[BtS Mod] WOLFSHANZE MOD (Industrial Age & Naval)

[Wolfshanze]

First of all... yes... v2.86 is still alive... just still with the same hang-up (I'm still [slowly] testing MG AI before I start finalizing v2.86).

Actually, if you guys want Saddam, I can probably do that too, but if I were to add Saddam, I doubt it would be for either Persia (Iran) or Arabia (as-in Saudi or Syrian)... Saddam would probably come from a place called "Baghdad" which would fall squarely in Ancient Sumeria or Babylon (both of which lie in nearly identical locations... stupid... stupid, but it is what it is).

[tomppb]

I had not even thought of babylon, but that would be cool too. Glad to hear 2.86 is on the way

[wodan11]

Originally posted by ladiesman
I'm also still on the native america thing......I don't want to open the whole can of worms, I know you won't change the name. But I was playing as them recently and noticed that their cities have horrible names. How do you feel about naming the cities after different tribes.....which even keeps it a bit more realistic in some ways. Since the native americans were nomadoic, the cities would more represent the tribes themselves, and the buildings/wonder the accomplishments of that tribe in their area? I know some of the barbarians have native american names but that can't be that hard to modify. It's a stupid, minor thing but the small touches can sometimes make the game.

A lot of them are Barb city names. So, they'd probably have to be removed from the Barb city list.

[Wolfshanze]

Originally posted by wodan11


A lot of them are Barb city names. So, they'd probably have to be removed from the Barb city list.

I can work on that too... change city names to tribes (edit Barbarians as well).

[Ekmek]

Is 2.86 going to use modular civs or are you just doing minor tweaks (like updating leaderheads, etc)?

[The Capo]

On the topic of the Native American civs. In the mod I made I replaced the Native Americans with the Sioux and Iroquois. I figured since they were both former Civilizations in the Civ series this would be the best way to handle the issue. I have falvored units, city names, and UUs/UBs for them. So if you want to go that route I could probably get that information to you.

[tomppb]

Will motorized infantry be in 2.86?

[Wolfshanze]

Originally posted by The Capo
On the topic of the Native American civs. In the mod I made I replaced the Native Americans with the Sioux and Iroquois.

I'm still trying to figure-out why the Sioux and Iroquois are the only tribes worthy of being singled-out while the Cherokees, Apaches, Comanches, Navajo, Pueblo, Seminoles, Algonkians, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Crow, Dakota, Hopi, Huron, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Lakota, Mingo, Mohawk, Mohican, Mojave, Nambe, Nantucket, Ottawa, Pawnee, Pequot, Shawnee, Spokane, Tonkawa, Wampano, Yuma and about 300 other native tribes aren't worthy of being singled-out. Smacks of incredible insensibility and non political correctness if you ask me, and why is it always those two that get singled out? The Mohicans or Navajo or Comanches or Apache or Cherokee nations aren't anymore deserving? I sometimes think people have only ever heard of the Sioux and Iroquois, because I've never seen any two other tribes singled-out... a shame too... would tick a lot of Seminoles off at the least.

No thanks Capo... I have other plans.

[ladiesman]

Originally posted by Wolfshanze

I'm still trying to figure-out why the Sioux and Iroquois are the only tribes worthy of being singled-out while the Cherokees, Apaches, Comanches, Navajo, Pueblo, Seminoles, Algonkians, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Choctaw, Creek, Crow, Dakota, Hopi, Huron, Kickapoo, Lakota, Mingo, Mohawk, Mohican, Mojave, Nambe, Nantucket, Ottawa, Shawnee, Spokane, Tonkawa, Wampano, Yuma and about 300 other native tribes aren't worthy of being singled-out. Smacks of incredible insensibility and non political correctness if you ask me, and why is it always those two that get singled out? The Mohicans or Navajo or Comanches or Apache or Cherokee nations aren't anymore deserving? I sometimes think people have only ever heard of the Sioux and Iroquois, because I've never seen any two other tribes singled-out... a shame too... would tick a lot of Seminoles off at the least.

No thanks Capo... I have other plans.

haha.....oh well I guess it came back.

Wolf....the reason why people pick the Sioux and Iroquois....beyond just the fact that they had been in previous civ games.....is that they were the two tribes who created something alittle larger. They both created alliances and unions with other tribes to create something more like a civilization than the other. You could possibly put the Cherokee into that group as well for just being large and advanced.

There IS some historical reasoning beyond those two groups...it's not just two random tribes.

