You’re not the one who lives surrounded by these stereotypes and sees them everywhere.
Make some.
There are resources to rework them. It’s extremely unlikely that the game is going to stop being supported any year soon, not after being made F2P on Steam and the massive boost in sales it just got.
More people are going to show up and play over the next few years. Likely more than leave.
The Native civs have an abysmal play rate and they’re horribly inaccurate.
They are a failure in the two main ways the game measures these civs - play rate and historical “accuracy”.
And I also want to point out two specific things - My knowledge of the Europeans isn’t as great as most on here, but it is still significantly higher than the average person. I am fully aware of how bad the European civs actually are in terms of historical accuracy.
But I also know a lot about these Native civs.
I’m not trying to make the Native civs into a history simulator - I’m trying to make them as accurate to their own history as the European civs are to their history.
Did you, by chance, ever stop to consider that you just don’t know anything the Native civs and that maybe, just maybe, I’m fully aware of how inaccurate the European ones are?
I for one just fail to see how urgent this issue is. Take a look at Custer’s Last Stand, a painting from 1920 by Paxson which depicts a decisive lakota victory.
From the lakota army, we clearly see units that look like the war chief, we see topless rifle riders, we see lancers like the tokala soldiers, we see axe riders. The us soldiers look like a mix of cowboys, snipers and state milita. Generally the game represents units that are close to this century old depiction. That’s pretty neat imo. However we don’t have banner soldiers or trumpet squads that boost morale in this game yet, because the game will always be a compromise between history and gameplay.
This doesn’t explain why Plaza is a stereotype. And, you say this to an Asian?
Regardless of the game, regardless of ethnicity, everyone lives surrounded by stereotypes more or less.
I’ve explained why I don’t think so.
Since you think I don’t get it, don’t you explain why this kind of presenting is magical power coming from stereotypes?
I’ve said everything I need to say, and not only in this thread.
You should be better at English than me, so you should understand.
One of the important points is that no one rejects a more accurate civ, such as the number of likes of the original post on this topic, but you have hurt some people who are willing to support you, just because you have not tolerated their more realistic ideas.
I wouldn’t say there aren’t resources or they definitely won’t be reworked, but if it’s possible to spend 20 to get to 50, people tend not to spend 200 to get to 90 first. This is a very reasonable judgment.
You tend to directly propose big, ideal blueprints, but reject any other more practical means. I would say that if you really want to get close to the ideal, you should do it step by step. Pursue 20 first, and pursue the next 20 if you succeed, instead of wanting 100 at once. So I often mention the proposal for renaming units, because that one is the one of your topics that is actually the most helpful to your wishes.
Says who? Not a caricature and from someone from that time and who was a frontier painter, it’s historical to me, and i wouldn’t blame the defs if it’s historical to them. Show me a historical source that’s more accurate and more realistic. In the meantime, i prefer artistic freedom and the inaccuracies that come along with it over religious political correctness.
I can see an example of a gunstock warclub being used. That wasn’t a weapon used by the Lakota around this era - it was too short to be effective from horseback. Lakota mainline cavalry melee weapons were the lance, the stone club (a short one is actually being used in the painting), the horn club, and the ballhead club. All had variations of a significant length that made them quite useful from horseback.
Every Native in this is wearing a full warbonnet. Unless every single Native present at Greasy Grass was a Chief or Warchief, this is unrealistc. It’s like painting the crew of a ship, except every sailor present wears the symbols that mark them as the ship’s captain.
Expanding on the previous point, no other Akicita are seen present. Where are the Crow Owners, who favored black war horses and weapons and wore stuffed crows around their neck? Where are the Stronghearts and Kitfox, both of whom wore the buffalo horn headdress, the latter of whom wore a foxtail braid? Where are the Bare Lances, with neither feathers nor decorations, here to earn their first feathers and graduate into a more illustrious Akicita? These warriors are purely and entirely depicted as Chieftains, which makes no sense.
The point above is notable as well, as the ones most likely to have killed Custer would have been wearing extremely prominent and clear signage of the Akicita they were apart of - White Cow Bull was a Kitfox, and would have worn the signature buffalo horn headdress of that Akicita. Where is he in this, Custer’s last stand? The one the Cheyenne credit with striking Custer off his horse was Buffalo Calf Road Woman, who would have been in the adornment of her husband, as they were both (most likely) members of the Dog Soldiers, who wear the black feathered warbonnets. They are who the Cheyenne Riders in-game represent.
These are my main critiques of this, but the end point is the same - this is a fictional piece of art. It is beautiful, yes, but absolutely nothing about it is historical to the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho people it represents.
Sorry, I’d rather see the much cooler “political correctness” that comes with the variations of warbonnets Natives have, and the various types of weapons we used instead of lazily giving everyone either an axe or a spear. I’d rather see a wide variety of fun and interesting troop variations given instead of random and ficitonal assortments that are all the same thing over and over again.
Not to mention the fact that the Axe Rider in-game currently wears a sash designed off that of a breast-feeding woman. Would it be OK if my “political correctness” removes this literal breast-feeding sash from him?
That’s a compromise all civs have to endure and nothing that’s exclusive to the warchief civs. Weapons aren’t accurate in this game.
So our game is even more realistic? Isn’t that a positive?
and 4. The author choose not to paint them, and so chose the devs. That’s in line with the multitudes of other military units not present. So what?
Now show me a more accurate native painting of the same battle, that’s both more faithful to the natives as well as the american troops.
There are various types of bows, clubs, rifles, axes, lances, aswell as tomahawks, muskets, shields, and spears american natives use. Out of all indigenous tribes, american one are the best represented and the only playable. Get some perspective.
Yes, exactly. Be grateful your people are in the game and are represented and fully playable, unlike the historically more numerous greeks, austrians, poles, danes, lithuanians, swiss, hungarians, bulgarians etc that aren’t fully playable.
At the same time, you don’t care the Germans don’t have hussars, musketeers, and grenadiers they actually most commonly used, don’t care the Russians don’t have dragoons that all Russian cavalry units except the Cossacks and Ulans belonged to, and don’t care that Uhlans and Cossacks actually use lances instead of sabers.
I do care. I just am not a source of information on those topics and they aren’t something that me, specifically, advocating for would make any change. There are other people that are more knowledgeable on these topics that advocate for these changes, and I listen to and uphold their opinions on these subjects.
“Other civs need work too” is not a valid element. Go make a post about those civs, don’t choke this one up with complaints about it. This post isn’t asking for a time prioritization.
I want to address this specifically because I don’t think you understood what I was talking about with this statement
This is the core of the issue; The duties of the Akicita had very little to do with war. The Stronghearts were expected to act as psychologists to an extent, where they would focus their knowledge on how to hold a steady mind and body. They would teach children these basic concepts and help those afflicted by PTSD to heal.
The Kitfox (Tokhala) were expected to be volunteers around the camp and scatter into the duties of other Akicita, to help shore up whatever was in need of help at that moment, whether that be camp construction, assisting those who couldn’t hunt for themselves, or even just hanging out with the elderly to give them companionship.
The Crow Owners were expected to be the hardiest in cold weather, and their duties spiked during the winter when they were expected to do the scouting for winter camps and for cold hunting. I suspect part of why they favored black is because it would help keep them warm during these duties.
The White Marked and Silent Eaters, considered the oldest of the warriors and the most respected, would often be used as “judges” for any court that might be held. Their judgment would be seen as the best advice towards aspects such as this and their highest members would often advise the Council itself, if they were not a part of the Council themselves.
All Akicita were expected to be on-call for emergency services, whether that be for a funeral, a fire, or a medical emergency. They would carry out the judgment of the White Marked and Silent Eaters’ judgment in court cases, when necessary.
The On-Call Akicita (the one that was currently the “lead” Akicita) would also have additional duties, such as being camp police, the primary hunters for the camp, and to be used as messengers between camps, when necessary.
All of these were the duties of the Akicita, and being a warrior was only an afterthought to most of the Akicita. Until there was no choice but war, the Akicita had more important things to attend to.
Technically, the Akicita should be doing the duties of the villagers - not because the “average villager” didn’t exist, but because the vast majority of the populace would have been in an Akicita at any given moment, whether man or woman.
