This is a DEEPLY problematic statement. Blacks may not have been elected leaders in Colonial America but the absolutely were heavily involved with the "birth" of America.
America has been built by white anglo-saxon protestant for white anglo-saxon protestant on the shoulders on countless black slaves would be a more fair description, but it didn't erase the fact that the country was built for WASP.
This is a DEEPLY problematic statement. Blacks may not have been elected leaders in Colonial America but the absolutely were heavily involved with the "birth" of America.
were "founding fathers" concerned with Blacks when they created America? Were George Washington listened to his black slaves on how America should be built?
America-( not native Americans but Colonial America) was born by whites- by founding fathers. African Americans were kidnapped and were forcefully immigrated to America. I am not being racist but merely stating facts- that blacks were not heavily involved with birth of America.
Oh yes, they did. Their labour build wealth of southern plantations and northern factories similar way as cheap workforce build China growth in a late XX Century early XXI
Oh yes, they did. Their labour build wealth of southern plantations and northern factories similar way as cheap workforce build China growth in a late XX Century early XXI
this civ sound cool, but naval units on land would break the game, and besides, we already have land equivalents for all of the naval units. Maybe naval units can travel along rivers, and you can build your ports there?
If we’re having garibaldi, he’s gonna lead a unified Italy (I kinda want a Renaissance one though). That would be like some Habsburg as a Dutch alt — they ruled that nation, but it wasn’t their main country
Edit: I just looked this up on Wikipedia, and it’s just another Brazilian state? They should add the Guaraní, Muisca first
No, and let it be clear.
The fact I don't think this is a good condition to have a distinct Civilization/leader in a game doesn't mean the statement that Blacks were not involved in the development of modern USA is true. The rest is a problem of America now seen in US streets. Any representation census is a blind road that only gives an illusion of justice if the base rules of democratic society are broken.
This is not a representation census or parity that makes a society just, but equal opportunities and equal rights. End of OT
If we want to see more south american civs, i completely agree that the Guarani should be the next up to bat, not random irrelevant separatist states. It shouldn’t matter whether they’re from civs already in the game atm.
Scotland and England were poorly design, with both representing different facets of the UK, and should scotland appear again, it should only be under the condition that England uses a pre-GB monarch, and that its abilities don’t step on the toes of a general UK. That means Longbowman, Elizabeth or Richard the Lionheart, and maybe an ability referring to how modern England is a mish mash of roman, celtic, norse and norman culture
Africa is in dire need of new civs. This can be fun through Numidia, the Berbers, Swahili, Mutapa, Benin, imo, which if 3 of them + a choice of berbers or numidia miraculously made it in, would fill that continent out as it deserves.
speaking of Africa... who do you guys think will lead Ethiopia? I kinda hope good old haile selassie would return but I don't mind seeing Menelik II. ( I am bit biased toward Halie due to his action of sending his soldiers to Korean War.)
speaking of Africa... who do you guys think will lead Ethiopia? I kinda hope good old haile selassie would return but I don't mind seeing Menelik II. ( I am bit biased toward Halie due to his action of sending his soldiers to Korean War.)
I give the Acre example to answer some other players who said about Oklahoma and California State.
For example, if we start to make States, we also need to do it balanced.
If come an USA State, I guess also it should come a Brazilian State.
I just want to say that trust me, that Oklahoma design was a joke. No Texan would want Oklahoma as a separate Civ.
I guess it should have been more clearer.
I don't think that breakaway provinces/states in the New World should be a civ just for the sake of representation, even Texas. Those are best left to mods and rather not be put in the game officially, and I'm pretty sure there are already some. I'll just leave it at that.
speaking of Africa... who do you guys think will lead Ethiopia? I kinda hope good old haile selassie would return but I don't mind seeing Menelik II. ( I am bit biased toward Halie due to his action of sending his soldiers to Korean War.)
