Native American Civilizations

Exlax_Matt

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
23
Is it just me or is it that the Native American Civs or one of the worst civs. They are boring to be and it seems that when there your neighbor all they want to do is bring you into a war ( which is fun:D unless you don't have enough troops:sad: ) and they are constanatly making demands about your rescources.:mad: Besides why were they even in the game they could have put more inportant Civilizations in there like Korea and Mexico.:p
 
In fact Mexico is named after what the Aztecs called themselves
 
Native America actually refers culturally to Northern America. There are some awesome Native American Civilizations that would be really cool. The Cherokee where an Appalachian Civilization that lived in higher classed mansions and civility than the American colonies. The Americans became jealous and turned their backs on the Cherokees who had helped them beat the Crow and other battles that would have ended Americanism altogether. The 'trail of tears' or genocidal relocation (since most people who dont want to admit genocide title their actions as: relocation) was the ultimate betrayal of the two peoples who were onced promised brotherhood and equality. Moved off their homeland for gold exploitation, ironically the reservations in Oklahoma where they were "relocated" turned out to have vast supply of oil.

Another group were the Apache Indians who dominated their territory through horror. Groups like the Anasazi, Pueblo, White Mountain, and Hopi all fell under the influence of the Apache dominace. One major military leader was Geronimo who faced the Spanish, Americans, and Mexicans and was quite successful at that.

We all know the Iroquis nation states. Two other larger influences were the Aloquin and the Mississippi nations.

Maybe a more thematic scenario might bring more appreciation as to how Native American civilizations existed and interacted. MesoAmerican Civilizations and Southern American Civilizations are culturally different than the Native American Civs as they use to have different religions and build pyramids, played different sports, etc.
 
Indeed. There are two Mesoamerican civs, but no civs of the First Nations! I regard this as an oversight by the developers. I wouldn't mind if one of the Mesoamerican civs (preferably the overpowered Aztecs, because Montezuma is such a blast) was taken out and replaced with a First Nation (= Native American) civ.

I miss the Iroquis of CivIII and their immensely powerful horse warriors. :old:

However, I am pretty sure that there will be a Korean civ as well as one of the First Nations in a future sequel. When will it be published, by the way?
 
Look at it this way: none of the civs is representative of any realworld civilizations. Do you really think hundreds or even thousands of years of cultural development can be depicted by "+1 to cottages" or "no anarchy during civic changes"? The civ names and portraits are just colorful, convenient markers to hang differing traits on. Change 'em, by all means: it can be done. Make Spain the Tuscans, change Saladin into Tatanka Yotanka (Sitting Bull), or do anything else: they mean nothing. :)
 
I liked the Iroquois in Civ3. Love to see them back again - the Horse Warrior rocked.

Montezuma is very far from useless and weak if you let him get his act together. The Inca dude can become quite advanced if he gets off the ground too.

Play a higher difficulty and see what I mean.
 
The Aztecs aren't so great in CIV IV but the incas are one of the best civs in the game IMO. Quechua rush never fails until you get to Monarch+ difficulty where the AI starts with too many archers. Also, I would definitley like to see at least the Iroqouis and the Maya in the expansion. I wouldn't mind having the Sioux in there either but I suppose they would be too similar to the Iroquois to have both. But hey thats what mods are for...
 
Vonreuter said:
I miss the Iroquis of CivIII and their immensely powerful horse warriors. :old:

Which was a completely bogus UU for them to have considering that it was the Europeans who introduced Horses to the Native Americans, and that the Iroquois lived in forested areas that weren't at all conducive to the use of Horses.
 
Willem said:
Which was a completely bogus UU for them to have considering that it was the Europeans who introduced Horses to the Native Americans, and that the Iroquois lived in forested areas that weren't at all conducive to the use of Horses.

Yeah, I didn't think the Iroquois even *used* horses. It was mostly the Plains Bands who stole them from the Spaniards and then found they were a lot more useful than dogs or wives for moving things from place to place.

Tom
 
meisen said:
What I've read has the Apache as rather a peaceful nation and it was after meeting the Spanish and their torture and murderous ways that the Apache became more war like in reaction.

To some extent because particular tribes had always been agressive; while if you look at the Pueblo and Hopi Indians they are the most peaceful people and never went to war. Sometimes because the Apaches refer to more than one group its hard to tell who is being spoken about. The Apaches with Geronimo were the dangerous ones that you see in all the old Western movies.
 
if you look at the Pueblo and Hopi Indians they are the most peaceful people and never went to war

what about the pueblo uprising in the 1600s led by Pope?
 
I would argue that the Aztecs are a powerful Civ...well, at least in Warlords and Beyond the Sword. The Sacrificial Altar and BtS Jag(Woodsman III owns) are great and Agg/Spi has always been an excellent trait combo.

As for North America...Lakota and Iroquois jump to mind. Oh...and the Shawnee, because they had Tecumseh.
 
Back
Top Bottom