Shoshone civilization, leader Pocatello

[Buccaneer]

But in the end, they are simply opponents defined by unique color combinations and attributes. It's when those that attach some sort of "personality" or personalization to the opponents is when all of this nonsense and stupidity begins. I will be very happy when the game is released and the strategies come out - for all of the "civs" - and the ranters about who should be in or not gets marginalized somewhere else.

 

[seancolorado]

EDIT: Not worth getting into it...

 

[KillerClowns]

I think the main question now is whether or not the Shoshone will knock America out of its niche of a wide, land-hungry, scouting-focused civilization. How... oddly karmic. But nonetheless -- a free ring trumps cheaper land buying, +1 vision range doesn't compare to picking ancient ruin bonuses, and are the Minutemen and B-52 really enough to make up for the early gains the Shoshone will get?

 

[Princeofnigeria]

So by the dancing around of my question I assume the answer is "no, they did not have cities/ permanent settlements"?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yet people fall all over themselves for the inclusion of Zulus and the desire to include other insignificant African tribes and then turn around and call Native American tribes bad?!?

I think you are guilty of the same thing you're complaining about others doing by calling them "insignificant African tribes." I'm not a fan of the Zulu, but only because there are better choices in the same area of Africa.

 

[Buccaneer]

I agree, I am not immune to personal biases against inclusions like Zulus or Indonesia. But when release comes, there will be 43 choices to choose from. Don't play the ones you don't like or play the ones you do like to play because they might be interesting to try.

 

[otaman1]

Anyone knows what the capital for the Shoshones will be? I'm guessing Wind River.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Anyone knows what the capital for the Shoshones will be? I'm guessing Wind River.

That makes sense in a way because Washakie chose it for his people (IIRC), but I'm hesitant to give them reservations as cities. It's kind of insulting.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It may be necessary to give a reservation, but I definitely think it's something that shouldn't be the capital itself if avoidable.

 

[otaman1]

Yeah, true. Natives, most likely the Shoshones, will be offended. What about Snake Nation, or Lemhi, or Great Falls, or Camp Fortunate?

 

[EvenStranger]

I think the goal of civilization is to have a wide variety of fun opponents and civilizations to play with. It doesn't matter of X or Y female/"minority" leader is not the absolute best choice because diversity is fun in and of itself.

If there's a political agenda behind it I find that a little ( harmless, though ) but I support diversity in Civ just because it makes the leaderhead gallery more varied.

 

[Justice1337]

He seems to be arguing that people shouldn't care if Native Americans are represented by one culture, and they are hippies for believing this.

Native Americans was the dumbest civ idea ever because we know so many native civs that are vastly different from each other. Justice seems to think this is OK.

A better example to counterpoint him would be if we made a civ called Europeans that had longbows, chateaus and Glory of Rome for its UA.

Instead perhaps, we could also just do an African Civ.
Personally I think he just doesn't know anything about Native civs and feels that we are somehow giving them preferential treatment for wanting more than one representing the continent...despite the fact that most other continents have MULTIPLE civs representing them.

I'm saying that it's unfair to recognize the nominal differences in the culture and powers of state between Native American tribes, under the threat of being called a racist mind you, while not doing the same for other groups depicted in Civ.

A counterpoint that's actually fair would be the very one I used. The Greek civilization. The word "Greece" comes from a latin name for the Greek pinninsula, of course being given by the Romans, who conquered Greece. Sort of like the name "America" was used by the Europeans who conquered America, whatever it was called by the people living there. Properly, the ancient "Greeks" were a collection of ethnic tribes who spoke the same language, while the powers of state were held within individual cities like Sparta and Athens. Their cultures were very different as well. At times when they were threatened by foreign invaders, they confederated very loosely with one another in their military affairs, while retaining individual autonomy. But still during military campaigns, most of the cities remained neutral, and there were many more cases of infighting than national military campaigns. It's more or less like the numerous Native American confederacies that allied against the US, the Iroquois nation being one of those depicted very convincingly in Civ, I might add.

But also in Civ, you have the "Greek" civilization with Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, and its city names are Athents, Sparta, and so forth. Alexander's seat of government was never in Athens. If you'd asked him who he was, he would've said he was a Macedonian. The unification of Greece was never contemplated by the Greeks, and the idea of having their cultures expunged in favor of a unified whole would've been offensive to them. But still, Civ depicts them that exact way.

The reason, of course, is that few people have a distinct appreciation for all of the Greek tribes. If Athens were correctly depicted as distinct in the same way the Shoshone are, the common person would recall their misinformed lay knowledge, maybe mistakenly consult a modern day map, conclude that Athens is just a city in Greece, then ask why the Civ wasn't just called Greece. Understandably, Firaxis would want to avoid this confusion, and just adopt the lay historical pantheon in all its innaccuracies.

So somehow, it's ok to show an insensitivity for the distinct Greek cultures. But if any Northern Native American tribes are included, our sensibilities demand a precocious level of detail about who the leaders were, what powers of state they held, to what degree they considered themselves distinct, what the actual, native names of their settlements were, and so forth.

