn from Canada and its First Nation, which claims to be nothing beyond a better name than biased loans from ignorant ancestors... although Canada has 'Aboriginies' too...

PS - Anglo-Saxon and 'English' is insulting and biased against all those Jutes, Franks, Frieslanders and other Germanic tribes who settled on Britain! Calling it England is stupid because Angleland was in southern Denmark (near Schleswig) so technically it was New England (which means New England was really New New England ). Britain's name is based on Roman mistranslation rather than native naming, even if the 'Pretani' or 'Bretons' existed as a single tribe there.

so, what is my point? Life is not fair. This should not be news to anybody.

PPS - America is a stupid name, sorry guy whose name that was! And Latin Americans have nothing to do with Latium... nice try though [not addressing anyone in particular]. Caucausian is stupid - we aren't all Armenia, Georgian, ect. despite lovely Indo-European connectedness and a lot of white 'Caucausians' don't speak a form of language derived from Indo-European too ><

Maybe we should harass Firaxis for being so stupid to add civilizations that never existed and thus have no self-name?

 

[Couch Tomato]

While I don't really wanna dwell on the topic any longer, I just felt like making this point:

When people are talking about having a Sioux or whatever civ, I'm fairly certain they mean to have that ONE civ/tribe (which includes changing city names, etc), and NOT as a blanket term for Native Americans in general. This is by no means would insult the other tribes as much as it would insult the hundreds of other cultures in the world, even in Europe and Asia, that are not represented. And I don't think it's unfair to say that some tribes (namely the Sioux and Iroquois... and even Cherokee and a couple others) had more of an impact, power, and influence in the region than others -- which is why those same tribes keep coming up.

As an analogy because I love analogies... it would be like if Firaxis had an "East Asian Empire" civ which had cities like Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, etc, and Mao as its leader... and say Tokyo as a capital. Then people ask to at least change that to at least one major civ within that region, say the Chinese civilization. That would mean actually making the Chinese civilization (while having a reasonable base so we don't have to start from scratch), and not just changing the name and some other cosmetics which would be insulting to the other cultures in the region.

In the end, you don't want to deal with that civ, so let it be as it's your mod and it's nothing essential. I just wanted to clarify the arguments in this mess of things.

 

[Wolfshanze]

As an analogy because I love analogies... it would be like if Firaxis had an "East Asian Empire" civ which had cities like Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, etc, and Mao as its leader... and say Tokyo as a capital. Then people ask to at least change that to at least one major civ within that region, say the Chinese civilization. That would mean actually making the Chinese civilization (while having a reasonable base so we don't have to start from scratch), and not just changing the name and some other cosmetics which would be insulting to the other cultures in the region.

You might want to try a better analogy... in that situation, you act like "East Asian Empire" is the same as "Native American" where I would just pick one name and move-on... actually instead, I could justify creating one or two more civs, brushing my hands-off and saying I covered all the major civs in the area... Japanese/Chinese/Korean.

In the case of "Native American", if I were to just add one or two more civs, then I'd have the Sioux, Apache & Comanche covered lets say, and I'd still be short about 100 distinctly different native american tribes.

Keep searching for a good analogy Couch Tomato... you always have interesting things to say, but I think you missed on that one.

 

[Couch Tomato]

I recognize the flaw in that analogy in that all of those are pretty major, but the point was to compare what was actually being requested. If I wanted to truly make an accurate analogy, I'd talk about African civs, but I'm not too sharp in that area, and I can't be bothered looking up different tribe names there when I've pretty much made my point in a quicker, half-assed kind of way.

But I think even with hundreds of different tribes, it's incredibly argue, despite the political incorrectness of this statement, that certain tribes would definitely be more influential than each other, much like we can say that France was more influential than say the Slovenes in Europe. At the same time, the scale is much different as Native Americans didn't have cities and firmly established nations like most of the world did, which gives weight to your argument as well.

Tbh, my personal reason was that Civ 2 and Civ 3 had the Sioux and Iroquois, respectively, so it was a matter of simultaneously bringing back previous official civs while reconstructing a current controversial one.

 

[CivisTexanus]

I do see your point Wolfman, but I am another that finds 'Native America' aesthetically unpleasing, for very similar reasons to why I didn't like 'Holy Roman Empire'. 'Native Americans' are no more 'native' to America than anyone else, just Like the HRE was not Holy, not Roman, nor an Empire. I would have preferred perhaps 'Hapsburg Dynasty' to 'Austria' but that is a quibble.

Which tribes were significant on the scale of CIV? Sioux, Iroquois, Comanche, Apache? Interesting historically? Haida, Anasazi, Mound Builders (Illinois?), anybody else?

I think the best thing, if we're really going to break up the NA group into CIVs is to pick ones that represent geographic areas and or culture groups. One plains, one Woodlands, one River-City builder, one Fishing-Coastal, etc.

