Why no Native America civilization?

In Rhye's and Fall of Civilization how come there is no Native American civilization? They played a large role in history like the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans and it feels like something is missing when they are absent in RFC. Yes in RFC there are native american barbarians in North America that could count as the regular native americans but Native America is a civilization that could be played in Civ 4 and could have easily been put into RFC. Would be nice if they were in RFC.

 

Native America wasn't a civilization, there was never a nation called Native America. Also there are already enough civs in RFC.

 

There are also several fantastic city sites in NA that would make them an extra powerful civ.

 

Not to mention that the game represents them well enough already. Besides, how were you planning on implementing them on the game? They never had definite settlements or cities like Paris or Rome, just camps. That's one reason why they were able to bring about surprise attacks time after time on the American settlers.

They've been perfectly implemented on the game as they are, although at times it does them no justice. (Barbarian indians?) However, this was how they were viewed back then and I see no reason why they should be added in to the mod any other way, since they work perfectly now, in terms of gameplay.

And like Hitti-Litti said, what would you call them? There's always Sioux, but there were several other indians than just them. "The Sioux Tribes"? Sounds good, but again, they were no civilization and America was mostly unimproved upon the arrival of the settlers. I see no reason to change the way the game is now.

 

While I agree that Native Americans shouldn't be a civ in our game, it's wrong to say they were never organized in towns or large settlements. The Iroquios Confederacy in NE America and Canada had villages of a couple of thousand, they planted crops, engaged in trade and diplomacy and had an advanced political system that was admired by America's founding fathers.
Early Spanish explorers came across Cherokee, Creek and Choctaw towns of at least 20,000 in present day Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi which had extensive farms and tradeable surpluses and even their own sewage systems. The fact that such developed cultures didn't last long is mostly due to their lack of immunity to European diseases. Except when they were victims of surprise attacks on their settlements by white settlers and soldiers, of course.
You can't just judge on the Hollywood image of Sioux and Comanche nomads on horseback living in tepees as being the typical way of life can you?

 

Well it would still be fun to play them. I would like to be able to drive off the English, but in this game in order to do that I would have to migrate north as the Mayans or Aztecs to the American colonies site, that is if the English would colonize in that site in a game of RFC.

Do the Barbarians of North America of RFC found any cities like the ones in the old world do?

 

The Native Americans are not a civilization? Neither were the greeks then! The natives didn't "advance" in many of the ways as euro-civ's, and were happy with the earth given to them. They may have been reduced to indigenous people who are oppressed, but it wasn't always like that.
They, as seperate tribes and tribal nations secured north america, until foreigners landed on their soil. Unfortunately for them, the foreigners were way more advanced, but the natives did obtain military victories, and recognized treaties (that were dishonored). If the natives would have secured their borders with Mexico and the mississipi river during the civil war, is it possible the natives would still be around today? i wont debate that here. I will simply say to call the native americans a "non-civilization of minor people" is offensive to me.

Would it? Any stronger than USA? They could be set back in tech, I would be content with them being a "smaller" empire like the aztecs, spawning by the rocky mountains, ending about the Mississippi. Then america spawns.
From this point, there are many possibilities of war and peace in the american continent.

Last and not least, if nothing else, independent cities could spring up a certain year to give america a challenge when it wants to expand.

 

What people are trying to say is that the native americans were never united together and formed a nation. they were all completely different from eachother.

Also rhye didnt want to put them in because NA was made for colonizing, not conquering

 

Em no. The Greeks did exert a lot of influence from Athens. They also had Literature, Drama and Philosophy, i.e. Aesthetic advances which we can't find evidence for in Native American settlements. On those grounds, it is simply stating the truth that there was no Native American civilisation - if you use that word, you may as well speak of "European civilisation" or "West African civilisation" - cultural links at best, but never a common political framework. (Don't tell me about the Roman Empire - I live in a city the Romans never conquered!)

 

also they had a huge empire at one point in their lives. The Native As focused strictly on religion and surviving, while the greeks wanted more than just surviving

 

Personally, I'd love to see the Iroquois represented in-game, but the problem you face is the following:

How do you make playing them fun? Do you keep the game historical, or do you have their civ "rise" early to give them the chance to maybe develop and fend off the europeans? What would their UHV be? What would their civ-specific power be?

If you made the Iroquois pop up too early, they'd end up being advanced enough to frustrate European colonization. But if you pop them too late, no one would want to play them because they'd just get steamrolled.


Much as I'd love to see them in-game, I just don't see a way to do it AND make it fun for both sides -- the europeans and the Iroquois. You could make it fun for one or the other, but not both. Plus, people would complain that it'd be too "alternate history".

 

How about this:
Starting age: 1000 AD (Before the Aztecs) start in stone age and have a hidden -25% research (i.e. +25% research cost!) until they meet the Europeans, so that they won't be super powerful. No conquerors for the Europeans but they will get smallpox.
Spawn area: around Chicago, 2 settlers, 2 dog soldiers, 2 archers, 2 workers. Cities when built have a granary and totem pole.
Starting techs:
Agriculture
Fishing
Pottery
Horseback riding
Hunting
The Wheel
Mysticism
Animal husbandry
Archery

No mining though.

