New Unit ~ Hand-Axe!

[Inhalaattori]

Whatever it is, it is a ridiculous name. "Hand-axe", as opposed to what? Foot-axes? Free-standing machine axes? What axe isn't a hand axe?

Yeah. Even Hand-Axe Warrior or Hand-Axe man would be much better. Its like unit would be called "Hand-Sword".

 

[Gali]

Why not Throwing Axe.

 

[Willowmound]

Probably referring to that it is a ranged unit.

Which we'd ordinarily call a "throwing axe", wouldn't we?

EDIT: Cross post!

 

[DemonMaster]

Whatever it is, it is a ridiculous name. "Hand-axe", as opposed to what? Foot-axes? Free-standing machine axes? What axe isn't a hand axe?

A handaxe is an axe wielded with one hand, some cultures even throw them. Other types of axes would be poleaxe, bearded axe, dane axe and good knows what axe. There is even a rumour that they can smell nice

Edit: But the name isn't a good one, I can agree on that.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Shouldnt it be Axe thrower?

 

[TimeWeaver]

Willowmound: Spot on! Hand Axe is a ludicrous name. I vote for an urgent change for BNW before release. Let it be called "Axe Warrior".

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Which we'd ordinarily call a "throwing axe", wouldn't we?

EDIT: Cross post!

I wasn't trying to defend the name they gave to the unit, I was just looking for a logical explanation. As suggested by Inhalaattori Axe thrower would be a much better name fo it.

 

[blackcatatonic]

New one hex ranged unit for barbarians? Don't know. New barbarian units seem pointless unless they gave an old civ a way to hire or control them.

Presumably Germany will be able to get them from barb camps.

 

[Kruppe]

What axe isn't a hand axe?

The two-hand axe

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It's an axe unit, if you feel that it looks like a Native American unit that is your own interpretation. Considering that most of the barbarians in the game look European I'm surprised that nobody has said that's a bit culturally insensitive.

Also, how have they "turned backwards" when they actually added another Native American group to the game, instead of a host of considerably better options?

You misunderstand me. First off, that unit is very clearly native american inspired. It's hardly "interpretation" that it's a tomahawk. It is far more clearly native american than the brute, the only other barbarian unique, is european. The only real european aspect of him is the horned helmet. Considering this other unit, it's not so bad, but it's still putting a bad vibe out there to say that native americans, more than every other group except germanic tribes, are barbarian. If they were truly adding barbarian variance, that would be fine, but instead it is effectively singling them out from the crowd, which isn't really a step forward.

As for the Shoshone, they are a step forwards. Except for how they've been implemented - everything about them in game is how they have existed in relation to the US. They are not the Shoshone that should be in, they are the "injuns".

Also, your last point is highly contentious and really opinionated. There are a host of good candidates for civs, many of which native american. I personally wouldn't have put the Shoshone amongst them, precisely because they were always going to have an americanised version their history representing them.

 

[SkaisonFire]

Yeah. Even Hand-Axe Warrior or Hand-Axe man would be much better. Its like unit would be called "Hand-Sword".

Or Atl-Atl

 

[Menzies]

You misunderstand me. First off, that unit is very clearly native american inspired. It's hardly "interpretation" that it's a tomahawk. It is far more clearly native american than the brute, the only other barbarian unique, is european. The only real european aspect of him is the horned helmet. Considering this other unit, it's not so bad, but it's still putting a bad vibe out there to say that native americans, more than every other group except germanic tribes, are barbarian. If they were truly adding barbarian variance, that would be fine, but instead it is effectively singling them out from the crowd, which isn't really a step forward.

As for the Shoshone, they are a step forwards. Except for how they've been implemented - everything about them in game is how they have existed in relation to the US. They are not the Shoshone that should be in, they are the "injuns".

Also, your last point is highly contentious and really opinionated. There are a host of good candidates for civs, many of which native american. I personally wouldn't have put the Shoshone amongst them, precisely because they were always going to have an americanised version their history representing them.