The idea that it's unfair to have one civ for an entire Continent, then making the comparison to an amalgam of European cultures, is ridiculous. You might as well complain about aboriginal Austrailian tribes not being included, or no people to represent Antarctica. What our geographical classifications are doesn't matter. What we know about different human cultures and the common level of recognition for them does. It makes the game feel smoother.

I tend to have the same response to people who say, why this civ and not that civ, etc. Your civ didn't make it because Firaxis didn't think they were cool enough, get over it. Or, Firaxis thought this depiction would appeal to more players instead. Get over it. But with the Shoshone, I get the feeling that it has to be a certain way despite the fact that the designers may have wanted it different.

Because, how many people have heard of the Shoshone? How many were confused about what this civ actually is and had to go look it up? How many times is this civ's name going to be mispronounced when I'm watching an LP? I don't like all the confusion, and the inclusion of obscure groups that never amounted to over 5000 people is bad design precisely because it will confuse players.

So, I'm certainly not saying that the Greeks should have been included in a form that would've been more palatable to them. That's the kind of unnecessary confusion I don't want. I'm just saying that when accomodations are made for one group and not another, it's the definition of preferential treatment, and it's probably a sign of more serious unfairness going on.

Also, I'm a bit appalled at the idea that Firaxis would feel that it had to go to an incorporated group of people who call themselves Pueblo and ask about how they'd like to be included in their game. Then when they're unable to come to a workable agreement with this incorporated group, and facing the prospect of litigation with them, Firaxis decides not to include the Pueblo. If they're allowed to include the Greeks in whatever form of degisn they think is appealing, they should be allowed to do the same with all the other Civ's.

 

[truenarnian]

Anyone knows what the capital for the Shoshones will be? I'm guessing Wind River.

That would be my guess too. The only other I can think of is Pocatello, which I really hope they don't go with since (as far as I know) was a colonial area named for him, and not names by the Shoshone for him. (You could make the same argument against Nampa I suppose, but I feel that Pocatello is a poor choice because it is the leader they chose for this game, and it just doesn't feel right to me. Which is a bad reason, but it's what I got. =) )

 

[otaman1]

That would be my guess too. The only other I can think of is Pocatello, which I really hope they don't go with since (as far as I know) was a colonial area named for him, and not names by the Shoshone for him. (You could make the same argument against Nampa I suppose, but I feel that Pocatello is a poor choice because it is the leader they chose for this game, and it just doesn't feel right to me. Which is a bad reason, but it's what I got. =) )

True. They shouldve had Washakie as the leader ... or Sacagawea.

 

[ldvhl]

I'm saying that it's unfair to recognize the nominal differences in the culture and powers of state between Native American tribes...

You just discredited everything you continued on to say with this statement.

Also, I'm a bit appalled at the idea that Firaxis would feel that it had to go to an incorporated group of people who call themselves Pueblo and ask about how they'd like to be included in their game.

They didn't.

Then when they're unable to come to a workable agreement with this incorporated group, and facing the prospect of litigation with them, Firaxis decides not to include the Pueblo.

That's not what happened.

If they're allowed to include the Greeks in whatever form of degisn they think is appealing, they should be allowed to do the same with all the other Civ's.

There's quite a bit of difference between how European peoples have interacted with the Greeks and how they've interacted with Native peoples. If you can't see why that's an important point, I doubt it's possible to get the point through to you.

 

[Magean]

The problem with the Pueblos was not their incorporation per se, but the featuring of their only well know leader, Popè, who's an important religious character in that nation.

A bit like if they had decided to put Muhammad as Arabic leader ; or Jesus as the leader of an Aramean civ. Might lead to trouble

 

[otaman1]

The problem with the Pueblos was not their incorporation per se, but the featuring of their only well know leader, Popè, who's an important religious character in that nation.

A bit like if they had decided to put Muhammad as Arabic leader ; or Jesus as the leader of an Aramean civ. Might lead to trouble

Americans might be offended if Mohammed is the leader of Arabia and vice versa. Also, there weren't any controversy when Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were leaders in Civ IV ... or was there?

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Americans might be offended if Mohammed is the leader of Arabia and vice versa. Also, there weren't any controversy when Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were leaders in Civ IV ... or was there?

I had a problem with uncle Joe. Not for the... Questionable acts he commited though. Simply because there are much better picks for Russia.

 

[otaman1]

I had a problem with uncle Joe. Not for the... Questionable acts he commited though. Simply because there are much better picks for Russia.

True. Instead of Catherine, Firaxis couldve chosen Ivan the Terrible. But I guess they chose Catherine for a reason

 

[m15a]

Americans might be offended if Mohammed is the leader of Arabia and vice versa.

yes, Arabs might be offended if Muhammad was the leader of America (or Americans might be offended if Arabia is the leader of Muhammad??).

seriously, though, the issue with Muhammad isn't that Americans (in general) would be offended but that Muslims would be offended, pretty analogous to the Pueblo issue. (well, there would be other issues as well, but that issue is the most relevant.)