no I don’t think I want Mississippians and medieval Lakota or Seminoles well… not just yet even if everyone from Florida once their done doing things or having things done to/by gators can go “Hey I’ve seen road signs for that casino and hard rock cafe!”
Why not? We have civis with tribe names for leaders and waterfalls for wonders.
3 Likes
It’s not a matter of never it’s a matter of working our way up through Mexico so every enemy that isn’t a Frank or Briton isn’t also just an Aztec hence the word YET. If we have Chichemecs and Caribs and Caddo empire of Texas it’s a lot more interesting than if every Seminole enemy was just Aztecs or Mayans
Along the same lines, China is huge. We got 3 more Chinese civs and a Chinese campaign whose reception was quite mixed if not outright negative. Had they added Tanguts and Tibetans i.e. lower population and GDP, the reception would have been completely different; more on the positive side.
What is this argument about, even?
Choose a region, add civs that fit region.
There’s like 20 Turkic civs you can carve out, probably more, and while I’m sure everyone would go ballistic if something like that happened with multiple DLCs in a row adding more Turkic groups, it is possible to do that, my dudes. Which is why it’s hard to imagine they’ll go to Balkans next rather than another continent.
Priorities sorta serve as an argument, but the only thing that we should really be against is stuff like 3K.
Yes, that sounds good…
Yes, anyway, it’s not bad, since the Varangian Guard was present throughout Scandinavia before finally settling in Constantinople court…
They did it for AoE 3 for a reason (I’m not complaining, since I can use it in the campaigns)…
They were Mississippians, on the great plains where the Lakota now live; in the Middle Ages, the Puebloans lived…
But not for the Chinese government…
Yes, in fact we already have 3 Turkish civilizations (the Turks themselves, the Cumans and the Tatars)…
I think I would at most give it to Varangians+Byzantines+Slavs (or Rus, if the Slavs are ever renamed or further split).
Were the Mississippians as united as the Chinese into a unified peoples or is this more of that “you mass quote everyone and pretend to say something valuable while glossing over everything?”
No I don’t think the different Natives would like to be lumped together into one civ
More or less…the Lakota and Seminole peoples before the 17th century belonged to the Mississippian culture, which fragmented after the arrival of Europeans in America (16th century)…the Lakota began to move west in the 17th century, adopting the horse, while the Seminole settled in Florida, first under Spanish and then American control, until they too were displaced west in the early 19th century to various reservations on the other side of the Mississippi…
The Chinese government is authoritarian but it isn’t a parody. They don’t seem to censor games with playable Tibet in medieval or early modern context, such as Europa Universalis.
The Mississippian civilization was more of a shared cultural sphere than one polity, with people speaking at least five unrelated language families (plus a number of isolates). To grossly oversimplify:
- Muskogean (South Appalachian Mississippian sphere and MAYBE distantly related to the Plaquemine isolates like the Natchez)
- Siouan (most of the Middle Mississippian sphere, including the famous Cahokia, and Forth Ancient before the arrival of the Algonquians)
- Caddoan (Caddoan Mississippian)
- Iroquoian (Monongahela culture and the Cherokee)
- Algonquian (arrived from the north around the final centuries of the Mississippian period)
Then there are the Calusa, speakers of a language isolate that can’t be reasonably umbrella-ed with anyone from the above list but still had a very interesting civilization.
No I don’t think the different Natives would like to be lumped together into one civ
Yeah, this is also what killed the Puebloans planned for Civilization 5. The tribal authorities consulted insisted that they should be represented as separate nations, not as one umbrella.
At least the Puebloans appear in Civ 7…
Ngl yes I am an American that wants Mississippians mainly because they represent my corner of the world lol
I still think a Mississippians, Thule/Inuit, and Algonquin/Iroquois DLC has merit. But i’ll concede i’m biased.
My word YET is doing all the lifting. Work the way up the Mexican coast so every enemy of all the different peoples that could be Mississippi have more peoples to interact with
Like before that the northern most Mexican tribe so the French and Wnglish colonies aren’t awkwardly attacking with axes and longbows when that’s likely not the weapons settlers had when they arrived in the late 1500s
Oh, sorry I missed the “yet” ngl lol
That makes sense
The Chinese government does not care about Medieval Tibet. There are other games that include them and Beijing has not reacted. They care about the modern era.
2 Likes
Ah, so I have no idea why they don’t include them… I thought it was to avoid upsetting the Chinese government and having them ban the game…
It was to avoid upsetting Chinese government. Microsoft lawyers are simply overly cautious, to the point of parody. (Ornlu even mentioned that Slavs weren’t renamed to Rus because of concerns over Russian-Ukrainian conflict – if they knew ANYTHING about the region, they’d know that Ukrainians are proud of the Kyivan Rus and call it as such, Rus≠Russia.)
1 Like
Yes, in fact AoE 4 was released (October 28, 2021) with the Rus in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis immediately prior to the invasion (October 26, 2021-February 24, 2022)…
Is it what the inhabitants called their city in the Middle Ages? I noticed a change from Kiev to Kyiv in English in recent years (not only in AoE, of course), I wonder whether it was also done for historical accuracy.
Though TVS’s German localisation will still use Kiew rather than Kyjiw/Kyiw, according to the Steam page.
In the Middle Ages it was pronounced neither Kyiv or Kiev, more like “Kyjevŭ”: Кꙑевъ - Wiktionary, the free dictionary