Native American Capital

I think I will keep the capital as Cahokia.

And Adam, this isn't the time or the place for your behavior.

And Jarhead, you don't get the point of mods, do you? They can improve upon the game, or add new elements to it, or maybe change it entirely. I would check out Fall From Heaven if I were you, I recommend it highly.

I don't understand what you meant. I can alter xml's, play with nifscope, but not python scripting.:mischief:

It's just, I guess I'm not into Sioux history.
Does it really matter? Have fireaxis done the city names wrong?:confused:
 
I don't understand what you meant. I can alter xml's, play with nifscope, but not python scripting.:mischief:

It's just, I guess I'm not into Sioux history.
Does it really matter? Have Firaxis done the city names wrong?:confused:

Sioux history after the Americans arrived isn't that hard to follow. Mainly at first they were migrating tribes that followed the Buffalos, like alot of other tribes. Although I dont think they had any kind of permanent settlement until the Buffalos were slaughtered and were forced to settle down.
 
I watched a movie once, something about amerindians.

No. Of course it's not Pocahontas.:mischief:

It's about Viking invaders, who already got access to IronWorking, razing Native's tribes.

Poor amerindians, still stuck to hunting tech.:(

Funny, I'm thinking of playing civ4 next while watching that movie.:)
 
It's kind of weird how there is a civilization "Native America" but yet there's barbarian cities named Navajo and Chinook.

Considering some of the current barbarian cities signify civilizations that actually were more advanced than native american tribes, maybe all the native american tribes should be represented with various barbarian cities. One thing I have to give Civ 5 is that all the "minor" civs aren't automatically hostile, which is sort of nice. : P
 
I would suggest "Sequoyah". It was the name selected by a group of tribes that proposed establishing their own state in 1905. More info is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Sequoyah

It has the advantage of being a term coined by Native Americans, unlike "Anasazi", which was coined by archaeologists. Plus I think "Anasazi" may show up in the game as a barbarian city.
 
You are on fire in this thread! :lol:

Yup ^^ And I still like it :D ;)

edit: and I still wonder why Native Americans grow no beard .... it's weird......
 
...I still wonder why Native Americans grow no beard .... it's weird......

I read somewhere that genetically, they can't. Not sure why, but they just never start growing facial hair.
 
They don't grow hair on their chest neither. Yes it's genetic, but not unique. Many African population cannot grow beard neither. And as we are at it, many Asians cannot neither.

For Jarhead and others:

In Civ3, we had the Iroquois. In reality, the Iroquois were an empire of 5-6 tribes which settled cities. At the arrival of the bad white man, the Iroquois had fortified 30,000+ cities. So the nation made some sense in this game. However, their portrayal in the game was inspired a lot by the Sioux. I remember their special unit was a replacement for the mounted warrior, which made little sense to represent the Iroquois, as this unit was really from the middle plains.

In Civ4, they made them the Native Americans instead. Their special unit and special building makes more sense like that. However, though they are based on the Sioux (the leaderhead being Sitting Bull), they mostly ressemble the middle plains inhabitants as a whole. At this point, they make little sense in this game, as these people did not settle cities. They were nomad and they were mostly always on the move, following their prays (notably the buffaloes). They did not have a concept of land ownership. As they are represented in this game, they seem more like a collection of many of the middle plains tribes.

Of course, if they had been given time (assuming they had not been invaded by us, the bad white guys), they might have evolved and settled somewhere. They might have learned agriculture and settled cities and expanded. After all, the natives of the South America did so. The Inuits (which were not troubled by us, given that they lived in a land which we did not want) eventually settled and found cities (today they even have their own Canadian territory).

Anyone interested in this topic should watch Dances with Wolves, with Kevin Costner. A 1990 movie, one of the last few to be filmed entirely on high quality 35 mm. A very high level of production quality. Obviously romanticized, but otherwise, in my opinion, quite a realistic enactment of how they really lived. Get the 4-hour director's cut Blu-Ray if you can, you won't regret it.
 
TO be fair, several of these were not real unified civilizations, though they did found cities. Greece, though it was unified culturally, was not a single societies until it was conquered by the macedonians (macedon was the scotland of greece) Celtia was never unified, not even really culturally. Sumeria is the same as Greece.
 
Anyone interested in this topic should watch Dances with Wolves, with Kevin Costner. A 1990 movie, one of the last few to be filmed entirely on high quality 35 mm. A very high level of production quality. Obviously romanticized, but otherwise, in my opinion, quite a realistic enactment of how they really lived. Get the 4-hour director's cut Blu-Ray if you can, you won't regret it.

... assuming you can still stand the stock "white guy turns up and shows non-white people how to live their own lives by being better at it" plot. (See also Last Samurai, Avatar, etc...)
 
I've honestly long considered them the most baseless civilization.
There was little to no working together, it was just a series of tribes... that doesn't an empire make.
 
@damerell I like these two other movies you mentioned too, though I see your point.

