Poll: What new civilizations from the Americas would you like to see in the future?

[Boris Gudenuf]

But would they still be unique then.
I would have made the Highlander UU an earlier unit personally, and not make it to where it looks like it would fit in the British army.
I designed an Italian Civ that can "rent out" their units to other Civs and can only purchase their UUs in gold.

Don't get me started on the in-game British Army Napoleonic Era Highlander. Especially when the Highlanders of the early 18th or 17th century or even the Covenanters of the Scottish Lowlands or Robert the Bruce's own lowland Schiltron halfpike-wielding Scots would have been far better choices.

And Sid Knows the game needs a real Mercenary Mechanism, since mercenary troops have been a feature of warfare all over the world since at least Classical Era, and massively important in some Eras like from the late Medieval trough Renaissance to early Industrial Eras.

 

[Patine]

I would have made the Highlander UU an earlier unit personally, and not make it to where it looks like it would fit in the British army.

But you may be confusing the terminology. Are you thinking those rag-tag, tenacious, "never-say-die," Medieval Clan militia with the coarse leathers and straps with their kilts with short swords and bucklers, who faced down English longbowmen and knights in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, or honoured units in the British Army like the Black Watch, Coldstream Guard, and Grey Scots who are known as elites and often work with the Royal Marines in wartime?

 

[The Kingmaker]

They should’ve just made a “Black Watch” unit. My great-uncle served in that regiment.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But you may be confusing the terminology. Are you thinking those rag-tag, tenacious, "never-say-die," Medieval Clan militia with the coarse leathers and straps with their kilts with short swords and bucklers, who faced down English longbowmen and knights in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, or honoured units in the British Army like the Black Watch, Coldstream Guard, and Grey Scots who are known as elites and often work with the Royal Marines in wartime?

Let's not make a "Braveheart" mistake here: William Wallace was a Lowland Scot who would have considered the kilt a garment fit only for thieves and cattle rustlers, and Robert's army at Bannockburn was composed mostly of Lowland Scot half-pikemen in Schiltron formation. No highlanders need apply in either case.
On the other hand, the Highlanders at Killicrankie in 1715 made a classic 'Celtic Impetuous' charge with swords and the English army opposing them ran away so fast, led by their commander John Cope, that it inspired one of the most derisive songs ever written: "Hey Johnny Cope are Ye Walkin' Yet? " Silly Wizard's rendition of it should be Scotland's 'Battle music' in the game, if they were willing to pay the Royalties for it.

They should’ve just made a “Black Watch” unit. My great-uncle served in that regiment.

Problem with that is, the Black Watch was strictly a British Army unit, formed after the clans had been suppressed in the wake of the 1745 rebellion. In fact, even as a British Army unit, you'd have to ask Which Black Watch? Originally they were an internal security unit to keep 'order' in the Highlands, then a Light Infantry unit during the Seven Year's War, and finally an elite line infantry unit by the time of the Napoleonic Wars. That was when they earned their regimental motto: "First to Come, Last to Go."
Oh, and the Black Watch Tartan has no link to any highland clan: it was 'made up' by the British Army strictly for the regiment, and then variations of it were used for the other British Highland Regiments.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think that’s overthinking it a bit. We historians tend to focus on details like that which would likely elude the average player.

Example: We have Victoria and redcoats for England, which are also “British” rather than strictly English.

 

[Patine]

I think that’s overthinking it a bit. We historians tend to focus on details like that which would likely elude the average player.

Example: We have Victoria and redcoats for England, which are also “British” rather than strictly English.

Well, Victoria was never JUST Queen of England at any time in her life. In fact, the list of separate and identified polities she was Queen, Empress, Duchess, Lady, Royal Protector, Grandmistress, or Defender of was quite awe-inspiringly large, actually, and included Scotland, Canada, Australia, India, Zululand, Egypt, and the Maoris, as a matter of fact.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, Victoria was never JUST Queen of England at any time in her life. In fact, the list of separate and identified polities she was Queen, Empress, Duchess, Lady, Royal Protector, Grandmistress, or Defender of was quite awe-inspiringly large, actually, and included Scotland, Canada, Australia, India, Zululand, Egypt, and the Maoris, as a matter of fact.