If we want to see more south american civs, i completely agree that the Guarani should be the next up to bat, not random irrelevant separatist states. It shouldn’t matter whether they’re from civs already in the game atm.
If development went on long enough, I do think they are the prime choice for a fifth SA civ. As it stands Africa and SE Asia are sorely neglected and I don't see this happening until we see at least nominal representation of Burma, Vietnam, and another couple African civs. Not to mention, I think we would get a Caribbean civ before the devs went back to SA.
Scotland and England were poorly design, with both representing different facets of the UK, and should scotland appear again, it should only be under the condition that England uses a pre-GB monarch, and that its abilities don’t step on the toes of a general UK. That means Longbowman, Elizabeth or Richard the Lionheart, and maybe an ability referring to how modern England is a mish mash of roman, celtic, norse and norman culture.
Again though, the UK is a marketable staple of civ. I think the better compromise is to have a British civ led by both an English and a Scottish leader. And then make Ireland a separate "Celtic" civ.
Africa is in dire need of new civs. This can be fun through Numidia, the Berbers, Swahili, Mutapa, Benin, imo, which if 3 of them + a choice of berbers or numidia miraculously made it in, would fill that continent out as it deserves.
* Berbers (huge demographic covering a lot of territory)
* Swahili (similarly huge; we might get Oman instead though)
* Benin/Oyo/Ashanti (highly popular area with many small empires; somewhat covered by Mali but there is room)
* Mutapa (we already have the Zulu, but they would be nice)
I'm biased but I find the ancient/medieval History of Ethiopia more interesting than the modern one and since we had Haile Selassie in Civ V I would see it as a good balance to have some more older leader...
Don't mistake me: I recognize the merit Ethiopia had during the imperialist era (being the sole African state to resist colonial powers is worth of any achievment, even if it's against Italy and Italy under Mussolini was... hem), but we talk also of the oldest, most continuous Christian nation of the world and the continent.
the mutapa were shona people and would serve to fill the hole in south-central africa, so i’d hesitate round write them off with ‘we already have zulu’ since at the zulu’s peak, they controlled half of modern day South Africa, but the Mutapa conquered way more than just that.
I'm biased but I find the ancient/medieval History of Ethiopia more interesting than the modern one and since we had Haile Selassie in Civ V I would see it as a good balance to have some more older leader...
Don't mistake me: I recognize the merit Ethiopia had during the imperialist era (being the sole African state to resist colonial powers is worth of any achievment, even if it's against Italy and Italy under Mussolini was... hem), but we talk also of the oldest, most continuous Christian nation of the world and the continent.
Completely agree, and if any civ in africa were to get two leaders, it should be ethiopia, but ethiopia is also the only chance for a modern leader in africa we’ve got, and since nubia and egypt are both already ancient, I’d prefer a modern ruler compared to another ancient civ in eastern africa (which begs the question: egypt, nubia AND ethiopia? I’m guessing they picked civs as they went and felt that Ethiopia was too important to be left out, even though they’d largely got that area under control
the early part? he died in 1975, which is fairly late
Mao lived till 1976, Wilhelmina and churchill until 1965, De Gaulle until 1970
He’s one of the more recent leaders but not the newest.
I’d prefer Menelik because Sellassie doesn’t capture the religious side of Ethiopia as well, plus Menelik successfully prevented colonization, while Sellassie lost to Italy (Still, Ethiopia didn’t get colonized, simply occupied).
Yes, Sellassie was a member of the solomonic dynasty and Menelik II wasn’t, but Menelik II is more of the ‘big personality’ that civ 6 likes
we know enough about their founder and first major leader, Mutopa and Matope. We also know quite a bit about later Mutapa because of Portuguese accounts, which are fairly unbiased in comparison to most portuguese accounts. They wrote about Emperor Mwenemutapa.
However, if the devs chose to just make a Shona civ, they have options from the Rozvi, Mutapa and Zimbabwe kingdoms, and more.
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.