Most of those are already available, I believe? How about adding the Confederacy while we're at it, kinda fits the theme. Now if someone will just make an animated Brigham Young...

You might want to try a better analogy... in that situation, you act like "East Asian Empire" is the same as "Native American" where I would just pick one name and move-on... actually instead, I could justify creating one or two more civs, brushing my hands-off and saying I covered all the major civs in the area... Japanese/Chinese/Korean.

In the case of "Native American", if I were to just add one or two more civs, then I'd have the Sioux, Apache & Comanche covered lets say, and I'd still be short about 100 distinctly different native american tribes.

Keep searching for a good analogy Couch Tomato... you always have interesting things to say, but I think you missed on that one.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Which tribes were significant on the scale of CIV? Sioux, Iroquois, Comanche, Apache? Interesting historically? Haida, Anasazi, Mound Builders (Illinois?), anybody else?

None of the above IMHO... "on the scale of Civ", pretty much all the native north american tribes rank barely above "Barbarian" in Civ4-scale of civs. That's my opinion on the matter, but I do believe they belong on the game at some level, but applying the term "Civ" to them still bothers me on many fronts... the nations of Europe, Asia, Meso-America and others were fare more "Civ-like" then the wandering tribes-people of North America... politically incorrect, I know, so sue me... it's my opinion.

How about adding the Confederacy while we're at it, kinda fits the theme.

I doubt it... if you hate the thought of HRE and Germany occupying the same turf and being essentially identical, aside from the Rifleman and Cavalry, pretty much all the units before and since the mid 1800s would be identical for these two American Civs... even the city names would be the same...

The Confederacy is better left for a stand-alone scenario, then a standard every-game Civ IMHO.

Also, in the matter of "new stuff" in v2.86, I can confirm the addition of the following LHs as "already-in":
Cochise (Native America)
Logan (Native America)
Philip II (Spain)
George II (England)

 

[CivisTexanus]

None of the above IMHO... "on the scale of Civ", pretty much all the native north american tribes rank barely above "Barbarian" in Civ4-scale of civs. That's my opinion on the matter, but I do believe they belong on the game at some level, but applying the term "Civ" to them still bothers me on many fronts... the nations of Europe, Asia, Meso-America and others were fare more "Civ-like" then the wandering tribes-people of North America... politically incorrect, I know, so sue me... it's my opinion.

No need to apologize, you are absolutely correct... in our history. The whole point of CIV is that it lets us play out all those what ifs. What if one of the major NA language groups managed to get from agriculture and hunting to the rest of the tech tree? I wouldn't mind seeing major tribes as civs any more than I mind seeing the Celts, when we both know how badly they fared against real Civs like Rome and Carthage. Now there's a really good example. The Celts were really multiple mutually antagonistic tribes with mutually unintelligible dialects, very similar to the N. Americans. But they are so compressed in space and time and crowded by other Civs that seperating them out would be more trouble than it was worth. Not so much with the redskins. However if we could find a name more like 'Celts' and less like 'HRE' you could get me on board. Indians is already in use (and based on that idiot Columbo's fantasy) . Redskins might be a bit offensive to the fluffy bunnies. What else is there? Amerinds?

I doubt it... if you hate the thought of HRE and Germany occupying the same turf and being essentially identical, aside from the Rifleman and Cavalry, pretty much all the units before and since the mid 1800s would be identical for these two American Civs... even the city names would be the same...

The Confederacy is better left for a stand-alone scenario, then a standard every-game Civ IMHO.

Mmm, wouldn't that just require a slight tweaking of the city name list? Just edit the 'American' (how about 'Union' instead? Then we can call the indians Americans, hah!) list to cities north of the mason-dixon line. And a similar tweak for the Rebs. Meh, I can always add it in myself!

Also, in the matter of "new stuff" in v2.86, I can confirm the addition of the following LHs as "already-in":
Cochise (Native America)
Logan (Native America)
Philip II (Spain)
George II (England)

Cool! Spain needed it.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Mmm, wouldn't that just require a slight tweaking of the city name list? Just edit the 'American' (how about 'Union' instead? Then we can call the indians Americans, hah!) list to cities north of the mason-dixon line. And a similar tweak for the Rebs. Meh, I can always add it in myself!

You don't like the thought of HRE and Germany sharing space in the game, but you're perfectly fine with the Confederacy and Union, even though both are essentially identical civs in history, language, customs, technology, living space and everything else? In civ4-terms, there are only TWO/THREE Civ4 units that would have different graphics (Rifle, Cavalry, Cannon).

Not to mention by your suggestion, the United States is not allowed to share any cities south of the Mason-Dixon line, even if they are the only "America" in a random game.

No... I already gave my thoughts on this matter... the Confederacy would be even dumber then the HRE IMHO, and really belongs in a scenario, not as a standard civ for random play. It's essentially a duplicate America other then 4 years out of 6,000 years of gameplay (that's two turns in Civ4 time-line folks).

Ain't happening.