Having absolutely no effect on play of the game, but wouldn't it be a Hoot if the game added on titles to a Leader based on events in the game . . .

Victoria, Queen of England, Ireland and Georgia, Hammer of the Scots, Protector of Muscat, Empress of the Lands of the Aztec and Inca, Defender of the Buddhist Faith, etc.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Having absolutely no effect on play of the game, but wouldn't it be a Hoot if the game added on titles to a Leader based on events in the game . . .

Victoria, Queen of England, Ireland and Georgia, Hammer of the Scots, Protector of Muscat, Empress of the Lands of the Aztec and Inca, Defender of the Buddhist Faith, etc.

I kind of love this.

Where "Protector" means you're a suzerain, "Emperor" means you have taken over civs on other continents, and "Hammer" I guess just means you conquered Scotland.

 

[AsH2]

Having absolutely no effect on play of the game, but wouldn't it be a Hoot if the game added on titles to a Leader based on events in the game . . .

Victoria, Queen of England, Ireland and Georgia, Hammer of the Scots, Protector of Muscat, Empress of the Lands of the Aztec and Inca, Defender of the Buddhist Faith, etc.

..of Ulm.

Imagine the AI anime when they greet you..

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But you may be confusing the terminology. Are you thinking those rag-tag, tenacious, "never-say-die," Medieval Clan militia with the coarse leathers and straps with their kilts with short swords and bucklers, who faced down English longbowmen and knights in the days of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, or honoured units in the British Army like the Black Watch, Coldstream Guard, and Grey Scots who are known as elites and often work with the Royal Marines in wartime?

Not medieval but a Renaissance Era looking unit would be nice with more weapons than just a rifle and not looking like a part of the British Army.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not medieval but a Renaissance Era looking unit would be nice with more weapons than just a rifle and not looking like a part of the British Army.

From the Scots that formed the Covenanter armies in the English Civil War to the Highlanders at Killikrankie and Culloden a century later, all the Scots troops shared some defining 'appearances' - they all wore a blue beret-type headgear known affectionately as the "Auld Blue Bonnet", and they all carried banners with the cross of Saint Andrew and/or a Thistle on them (the Scottish 'National' symbols: the red lion rampant used so often is actually the personal emblem of Robert the Bruce). And of course, the Highlanders also wore tartan kilts and/or cloaks and carried swords and sometimes 'targes' - small round shields.
There is no excuse at all for not having distinctive-looking Scottish Units that don't have to steal from the British Army's Scottish units.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I voted to Haiti! The Only Black Empire of Americas, The only sucessfull slave revolt in History, and the first to defeat Napoleon on battle.

 

[Patine]

I voted to Haiti! The Only Black Empire of Americas, The only sucessfull slave revolt in History, and the first to defeat Napoleon on battle.

Well, it's only claim to being an "Empire" was having two or three historical leaders proclaim themselves "Emperors," quite arbitrarily. It was no more of a true "Empire" by classic definition than the short-lived Central African Empire when Jean-Bedel Bokassa declared himself "Emperor Bokassa I," in truth. But the only successful slave revolt part is indeed true.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Well, it's only claim to being an "Empire" was having two or three historical leaders proclaim themselves "Emperors," quite arbitrarily. It was no more of a true "Empire" by classic definition than the short-lived Central African Empire when Jean-Bedel Bokassa declared himself "Emperor Bokassa I," in truth. But the only successful slave revolt part is indeed true.

Have more one definition of Empire you forgot, Empire is a kingdom who conquer another nations. The Black-Haitian, under the Vice-Roy of Touissant Louverture, conquer the Hispanic-Mestizo Dominician of the other side of island.
By the way, of the 3 emperors Haiti had, the must bad-ass Haiti leader was none of them. Touissant Louverture who has a totally unknown origins (some say he was a king in West Africa), who from slave become general during the french revolution and from general become Vice-Roy (4-life) of Saint-Domingue.

