Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by sela1s1son, Jul 24, 2007.
If it gets captured by an opponent and you reclaim it, does it become Frijoles Refritos Canyon?
Who cares what names they are.
The name "Poverty Point" came from the plantation which once surrounded the Louisiana site.
You should be worried about level 3 garrisoned archers and Dog Soldiers. The Dogs are attack 4, but 100% to melee. Not to mention they only require bronze working, but no bronze to make. These guys are nuts.
Cahokia. It was most likely the largest city in North America until Philadelphia in the late 18th century.
I've only run into the Native Americans once. Sitting Bull (you hardly ever see civ names, just the leader, which is why I think it doesn't really matter what they called them) seemed eager to explore: proving the world is round with just a workboat. Other than that he hasn't really done anything in that particular game, besides getting his ass kicked by the Incas and the Greek.
I liked him though. He wasn't in my religious block, so I didn't do much with him, but he seemed like he wanted to trade and stuff. Not like Toku.
I liked the city names better than those Khmer ones. Those are even weirder than the Khmer leader's name and face combined!
No, I'm a history and political science double major! I'm just taking Ethics for fun/to raise my GPA
Hmm, we'll have to see. Best Buy in Dubuque said they have it, running over now! I also should get a pay check today! w00t
Ethics for fun???
Is that ethical?
Poverty Point isn't just the name of the archeological site, it's the name applied the entire civilzation of the lower Mississippi river of that time. I studied it a bit a long long time ago. There's a lot we don't know about the Poverty Point peoples, but they represent a big jump towards what most people would call 'civilization'. This link has some info on them.
"Few people realize that the Poverty Point site, at 1500 B.C., was the commercial and governmental center of its day. In its time, the Poverty Point site had the largest, most elaborate earthworks anywhere in the western hemisphere."
I'm not sure why the name offends you, it sounds dignified to me, but then I've actually studied it some.
There is no surviving "native" name for these peoples. Poverty Point represents the oldest cultural and governmental center in what is now the United States. Why is that not worthy of being the capital of the Native American civilzation?
I just finished by first game as Sitting Bull.
I conquered the Byzantines, and founded a few religions.
I found it amusing that when I created a colony, it turned out to be FDR's America.
I probably won't edit them now, I'm liking them.
I'm quite content with the NA city names. Many are from the many mound/pueblo builders of North America, as well as a few of the Iroquois tribes. I know the NA civ got a lot of slack from posters as being unworthy of a place in civ, but these city names show that pre-Columbus, there were thriving cities all over North America.
I've also studied a fair bit about this from an Anthropological perspective, and I wholly concede that the names are genuine names given to the peoples and places thanks to a lack of surviving authentic names.
My problem with it is that some are in native languages and some are in English and these only have an academic relation to the subject, not an authentic one.
I'd rather use known indigenous place names, even if they were slightly less appropriate (i.e. settlements rather than cities)..... which is what I intend to do by modding my game. There are plenty of Sioux settlement names, Tatanka Iyotanka was a Lakotan Sioux.... the 2 fit perfectly for me. Far better than assorted names of a wide range of different peoples covering a span of hundreds of years (most of those place names aren't contemporary with each other.... and many of them are thousands of miles apart).
It's an interesting topic and in many ways I can see why Firaxis chose to do it, personally though I find that this choice doesnt fit well with all the other civs in the game.... given that there is a perfectly simple solution, I disagree with their choice to do it this way.
When looking over the new leaders/civs last night, Sitting Bull/Native Americans jumped out at me as a standout civ to play, especially in multiplayer. I fired up a quick game (Prince, great plains, epic) and in the 30-45 minutes I had to play, it looks very promising. So promising in fact, that I'm afraid it will get nerfed in the first patch.
Dog warriors are just like axemen and don't require any resources, so even if you get BW at the same time as your opponent, you can still whip out a decent little stack of dog warriors before they hook up bronze and get their first axeman. I did that in my simple game and wiped out Isabella while she only had warriors and a single archer, then severely damaged 2 other neighbors before they had enough archers stacked up in their cities to make it costly to keep pursuing.