First off, that unit is very clearly native american inspired.

That is neither an argument nor clear. The unit is a hand axe, and I've been saying for a long time that it could just be an axe. People seem very intent on the idea of it being Native American though, despite there being nothing all that clear about it. The image itself is a small group that look like most barbarians in the game, with an nondescript axe over their head. Nothing about it says that it's a Tomahawk, it's just a hand axe. If anything, it looks like this kind:

It doesn't look specifically like a tomahawk.

So I'll repeat this, what about the unit says that it's Native American beyond your own desire to use it to paint such a picture. It is nothing more than an nondescript hand axe, with unit graphics that could be almost anything and on their own don't suggest a Native American group.

What are you basing the "they are not the Shoshone that should be in" on, as far as I'm aware we haven't seen the Civilopedia entry for the Shoshone themselves, only their leader and their units. Are you just saying that their exploration focus is too modern American centric?

Also, this may sound opinionated, but the only reason that there are any Native North American Civs (USA and Canada that is) in the game is because it's produced in North America. If it were produced in Australia there would be Australian Aboriginal Civs, if it were produced in Japan there would be peoples like the Ainu and if it were produced by Russians there would be an abundance of smaller Steppe Tribes. The cold hard point about this is that it's just a matter of audience producing it's own cultural bias. They know about them, people of the area know about them, and that inflates their importance. There are very interesting and significant Civilizations of the precolombian Americas, but neither the Iroquois nor Shoshone fill that very well. Thankfully their inclusion has no precluded the likes of the Aztecs, Incans and Mayans, although there are others of the region who would be quite interesting as well.

 

[slowmotion7]

Something to bring to your attention. This was most likely an early build. The UA look rather clunky. There will probably be a little more clarification and (hopefully) they will rename the hand axe unit. Of course, there is also the bazooka unit, and that is named after the weapon, not the wielder.

 

[iconocast]

i bet its a the new upgrade path for scouts

 

[Inhalaattori]

You misunderstand me. First off, that unit is very clearly native american inspired. It's hardly "interpretation" that it's a tomahawk. It is far more clearly native american than the brute, the only other barbarian unique, is european. The only real european aspect of him is the horned helmet. Considering this other unit, it's not so bad, but it's still putting a bad vibe out there to say that native americans, more than every other group except germanic tribes, are barbarian. If they were truly adding barbarian variance, that would be fine, but instead it is effectively singling them out from the crowd, which isn't really a step forward.

As for the Shoshone, they are a step forwards. Except for how they've been implemented - everything about them in game is how they have existed in relation to the US. They are not the Shoshone that should be in, they are the "injuns".

Also, your last point is highly contentious and really opinionated. There are a host of good candidates for civs, many of which native american. I personally wouldn't have put the Shoshone amongst them, precisely because they were always going to have an americanised version their history representing them.

Well Iroquois and Shoshone are in the game pretty much because the game is made by US company. NA Natives are rather over represented in the game. NA Natives were mostly just small tribes and they didnt have great Empires. Nothing compared to great Empires of Central- and South-America.

Zulus are in the game because we are living in Anglo-Saxon dominated world. If Natives fought against England/UK or USA they are meaningful. This is why for example Mapuche are not in the game. After all they were/are much more important than any NA Native tribe.

I personally think that we should have lots of variation, so Im ok with Native Civs from NA also. I just think many people from US see them as much more important that they really were from neutral point of view.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Well Iroquois and Shoshone are in the game pretty much because the game is made by US company. NA Natives are rather over represented in the game. NA Natives were mostly just small tribes and they didnt have great Empires. Nothing compared to great Empires of Central- and South-America.

You could also look at it as "they were tribes because they didn't need to have great empires." There wasn't that competitive drive like in the Mediterranean or in the Southeast Asian archipelago that really pushed other Civilizations to powerhouse status.