As you can see in my profile, I am kind of a fan of one of the Haitian emperors, Henri Christophe. He made something empires also need, he made wonders, at least two. Her castle and La Citadelle Laferrière.
After the independence Haiti was shared in two countries. In the north a Monarchy lead by a Black king and in the south one Republic/dictatorship lead by a Mulato (mix race white and black). After the death of Petión, the dictador of the south, Henri Christophe comitted suiced to avoid one civil war against Petion's sucessor called Jean-Pierre Boyer. <Because, as king, he knows Haiti can be easly invaded again from USA, UK, Spain or France if they had a Civil War, so he give up of his kingdom and life to ensure the freedom of haitian people>.

And why the example against self proclamed emperor was Bokassa and not Napoleon? Bokassa was just a dictator who made nothing in the power, the haitian emperors made amazing things as transform an island full of slaves in an Empire. As impressive as Napoleon. And as Napoleon, the Haitians emperor also was Jacobins, also was generals, also was seaking for glory. We need to understand better the Haitian history, it is just the most important moment in American history, because of them we don't have more slavery in our homeland.

 

[Patine]

Have more one definition of Empire you forgot, Empire is a kingdom who conquer another nations. The Black-Haitian, under the Vice-Roy of Touissant Louverture, conquer the Hispanic-Mestizo Dominician of the other side of island.
By the way, of the 3 emperors Haiti had, the must bad-ass Haiti leader was none of them. Touissant Louverture who has a totally unknown origins (some say he was a king in West Africa), who from slave become general during the french revolution and from general become Vice-Roy (4-life) of Saint-Domingue.

As you can see in my profile, I am kind of a fan of one of the Haitian emperors, Henri Christophe. He made something empires also need, he made wonders, at least two. Her castle and La Citadelle Laferrière.
After the independence Haiti was shared in two countries. In the north a Monarchy lead by a Black king and in the south one Republic/dictatorship lead by a Mulato (mix race white and black). After the death of Petión, the dictador of the south, Henri Christophe comitted suiced to avoid one civil war against Petion's sucessor called Jean-Pierre Boyer. <Because, as king, he knows Haiti can be easly invaded again from USA, UK, Spain or France if they had a Civil War, so he give up of his kingdom and life to ensure the freedom of haitian people>.

And why the example against self proclamed emperor was Bokassa and not Napoleon? Bokassa was just a dictator who made nothing in the power, the haitian emperors made amazing things as transform an island full of slaves in an Empire. As impressive as Napoleon. And as Napoleon, the Haitians emperor also was Jacobins, also was generals, also was seaking for glory. We need to understand better the Haitian history, it is just the most important moment in American history, because of them we don't have more slavery in our homeland.

Conquering the other part of one's own island (and not even holding it for that long), is still not an EMPIRE in the classic sense. A lot of nations do a little bit of conquering and are not remotely candidates for the label. Napoleon conquered most of Continental Europe, redrawing it's map and redefining it's system of laws, governance, military doctrine, and even weights and measures in ways even the highly reactionary Congress of Vienna were reluctant to completely, or even majorly, undo. the word "Empire" has certain connotations to it, by definition, that Haiti just never actually accomplished.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Conquering the other part of one's own island (and not even holding it for that long), is still not an EMPIRE in the classic sense. A lot of nations do a little bit of conquering and are not remotely candidates for the label. Napoleon conquered most of Continental Europe, redrawing it's map and redefining it's system of laws, governance, military doctrine, and even weights and measures in ways even the highly reactionary Congress of Vienna were reluctant to completely, or even majorly, undo. the word "Empire" has certain connotations to it, by definition, that Haiti just never actually accomplished.

The Napoleonic wars happens from 1803 to 1815, 12 years of a Continental-French-Empire. The conquest of Dominician Republic was in 1792 and they just achieve the independence in 1849, that means the Haiti hold it for 57 years long, almost 5 times longer than the Napoleonic-Empire.

The independence of Haiti also redraw the system of laws of the West civilization, because the Petión's Republic of South Haiti aid the Latin American's war of independence and he just ask for the end of slavery. So, if we don't have more slavery in Americas we need to be glad to the first (and only) sucessfull slave revolt in the world.