I agree with both Calibur and Kochman. But well, they had to do something with the game. Though some of theses civilizations were never empires, I think they are still interesting in the game. Not everything is realistic anyway. The Pyramids were a big granary in Civ3 and they allow all civics in Civ4, none of these is realistic (they were actually a big, big tombs).

I like the Native Americans. I played them several times. No they are not represented in an accurate manner vs what they really were, but I'm ok with the "what if" play style.

Back to the original question of this thread, I don't find the city names appealing, but never tried to change them. But you can always give them different names as you settle them. Noteworthy is the fact that they didn't really have city names (they didn't have cities as it). The Natives usually called themselves "humans" in their own language, and this is this name that we mostly know their tribes by. Inuits, Crees, Sioux... those all mean "humans/the people" in their language.
 
TO be fair, several of these were not real unified civilizations, though they did found cities. Greece, though it was unified culturally, was not a single societies until it was conquered by the macedonians (macedon was the scotland of greece) Celtia was never unified, not even really culturally. Sumeria is the same as Greece.

Outrageous, and I would repeal it.
 
@damerell I like these two other movies you mentioned too, though I see your point.

I agree with both Calibur and Kochman. But well, they had to do something with the game. Though some of theses civilizations were never empires, I think they are still interesting in the game. Not everything is realistic anyway. The Pyramids were a big granary in Civ3 and they allow all civics in Civ4, none of these is realistic (they were actually a big, big tombs).

I like the Native Americans. I played them several times. No they are not represented in an accurate manner vs what they really were, but I'm ok with the "what if" play style.

Back to the original question of this thread, I don't find the city names appealing, but never tried to change them. But you can always give them different names as you settle them. Noteworthy is the fact that they didn't really have city names (they didn't have cities as it). The Natives usually called themselves "humans" in their own language, and this is this name that we mostly know their tribes by. Inuits, Crees, Sioux... those all mean "humans/the people" in their language.
I'm just bitter over getting my wells poisoned all the time... wonder who that could have been?
 
I'm just bitter over getting my wells poisoned all the time... wonder who that could have been?

In the game that I just finished it was that @#$%$#! Hannibal. After the game was in the bag, I went to war with him and wiped him out just to get even. :lol:
 
Nothing like crushing inferior civilizations and making them your own to brighten one's day.
 
Re: body hair, white people have the most abundant body hair because there is more remnant genetic material present from homo sapiens-neanderthal crossbreeding, before they became extinct; something like 1% of non-African people's genes are neanderthal remnants. It's also why white people go bald so readily, which happens in some apes as well. If I recall, there is more genetic distance from neanderthals among Africans, Asians, and Mesoamericans (North/Central/South American indigenous) than there is from Caucasians. (Same rule applies re: indigenous Americans and beards. Thick facial hair is a neanderthal trait, not generally a homo sapien trait. Closer genetic proximity to neanderthals gets you more hair below the eyes but less above, and vice versa.)

At least, I think I read this somewhere, you could probably find more on Wikipedia. I'm not formally educated, so I may be way off, but I think that's how it was explained.
 
In reality, the Iroquois were an empire of 5-6 tribes which settled cities. At the arrival of the bad white man, the Iroquois had fortified 30,000+ cities.

I don't know if you are claiming that the Iroquois had more than 30,000 fortified cities or that they had fortified cities with populations of more than 30,000. Either way, you are quite wrong. At the time of European contact, Iroquoian villages probably numbered in the dozens and would have had populations of a few hundred. They were "fortified" usually with little more than a palisade of wooden poles. They were not an empire, but rather a confederation of six tribes, seven after the Tuscarora joined in the early 18th century.

Anyone interested in this topic should watch Dances with Wolves, with Kevin Costner.

Anyone interested in this topic should go to the library.

Sorry to threadjack, but as a professional anthropologist, I did not want to let this misinformation go unchallenged.
 
You're right. I can never stand seeing "Native American Empire". It just looks so ridiculous. I suppose you could make the Iroqois Empire, the Sioux Empire, and the Apache Empire, if you would like to go to such an extent.

I ended up renaming the Native Americans "Sioux" largely as a shout-out to Civ2 (first Civ game I played, and the graphics match up pretty well), and added Colonization graphics to make an Iroquois Civ. Would like to do more, but I don't have time for modding any more.

TO be fair, several of these were not real unified civilizations, though they did found cities. Greece, though it was unified culturally, was not a single societies until it was conquered by the macedonians (macedon was the scotland of greece) Celtia was never unified, not even really culturally. Sumeria is the same as Greece.

These are... interesting analogies. I've never seen Macedon described as the Scotland of Greece. Did you pick that solely for the location or was there something else behind it?

... assuming you can still stand the stock "white guy turns up and shows non-white people how to live their own lives by being better at it" plot. (See also Last Samurai, Avatar, etc...)
Anyone interested in this topic should go to the library.

Sorry to threadjack, but as a professional anthropologist, I did not want to let this misinformation go unchallenged.

Some people don't like the cookie-cutter white messiah trope. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom