Beyond the Sword Fact Sheet

[Robert]

We need more screenshots

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Solver
BtS has a lot more of everything than Warlords

And boy do I like it!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I think Locutus has a point.
The definition of a civilization: an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
Does an American Indian tribe/s qualify as a civ?
For that matter, do the Celts?

The Celts qualify more than generic Native Americans do. The Celts had advanced social structure, artwork and technology. Their only problem is that they didn't develop a written language, preferring their oral traditions. This has somewhat limited our perception of them, especially since much of what we know of them is through Rome's severely biased eyes.

And the Native Americans did have some advanced "civilizations" but unfortunately the oft-depicted Sioux, Iroquois, and Cherokee are not they. I'm referring to the Anasazi/Pueblo cultures and the Adena/Mississippi/Hopewell/Moundbuilder cultures. These groups lived much more anciently than the tribes we are more familiar with and were more culturally and technologically advanced. Unfortunately, the same dilemma is present as with the Celts - no written language. Thus, we know very little about these peoples.

[Virdrago]

I disagree that the Celts qualify more than certain Native American cultures. The Iroquois were important and strong enough that the English and French didn't take their land until after the Americans won independance. If it wasn't for the epidemics when Europeans came, the Iroquois would have been strong enough to keep the Americans at bay and create their own country. They aren't the only ones. Check out this May's National Geographic about the cultures and nations across just the Eastern Seaboard of North America around First Contact. This includes an interesting before and after map from the epidemics. Since they didn't have a written language, as well, all we know about them is from a bit of archeology and from severely biased English, French,and American eyes.

I do agree that the nomads of the Plains may not qualify as much, as they didn't technically "settle". But many Native Americans would qualify as much as the Zulu and Celts do.

[Alexander I]

Well, I never said that the Celts qualified more than "certain" Native American cultures, just that they did more than the stereotypical Native American tribes in general.

And while I appreciate and understand your position on the Iroquois, they were technologically less advanced than the Celts, who were masters of Iron Working, for one. But I never intended to argue Iroquois vs. Celts anyway, that wasn't my point. I should perhaps have clarified more.

I did intend to say that the Moundbuilders were socially and technologically more advanced than the Iroquois though.

And actually, I do think that some Native American tribes qualify much more than the Zulus do. I think the Zulus are the least "Civ" of any in the game. They're just in from precedent, and because they are fun to play.

However, I wouldn't place the Celts in the category with the Zulus. As previously mentioned, the Celts were an Iron Age culture, and the Zulus were still in the Stone Age.

But I guess this isn't the right thread for this discussion. I don't want to threadjack.

[Brutus66]

The cultures of the American Indians, the Celts and Vikings may have been developed to a high degree, but in all honesty they can best be considered not as civilizations but as barbarous societies.
Sir Kenneth Clark, in his multi-part series "Civilisation: A Personal View", said "What is civilisation? I don't know. I can't define it in abstract terms, but I think I can recognize it when I see it."
He went on to make the convincing argument that you won't find evidence of civilization in the ornate carvings of a fearsome viking longboat, but it is self-evident in Hellenic sculpture, the architecture of Roman aqueducts, and the paintings of the Renaissance.
I really don't understand what led Firaxis to include the civilizations it did- I would think for example that civs like the Phoenicians or the Sumerians would have been more logical choices than the Aztecs and Incans.
Kuciwalker's explanation that the included civs are recognizable and enjoyable may be analytically correct but not very satisfying.

[Alexander I]

I'm familiar with Clark's work, and I respect him. However, I feel that his opinions as presented in his documentary are now somewhat biased and antiquated.

Not that I'm not biased myself, of course. We all are.

[Kuciwalker]

I disapprove of "Native Americans" because it's a stupid name. I want to play against the Sioux, etc., not some generic civ.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I disapprove of "Native Americans" because it's a stupid name. I want to play against the Sioux, etc., not some generic civ.

I agree...

[snoopy369]

Too bad there's not an easy way to change that in the XML files

[snoopy369]

Native Americans are worth including, as are the Zulus and the Celts, because it is interesting to have a "civ" from areas other than western europe or southeast asia. They may not meet the most stringent definition of Civ, but many of the native american tribes persisted for a rather long time, had a substantial oral tradition, and some had quite impressive cities (Pueblo, etc.) The fact that some tribes were nomadic, and nearly none had a written tradition, does not take away from the value one can get from playing them.

Not only is that value simply in diversity - and I don't mean the PC, generic diversity, but simply in having different names and different faces on your leaders; but the historical knowledge one can gain from simply seeing the city names and reading the civilopedia help text can be substantial. Add that to the benefit modders get from having a civ that is in a part of the world largely underrepresented (Remember playing as the Americans in Civ1 on an Earth map, anyone?) and you have several great reasons to include a Native American civ, whether it be generic or specific.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Alexander I
Well, I never said that the Celts qualified more than "certain" Native American cultures, just that they did more than the stereotypical Native American tribes in general.

And while I appreciate and understand your position on the Iroquois, they were technologically less advanced than the Celts, who were masters of Iron Working, for one. But I never intended to argue Iroquois vs. Celts anyway, that wasn't my point. I should perhaps have clarified more.

I did intend to say that the Moundbuilders were socially and technologically more advanced than the Iroquois though.

And actually, I do think that some Native American tribes qualify much more than the Zulus do. I think the Zulus are the least "Civ" of any in the game. They're just in from precedent, and because they are fun to play.

However, I wouldn't place the Celts in the category with the Zulus. As previously mentioned, the Celts were an Iron Age culture, and the Zulus were still in the Stone Age.

But I guess this isn't the right thread for this discussion. I don't want to threadjack.

Sorry, I knew what you meant, I just got sidetracked in my reply. I do agree that the Celts did more than the stereotypical Native American tribe.

The Celts lived on a continent in which, originally, you could pick up iron and gold that just lay there, and then people learned how to get to the rest in the rock. North America didn't have that (you have to dig to see it, never mind use it, so no iron working, just like no horseback riding until Europeans). I do agree with you on that, and I believe the Celts do qualify as a civ.

The Mississippians (Mound People), I agree were advanced, but the Iroquois (I would argue) were just as advanced by the time of Europeans. In fact, there's evidence of trade between them. The diseases that destroyed the Mississippian culture, and the horses that were brought, actually facilitated natives becoming nomadic again, including the Sioux. The Cherokee are one of many dispersed tribes that are linked with the Mississippians.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with you at this point. I'd just rather have the Mississippians and Iroquois (as two civs) as opposed to the generic Native American civilization.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Locutus


As much as I hate the name Native Americans, two bullsh*t civs is certainly worse than one of them...

QFT.

Bullsh*t wonders are pretty bad, too, though

[LordShiva]

Re: Beyond the Sword Fact Sheet

Originally posted by Solver
Afterworld - designed by Tim McCracken (who also designed Omens in Warlords), it's a sci-fi scenario where a team of five "Gravebingers" is sent to a planet occupied by human robots who've turned into horrible beasts. The scenario is unlike regular Civ, as it doesn't heave any leaders, cities or technologies.

Interesting.

Hope it's better than the barb scenario, though.

[Virdrago]

Native Americans - led by Sitting Bull (1831 - 1890), a Lakota chief, leader of the Sioux tribes during the Battle of Little Bighorn, later exiled to Canada.

Now, I could be wrong, but the pieces I have read have made no mention of the Native Americans, just a Native American civ . Wouldn't this mean that there is a Native American civ specifically (the Sioux), and not a generic Native American Civ? Or did you accidentally let a rumour slip out as truth, Solver?