Haiti fulfill every single definition of Empire, maybe wasn't the largest empire on earth, but it fulfill everthyng a small empire need to have to be called as empire, have importance in global history, had 3 emperors (and a Vice-Roys and some Presidents who also was really bad-ass), they conquer other nations, they build monuments and also have a lot of stuffs uniques in their history, as being the only empire of caribe, the only black empire of America, the first black republic of the world, the first nation to speak about equality of the human race and survive untill today, maybe not so prosperous after 1849, but still there, still having their freedom, their culture, their own language, their own religion.

Maybe we don't think that much about the Haitian importance to the Western civilization because we don't like to recognize the african importance in our life, we need to remember the equals right was something really new in US-society, it's started in the years 60's, the Apartheid finished in 90's. But, if we search african history with the hearth open we will recognize they are more important to our own history than we acctualy thought before.

 

[Patine]

The Napoleonic wars happens from 1803 to 1815, 12 years of a Continental-French-Empire. The conquest of Dominician Republic was in 1792 and they just achieve the independence in 1849, that means the Haiti hold it for 57 years long, almost 5 times longer than the Napoleonic-Empire.

The independence of Haiti also redraw the system of laws of the West civilization, because the Petión's Republic of South Haiti aid the Latin American's war of independence and he just ask for the end of slavery. So, if we don't have more slavery in Americas we need to be glad to the first (and only) sucessfull slave revolt in the world.

Haiti fulfill every single definition of Empire, maybe wasn't the largest empire on earth, but it fulfill everthyng a small empire need to have to be called as empire, have importance in global history, had 3 emperors (and a Vice-Roys and some Presidents who also was really bad-ass), they conquer other nations, they build monuments and also have a lot of stuffs uniques in their history, as being the only empire of caribe, the only black empire of America, the first black republic of the world, the first nation to speak about equality of the human race and survive untill today, maybe not so prosperous after 1849, but still there, still having their freedom, their culture, their own language, their own religion.

Maybe we don't think that much about the Haitian importance to the Western civilization because we don't like to recognize the african importance in our life, we need to remember the equals right was something really new in US-society, it's started in the years 60's, the Apartheid finished in 90's. But, if we search african history with the hearth open we will recognize they are more important to our own history than we acctualy thought before.

You still do not grasp the connotations of the word "Empire." By the standards of the pre-Columbian Taino, that would be an awe-inspiring "Empire," yes. But, by the standards of the growingly global community of the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries, the word "Empire" would be hard to apply with any significant credence. An "Empire," even if short-lived, implies scope, reach, large-scale power, and multiple conquests, and usually acknowledgement of such, even if tacitly or grudgingly, by outside factors, not just internal self-declaration.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The Napoleonic wars happens from 1803 to 1815, 12 years of a Continental-French-Empire. The conquest of Dominician Republic was in 1792 and they just achieve the independence in 1849, that means the Haiti hold it for 57 years long, almost 5 times longer than the Napoleonic-Empire.

The independence of Haiti also redraw the system of laws of the West civilization, because the Petión's Republic of South Haiti aid the Latin American's war of independence and he just ask for the end of slavery. So, if we don't have more slavery in Americas we need to be glad to the first (and only) sucessfull slave revolt in the world.

Haiti fulfill every single definition of Empire, maybe wasn't the largest empire on earth, but it fulfill everthyng a small empire need to have to be called as empire, have importance in global history, had 3 emperors (and a Vice-Roys and some Presidents who also was really bad-ass), they conquer other nations, they build monuments and also have a lot of stuffs uniques in their history, as being the only empire of caribe, the only black empire of America, the first black republic of the world, the first nation to speak about equality of the human race and survive untill today, maybe not so prosperous after 1849, but still there, still having their freedom, their culture, their own language, their own religion.

Maybe we don't think that much about the Haitian importance to the Western civilization because we don't like to recognize the african importance in our life, we need to remember the equals right was something really new in US-society, it's started in the years 60's, the Apartheid finished in 90's. But, if we search african history with the hearth open we will recognize they are more important to our own history than we acctualy thought before.