On a personal level, I still just think "Native America" sounds absolutely terrible as a country name. I don't really care what else it's called, I just wish it was......something else.

But this is obviously a pointless battle....and one not really worth fighting anyway. I am happy your considering the city names though....

Is 2.86 going to use modular civs or are you just doing minor tweaks (like updating leaderheads, etc)?

At the risk of sounding like Wolf's PR person, I don't think he's going to go the route of modular civs. AFAIK, 2.86 is going to have some tweaked AI for the use of machine guns, motorized infantry (hopefully...), some more leaderheads, and possibly some tech tree tweaks.

Speaking of tech tree tweaks........wolf I finally played through a game in 2.85 all the way. I *LOVE* the gunpowder tweaks. Normally in my games I'd run right through Muskets, have Rifles for a short time only, and then have Infantry (and completely skip Grenadiers). Now I had ample play time with Muskets, I had to get Grens but they vanished fairly quickly, and I used rifles for a very long time.

[Wolfshanze]

Originally posted by ladiesman


haha.....oh well I guess it came back.

Wolf....the reason why people pick the Sioux and Iroquois....beyond just the fact that they had been in previous civ games.....is that they were the two tribes who created something alittle larger. They both created alliances and unions with other tribes to create something more like a civilization than the other. You could possibly put the Cherokee into that group as well for just being large and advanced.

There IS some historical reasoning beyond those two groups...it's not just two random tribes.

I vehemently disagree that the Sioux and Iroquois have an extensive or exclusive tag to "most advanced/civilized" native tribes in America label. I don't think either is all that and a bag of chips compared to many other tribes in America. Pueblo and Cherokee nations were just as advanced and organized or better then either of the "we can only acknowledge these two" tribes... there are certainly other tribes that were also far more dangerous... there's so many factors that I could go on and on and on, it's simply a travesty to say only the Sioux and Iroquois deserve recognition at the cost of over 300 other tribes... insulting frankly IMHO... completely insulting to single them out and ignore the others... it's like saying only France and Germany are deserving civs in Europe and all other European civs should be ignored (then repeating that only France and Germany are deserving... nobody ever picks any other two).

It's to the point of ridiculous that they are the only two mentioned, and no... I don't think it's because like some excuse that they are the only deserving, I honestly think it's because they were the only two in previous Civ games... I think if the Apache and Huron were the only two in previous Civ games, you'd all be on the Apache/Huron bandwagon... seriously.

[ladiesman]

Even still then, name them Cherokee or whatever. I don't really care WHAT the civs name is. I just something better than "Native America" If I knew a general name native americans used to describe themselves, i'd say use that.

EDIT -

Although I do think you dismiss the importance of the two tribes too quickly. The Great Sioux Nation and the Iroquois Confederacy were (arguably, I guess) the two best attempts at a unified native american nation. Both tribes are representative of many other tribes and especially in the case of the Iroqouis, actively tried to assimilate other tribes into the whole. The Cherokee Nation is/was also a large, well developed tribe but i'd generally leave them off only because they were largely limited to their own tribe. They had a large tribe, which became very civilized and IIRC remains the largest tribe today......but they're all Cherokee.

I do agree that most here will argue for Sioux and Iroquois for their relevance to the Civ series........but I think hand in hand, the reason they were chosen for the Civ series was their historical importance.

[Wolfshanze]

If I knew a general name native americans used to describe themselves, i'd say use that.

Done... "Native Americans" it is.

Pretty much the same as saying "Europeans" if you wanted to lump all the European civs together without picking out one or two (like Germany and France and ignoring all other European nations).

[ladiesman]

Originally posted by Wolfshanze

Done... "Native Americans" it is.

Fail. Native Americans do not refer to their social/political groups as "Native America"

....

[Wolfshanze]

Originally posted by ladiesman
Fail. Native Americans do not refer to their social/political groups as "Native America"....

Funny... I lived in Oklahoma for many years... you know... "Indian Territory"... I knew a lot of native americans... been on several reservations... they called themselves native americans.

Give me a break... it's like saying black people don't call themselves "blacks" or "African Americans". Just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it's not used on a wide scale by many including the native tribes themselves.

You need to let it go... I actually went to reservations and they had no problem calling themselves native americans... you need to just accept how it is.

I'm not changing it to insult several hundred tribes just to name one or two because some people have a problem using the term "Native American" which is a perfectly legit term.

[Dale]

How about Anishinaabe.

That covers most of the tribes in north-eastern and north-central North America.