Why the Shoshone?

[Wabango]

Let us agree that the Shoshone are going to be implemented, there is considerable evidence to that. and this thread is not a means to debate their inclusion.

However, I find it ludicrous that this was the group of people who were included, the reasons I believe it to be ridiculous is:
(I will have small examples of the Sioux [one of the largest Aboriginal groups in North America] as an example of contrast)

• There are less than 50 000 Shoshone/Comanche on this Earth today. (There are over a million Siouan).
• The Shoshone people are close cousins to the Aztec. (The Siouan are a distinct Aboriginal people).
• All their territory overlaps with the United States of America. (The Siouan have an incredibly slight overlap with United States implemented cities).

And a longer objection: their people were ransacked and butchered for decades, they sadly have no such story as The Sioux where they defending their homeland successfully, if the introduction speech asks a player the question of "Will your civilization stand the test of time?" The reply should be "No".

What do you folks believe on this matter?

 

[Gucumatz]

Wait is someone actually trying to make the case the Sioux were more important the Comanche???

Its a shame that they didn't do Comancheria proper instead of the Shoshone

 

[mitsho]

Because they thought it'd be more fun?

Chosing between the various Native American Tribes will always be more or less random. There's arguments for and against all of them. You must remember that in the end it boils down to what the developers "want" to do. This time, they wanted to do the Pueblo. When they couldn't they went over to the Shoshone/Comanche maybe because one designer has ancestors of them, maybe they knew a voice actor and knew from the beginning that it wouldn't be a problem. Maybe they had a unique left over that they wanted to reuse, maybe they wanted to avoid the Sioux since they've been in civ2 and were a bit clichee there, maybe they played darf onto a map of the US, maybe they thought Pocatello was a kickass name? Maybe...

I guess you get my point. Don't overreact over the choice. It's not like they make a ranking of the "most worthy civs" and include them based on that ranking.

PS: Why don't the Sioux not overlap with the USA btw.? Are they all in Canada?
PPS: I do agree though that it is a bit headscratching why they chose to do the Shoshone with a Comanche UU instead of the Comanche with a Shoshone UU. The latter would have made more sense imho, but well, it doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Gucumatz]

And the Siouan =/= the Sioux [There are only about 150k Sioux in this day and largely because they were never the area of much focus]. The Sioux were a complete backwater compared to Comancheria, insignificant relatively in combat, unlike the Comanche who waged war on Mexico, Texas, the US etc.

The Sioux won one battle vs a drunken commander and some people with little appreciation for history think that means they deserve to be in??? The Comanche had the largest territory in the continental US, the most horses, the most successful horse civilization in the US by a mile, etc.

The real bad choice is putting the Comanche under the Shoshone.

*The Siouan language/peoples does not equate the Sioux. There are Siouan speakers here in NC IE, but if you think they have anything remotely to do with the Sioux you are crazy

 

[Tinker]

All of those points are pretty moot, considering it doesn't matter if a civilization still exists, their numbers, their relation to others, or their geographical location. All of those points can be made for many civs already included in the game. It's completely fine if you thought another civilization was more deserving, but there are many civilizations deserving out there, so many that it really for large part comes down to personal (i.e. the devs') preference.

 

[InsanelyApple]

While I'm disappointed the Native American civ wasn't the Cherokee, Mississippian, or Pueblo, I am beyond thrilled the Sioux wasn't the Native American choice.

 

[pilot00]

Let us agree that the Shoshone are going to be implemented, there is considerable evidence to that. and this thread is not a means to debate their inclusion.

However, I find it ludicrous that this was the group of people who were included, the reasons I believe it to be ridiculous is:
(I will have small examples of the Sioux [one of the largest Aboriginal groups in North America] as an example of contrast)

• There are less than 50 000 Shoshone/Comanche on this Earth today. (There are over a million Siouan).
• The Shoshone people are close cousins to the Aztec. (The Siouan are a istinct Aboriginal people).
• All their territory overlaps with the United States of America. (The Siouan have ncredibly slight overlap with United States territory).

And a longer objection: their people were ransacked and butchered for decades, they sadly have no such story as The Sioux where they defending their homeland successfully, if the introduction speech asks a player the question of "Will your civilization stand the test of time?" The reply should be "No".

What do you folks believe on this matter?

Though honestly the native American tribes were never my cup of tea, pretty much what you place as cons are irrelevant (no offense meant I cant express it better) to the game and the civs it currently has. Most of them are not Civilizations to begin with, but political/national entities now or at past time.

Also consider this: Byzantium/The Roman empire and Greece at a time had gone through a phase where they were in territory,language and beliefs one and the same.
Byzantium is in actuality a medieval Greek empire that had been flipped (to use the BNWs terminology) culturally.
Yet for the games purposes Theodora (another big mistake IMHO but completely out the context of this thread) is running a completely distinct CiV from Augustus. And even if we put Greece out of the picture you have the Rome/Byzantium thing.
Not to say anything about Constantinople been the capital of two completely different CiVs at the same game...

Hope I made myself clear. It seems as long as the concept is cool devs throw it in

 

[Glassmage]

who cares more North America civs is good.

 

[MadDjinn]

So let me get this straight:

If someone went and committed genocide against a people/nation, that people/nation doesn't deserve to be in the game?

If cousins can't be in the game, there goes most of Europe and definitely wipes out the US.

territorial overlap.. again see Europe.

Also, wrt the US, the time period for them in the game is actually the 13 original colonies (aside from the bomber), and so there is no actual overlap with them.

 

[KillerClowns]

Not enough options -- the neutral one is going to overwhelm. Should've divided it into weakly approving and weakly disapproving. I fall into the former category.

 

[kingchris20]

I say excellent, I really wanted the Comanche, but if the father tribe Shoshone is the closest I can get, I'll take it all day long!

 

[Gucumatz]

I say excellent, I really wanted the Comanche, but if the father tribe Shoshone is the closest I can get, I'll take it all day long!

I voted neutral for those reasons primarily, I think its silly that its a "Shoshone" civ rather than a Comanche civ, but its I guess not as bad as it could have been [See almost any iteration of the Sioux]

 

[Human Crouton]

You're right. Since they were diseased and shot to death to the point where they don't have significant population by July 9, 2013, they don't deserve to be in a game about human history.

 

[IkM]

I don't like to play as native american civs. sioux or shoshone... both same for me.

 

[InsanelyApple]

I don't like to play as native american civs. sioux or shoshone... both same for me.

Any particular reason?

 

[iwsfutcmd]

• The Shoshone people are close cousins to the Aztec. (The Siouan are a istinct Aboriginal people).
  

While I can't speak for the rest of your post, this part is a bit silly.

While it's true that the Shoshone language is in the same language family as Nahuatl (the Aztec tongue), that family (Uto-Aztecan) is a huge, extremely widely spread language family. Saying the Shoshone shouldn't be included based on this relationship makes about as much sense as saying England shouldn't be included because India is already present and they're both descendants of Proto-Indo-European.

 

[Buccaneer]

Any western American tribe (pick one, it doesnt matter) would be far more interesting than a nothing tribe like the Zulus, yet people put blinders when they feel they have to be included.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I've grown so sick of threads about individual civs with a poll about whether they should be included well after it's too late to change it that I voted Excellent out of protest

 

[pilot00]

Any western American tribe (pick one, it doesnt matter) would be far more interesting than a nothing tribe like the Zulus, yet people put blinders when they feel they have to be included.

Why are they a nothing tribe if I might ask?

 

[Inhalaattori]

There are over a million Siouan

I dont think this is true. I think there are not more than 200.000. Where did you get those numbers?