UP of Native Americans: The power of raid: Enemy cities have no defensive bonus (i.e. don't need to bombard walls) and all units (not just horsemen) can retreat.
UHV:
1. No European colonies in NAm (mainland but not islands) in 1850
2. Control America's spawn area by 1900
3. Induce 6 or more civs to adopt environmentalism by 2000

 

That sounds about right, if in theory the mod could take another civ.

I might tweak it - later start date, whatever research modifier (you'd have to test it), Sioux start location, no AH or HBR, the no-bombardment part of your UP, change Totem Pole to give Flanking 1 or Drill 1 to all units, no free Totem Poles but keep them from obsoleting by making Monuments obsolete at Astro or by making Totem Poles replace Libraries.

 

That's actually a pretty good suggestion, AnotherPacifist. If the mod was tweaked to include them, it could actually work with those UP, UHV and starting conditions. It's not too far-fetched, but it would probably put too much pressure on the mod. I like the idea if it would be executed that way, but I'm a little skeptical. What about cultural defences? Would they and the organized natives pose too large of a threat to the conquerors to ever attack them? Would the Euro Civs plot together against them or use them as allies against each other? Would barbarian dog soldiers still keep appearing (yes)? How would this affect the game overall?

Etc.

 

With RFC optimized and all would this make adding civs put less pressure on the mod?

 

i dont think any single answer can make everyone happy.

The Lakotah, Iriquois and Crow were 3 nations of the natives that were legitimate civilizations, and while they didn't do anything that europeans and americans would call "landmarking" for our species, i argue - they have shown in how they continued to live, when faced with all the greed and corruption of euro-imperialism, they held true to what they believed in, and in many regards, many of them still follow their ancestral beliefs as closely as they are permitted to.



I thought about this for UHV's and other details...

Spawn year: 1400, spawn zone: Rocky Mountains. "empire size", from rockies to mississippi river.

UHV: have no foreign culture west of the Mississippi or north of texas in 1860.
UHV2: Lose no cities before 1920.
UHV3: Conquer or Vassalize America. (revenge?)

America however, would need refitted to end their optimal empire at the mississippi. USA / Natives / Aztec would have conflicts, and i would see the game coming down to one of 2 forces living between the natives, and americans. USA would be given as a UHV (instead of control oil?) "Manifest Destiny, ALL land from west coast to east coast."

But this presents its own problems. Should the destiny include hawaii or alaska? could it be achieved if they had to knock out the natives to do it? would "vassalize or conquer Native America" be better?



Not just native america, but i get the same thoughts about the Zulu and the Celts. Celts, would have to spawn in ireland before rome (or in europe?), but there is a "timecrunch" that would make them irrelevant. if they spawned when rome spawns, ireland would be an irrelevant location, but we dont need them to clutter europe. imagine a later game where your france, you just shrug rome off finally, and... "Gaulish states demand independence!"


Zulu... I think they would spawn in the 1500's and be set technologicly behind, but like Native America, what would be their goal other than survival?



I'm glad for what RFC is - i just wish it had the missing civ's, but looking at what i just typed... I long for them so much i can't stand not having them, but i must digress i know no way to put them in without messing things up. Even having indy states properly called "Sumeria" - "Akkad" - "Lakotah" - "Toltecs" - "Iberian". Or indy cities in north USA, south africa and possibly north europe (pre-rome) and ireland to be named - but even then... native cities badly placed would just get razed over anyway, right?
I think there is a reason Rhye stopped replying to these topics.

 

UHV: have no foreign culture west of the Mississippi or north of texas in 1860.

That is impossible. Japan has the sea to protect them, controlling Seoul, they have that UHV satisfied, however, there is no way to guard from American, Aztec and European culture on land.

Rhye stopped responding because it takes couple of hours to add a new civ (at the least). 4 -5 to code the UHV and UP and weeks to balance this monstrosity. Every new civ is way too much work to balance.

 

i would love these missing civ's to be in, but if i can't find a good, balanced means i cant expect someone else to.

 

Just for kicks, according to my university:

Criteria of a Civilization

1. Agricultural economy
2. Centralized states with:
a. urban center (cities)
b. central administrative organization
c. centralized economy
3. Complex social organization
a. social classes
b. occupational specialization
c. organized religion
4. Advanced trade & manufacturing
5. Writing system
6. Monumental architecture

 

1. Agricultural economy

2. Centralized states with:
- a. urban center (cities)
- b. central administrative organization
- c. centralized economy

3. Complex social organization
- a. social classes
- b. occupational specialization
- c. organized religion

4. Advanced trade & manufacturing

5. Writing system

6. Monumental architecture


It's now easier to read and understand. So do the Natives now conclude as an independent civilization?