In any case, American game, American natives bias, so nothing wrong with that. (Sort of like Venice - if I'm the lead designer of the game I have the right to create a civ from an area I am in love with. Such has appeared to be the case with Ed Beach and good for him)

As for the axe, I think people are pointing it out as controversial because of the Shawnee-like facepaint on the barbs. I don't know though. Pretty much a non-issue for me personally, but I can see why people find it questionable. The barb unit would need to have a distinctly Native name for me to be offended

 

[Buccaneer]

Come on guys, pay attention to what MadDjinn said and don't start making more stuff up.

 

[Pikachao]

You could also look at it as "they were tribes because they didn't need to have great empires." There wasn't that competitive drive like in the Mediterranean or in the Southeast Asian archipelago that really pushed other Civilizations to powerhouse status.

In any case, American game, American natives bias, so nothing wrong with that. (Sort of like Venice - if I'm the lead designer of the game I have the right to create a civ from an area I am in love with. Such has appeared to be the case with Ed Beach and good for him)

As for the axe, I think people are pointing it out as controversial because of the Shawnee-like facepaint on the barbs. I don't know though. Pretty much a non-issue for me personally, but I can see why people find it questionable. The barb unit would need to have a distinctly Native name for me to be offended

this. all of this, every part of this.
I'd hate to throw the word eurocentrism around, so I'll try not to, but we tend to think of great cultures based off of empires and technologies and what not, while forgetting that sometimes they didn't have those because they didn't need them. Northern native americans may not have empires, did a ton of stuff with things like crops and equality and right n stuff we don't even look at. it's important not to look at civs as better or worse, but as different.

that being said, I'd only be offended by that barb if it's name was "Tomahawk man" or "Injun."

 

[Inhalaattori]

this. all of this, every part of this.
I'd hate to throw the word eurocentrism around, so I'll try not to, but we tend to think of great cultures based off of empires and technologies and what not, while forgetting that sometimes they didn't have those because they didn't need them. Northern native americans may not have empires, did a ton of stuff with things like crops and equality and right n stuff we don't even look at. it's important not to look at civs as better or worse, but as different.

Well what you are saying is simply not true. Primitive people were not primitive because of their "culture" or that they wanted to live like they did. This is common misconception that people have from more primitive people. NA Natives were not primitive, because they wanted to be. Australian aboriginals were not primitive because they wanted to be.The reason is in the environment and in the possibilities for agriculture. Without agriculture the societies stay pretty much the same. Without agriculture there are no cities, no big armies, no big empires. Its just a fact that societies that practice agriculture grow stronger pretty fast and destroy hunter gatherer societies, because of their bigger population.

When NA Natives got their hands to the European guns, they pretty much slaughtered many Native animal species. Same thing when people first game to America they killed many native species to extinction. The idea that some less advanced people respected nature, because of moral reason is simply not true. They respected nature because it was stronger than them. Just in the same way earlier European cultures respected nature and animals before they advanced and learned that they were stronger than nature.

What you call "euro centrism" is not euro centrism at all. China, Peru, Mexico, India, Egypt, Middle-East etc. In all these places same kind of agriculture based Empires arose. Agriculture created cities. And cities created civilizations...

 

[SnowKomodo]

When NA Natives got their hands to the European guns, they pretty much slaughtered many Native animal species. Same thing when people first game to America they killed many native species to extinction. The idea that some less advanced people respected nature, because of moral reason is simply not true. They respected nature because it was stronger than them. Just in the same way earlier European cultures respected nature and animals before they advanced and learned that they were stronger than nature.

While it is true that the hippie, tree-hugger stereotypes are there, it's also true that Native Americans have a more spiritually based connection with nature in a way European cultures never had - or had but abandoned. Such remains true today in 2013 - many spirtual stories revolve around symbolism from Nature, which includes anything from plants to animals to the cosmos