I had to stop playing after that, but the next part of the strategy would be to build totem poles and barracks and start cranking out archers - anyone even thinking about a counter attack would be walking into a bloodbath. Totem poles + barracks = 2 promotions + protective (start with drill and garrison) = level 5 uber archers right off the bat!
I didn't build the pyramids because I wanted to take advantage of the early UU (maybe that's the balance with this civ that will keep it from getting nerfed?), but I think I could still build Great Library and sit back and let my super archers take care of things while I tech away.
Mesa Verde and Casa Grande are real cities? Portuguese name.
Those are Spanish names, aren't they?
Some words have the same meaning in spanish and portuguese and that seems to be the case here: Mesa Verde and Casa Grande have the same meaning in both languages (green table and big house).
All the same, Lake Jackson might be the most ironically named city in the whole game. A bit like if France had a city named Anglophilia.
Yeah when I did advanced start I had 2-3 cities with totem pole and barracks.
Holy... wow.. ouch... yeah... it.... wasn't pretty. Well for the barbs at least!
Then having those promotions all over... for defenders, yeah. I build defenders for my new cities with my old ones... and, I have a strong defense even on the frontier!
Almost forgot one exploit for Native America is Stonehenge. Free totem poles in all your cities.
Think about it. Then go Theocracy and Vassalage? + Barracks?
If you also get Pyramids ---> Police state.
Hoardes of Archers/Longbows/Crossbows with tons of XP from the getgo.
Then be led by Churchil for -25% xp needed?
I wonder if the firaxians sit back and giggle about all the drama and debate they cause with the leaders, civs, and now city names that they include in their *game*.
I composed the Native American city list and as many have pointed out, I went for genuine places that usually represent real, important, sizable and durable settlements, the closest things the Native Americans had to real cities (but at the same time since the Native Americans are supposed to represent all Native American tribes I tried to ensure there was sufficient variety as well: while most names are either mound builder or pueblo sites (as those were the most important ones historically), settlements from tribes as varying as the Canadian Inuit, the Californian Ohlone, Florida's Apalachee and Maine's Abenaki are present).
This often forced me to use European names as the native names of these places are not known to us today. That's unfortunate but there's no perfect solution for this civ anyway, this whole civ is problematic to begin with (although IMO still better than the Sioux who never had ANY cities or anything close to it -- they weren't a civilization by any stretch of the definition, but that's been discussed to death already). IMO it's not much worse than some of the other civs: the Egyptians and Persians have mostly Greek and Arabic names, the Carthaginians and Celts Roman ones, the Aztec and Incan lists have plenty of Spanish names on their lists, etc. Not to mention that many modern civs like the Germans and Russians have their names anglified (Cologne instead of Köln, Moscow instead of Moskva, etc). It of course stands out more with the Native Americans but a lot of civs have names that aren't authentic.
You could argue that native names are more authentic but problem with that is that there are virtually NO sizable and durable Native American settlements if which we know their native name (even many of the 'native' names on my list are the names that modern NA tribes or even modern American historians gave to these sites, not their original names). You'd have to resort to making sh*t up or just using random terms that have no historic significance of any kind, as has been done so often by Firaxis in the past -- but I feel that's got to be the worst solution of all (I've worked hard to remove the leftovers of that from Civ4: I recreated the Zulu and Indian city lists from scratch as well as all the lists in BtS and some of the other ones in Warlords and before). This is a history game, the city lists should be based on real history.
In the end it's a matter of personal preference though. I'm sure plenty of mods for the Native Americans will appear, some to just replace the city names with more authentic-sounding ones or tribe names, some to change the civ to the Sioux or Iroquois and some will simple remove it from the game entirely. I think those are all valid ways of dealing with this issue, everyone will have to decide for themselves what they like best.
Locutus, I thought your city lists were great for the most part. Little things like Mutal instead of Tikal, some of the new Indian cities, etc. I thought your choice of Yasodharapura instead of Angkor for Khmer was kind of questionable. I know that Yasodharapura basically is Angkor, but Angkor is such a more aesthetically pleasing name. I am thinking about modding my game for the first time just to make this change.
Separate names with a comma.