And sorry for just getting back to you on this, I went to bed after my last message and didn’t read all of the ones that were there when I went to bed.
But tell me - Are these duties comparable to that of the Landsknecht or the Samurai?
You’re clearly a pretty sh*tty excuse of a person, but lemme play your game:
Imagine the Danes finally get into the game, and you’re excited about that. Now imagine this… the Danes get:
Pikeman
Crossbow
Musketeer
Skirmisher
Hussar
Cavalry Archer
Falconet
Horse Gun
Culverin
Heavy Cannon
And their Royal Guard units are their Cavalry Archer (Tatar Loyalists) and Skirmishers (Needle Gunners).
Would that feel accurate to the Danes? Would it feel like there was any thought or care put into the Danes if this was their unit roster and Royal Guard units?
Are you sure your people are more important than the golds? The buryats? The komi? The samoeds? Do you really care about native representation in this game, or are you simply a blind chauvinist that cares only for your tribe?
The Lakota (like many other civilisations in the past and present) seem like they didn’t have full time soldiers.
Professional armies with people living their whole life as a soldier are kind of the exception in human history but Age of Empires portraits basically all units as such since the first game in the series.
A Clubman in Stone Age of Age of Empires does nothing other then fighting the same way a professional soldier in uniform does in AoE3.
Landsknechts and Samurai are also very different to each other.
Landsknechts are professional soldiers/mercenaries that are full time warriors.
Samuari are more like knights. They have a lot of duties in the society and also fill the roles of government official.
The game 0AD has an interesting concept. Almost all soldiers can collect resources. So all your military units are also villagers.
This represents the way that most ancient (and also later Medieval) societies handled their armies.
Standing armies are a rare thing.
WOW! This is the most passionate and contentious thread I’ve seen in this forum in a long time. I think this debate is more intense than the recurrent threads about Germans, Austrians and Prussians. Many great posts in this thread and I haven’t read all of them. Great debate everybody! Thank you.
I have a question for AnaWinters: Where does the term “Tortuamerica” come from? I’ve googled it and the only results I got are from your posts here in this forum.
It’s hard to say because the Akicita did have specific duties they were supposed to fulfill in combat. The Crow Owners were the vanguard and the rear guard, the Stronghearts tended to focus on supporting other Akicita, the Warpath Badgers were unusually fierce. I’d call them close to a Native berserker type fighter.
It’s like they were full-time professional soldiers, but their job training entailed a philosophical approach towards being a soldier more than just training all the time, yet they were still expected to be capable warriors with the basic weapons I’ve outlined before - the bow, the lance, the club, and the knife. Later, the gun would be added to this.
It’s hard to portray in a game, especially when a solid 80-90% of the population would have been part of an Akicita. It’s worth noting that not all Akicita were warriors, either - there were societies of craftspeople who never saw a battlefield. They were equal to the Akicita and could bear the name, but they were ineligible for the higher Akicita duties, like being camp police or leading the warparty.
Literally just me. I was struggling to find a name for Native Americans in North America that weren’t part of Mesoamerica - there’s a massive cultural divide around the Rio Grande that splits the continent into two, similar to the way the Ural Mountains do in Eurasia.
“Tortuamerica” was what I settled on, given the name “Turtle Island” that a great many Natives from this region call the continent.
I take this stance towards other nations. I advocate for and specifically for Native Americans because that is what I know. There’s people more knowledgable than me in the other topics here, and I occasionally pop in to voice an opinion here and there, but I ultimately leave it up to those who know better than me.
But I am well aware that I am the best source of information on the Lakota on this forum. Given that it’s also my living culture that I experience on a daily basis, it’s a point of personal pride to be able to see my people in a video game. I want nothing more than to see them done well, because - as someone phrased it much better than me previously -
-and there is no reason that this shouldn’t be fixed. It’ll take a lot more than some simple renaming to properly fix the representation, and I’m deeply unsatisfied with the original changes made…
…but a baby step forward is still momentum forward. No, I’m not going to celebrate the devs for doing the absolute bare minimum, but it’s proof they’re willing to look forward and work towards bigger change.