I have slowly come around to Haiti as being a solid addition to the Civ roster, if indeed three of the predominant design goals of VI are:

1. Fill out TSL geography as best as possible (where the Caribbean is a pretty huge gap in the Western hemisphere).
2. Focus on cultural diversity (where African influence in the Americas is exceptionally strong and deserves some representation).
3. Limit roster to empires (Haiti is still technically an Empire).

Another thing I like about choosing Haiti specifically is that, even moreso than Venice, it futher blurs the line between "empire" and "kingdom" such that, perhaps, we might eventually get some highly requested civs in VI which don't qualify as empires. It gives hope for weird ideas like Switzerland, Ireland, or Finland.

However, it may not happen at all. If expansion pack 3 is the last we see of new civs, and it again only has 8 civs (instead of say a blowout ten or twelve civs), then I am pretty sure the devs will not put the Maya and a Caribbean civ in the same expack, especially since it seems quite likely we will get a U.S. native tribe as our second American civ. So Haiti is facing some stiff competition at this point. But I have generally been of the opinion that the Maya do not need to be released in an expack because they would sell amazingly as small DLC, so if the Maya are saved for later then...Haiti stands a fairly decent chance.

I really hope we get DLC civs. I think they could eek a few more out after expack 3.

 

[Henri Christophe]

You still do not grasp the connotations of the word "Empire." By the standards of the pre-Columbian Taino, that would be an awe-inspiring "Empire," yes. But, by the standards of the growingly global community of the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries, the word "Empire" would be hard to apply with any significant credence. An "Empire," even if short-lived, implies scope, reach, large-scale power, and multiple conquests, and usually acknowledgement of such, even if tacitly or grudgingly, by outside factors, not just internal self-declaration.

Empire have just one definition, one kingdom who conquer another nation, and by the principal standard the Haiti is an Empire, as I said, a small empire, but an empire. It can be "Short-lived" but is also lived 5times longer than Napoleonic empires who you recognized as a "real empire" and have a global scope to humanity society, because just of them we can talk today about equality of human races. And about self-declaration, why is Brazil an empire? Their just are an empire for auto-declaration and nothing more. (Side note, I'm Brazilian).

About the Tainos, I would love have a Taino civilization, but they aren't an Empire at all, they never been united as a single kingdom and don't fulfill the only thing needed to be an empire, they never conquer another nation.

More about the definition of empire, the word is strongly linked with the Rome empire, so the europeans kingdoms proclame they self as emperor, or not. But when we talked about societies not linked with Roma, as China or the Zulu, how can we say they are empire or not? I read in the book of Unesco "General History of Africa" when they try say if some civilizations was kingdoms or empires and, by Unesco, the only defination to be an empire is conquer another nation, now we need to discuss what are nations to try say Haiti isn't an empire

 

[Patine]

Empire have just one definition, one kingdom who conquer another nation, and by the principal standard the Haiti is an Empire, as I said, a small empire, but an empire. It can be "Short-lived" but is also lived 5times longer than Napoleonic empires who you recognized as a "real empire" and have a global scope to humanity society, because just of them we can talk today about equality of human races. And about self-declaration, why is Brazil an empire? Their just are an empire for auto-declaration and nothing more. (Side note, I'm Brazilian).

About the Tainos, I would love have a Taino civilization, but they aren't an Empire at all, they never been united as a single kingdom and don't fulfill the only thing needed to be an empire, they never conquer another nation.

More about the definition of empire, the word is strongly linked with the Rome empire, so the europeans kingdoms proclame they self as emperor, or not. But when we talked about societies not linked with Roma, as China or the Zulu, how we can say they are empire or not, I read in the book of Unesco "General History of Africa" when they try say if some civilizations was kingdoms or empires and, by Unesco, the only defination to be an empire is conquer another nation, now we need to discuss what are nations to try say Haiti isn't an empire

Okay, I'm trying to explain this reasonably and based on historical and political labelling, but you seem to be stuck on bizarre ideas that would make almost every country in history an "Empire," but claiming Haiti is singularly more worthy of the label because a self-deluded populist leader declared a grandiose and out-of-proportion title for himself. And, as for Brazil, Pedro I just wanted to one-up his father, and later sister, in Portugal in titleage to rally the Brazilians who supported his secession from Lisbon.