Native American Civ Poll

phaethon16 said:

Question for the Haida fans: what would their play style look like, and who would be their leader and what would be their capital? Actually, if every person could tell me this for their favorite native civ, that would be great.

Click to expand...

Cherokee - John Ross. Culture-Diplomacy

Haida - ???. Culture-Maritime?

Inuit - Apanuugpak. REX-Snow/Tundra

Mississippian - Tuskaloosa. Trade-Maritime

Pueblo - Luis Tupatu. Mountain-Desert

phaethon16 said:

Question for the Haida fans: what would their play style look like, and who would be their leader and what would be their capital? Actually, if every person could tell me this for their favorite native civ, that would be great.

Click to expand...

Here are my ideas for the ones I mentioned:

For the Inuit, I liked this version well enough that I haven't put much thought into what I'd want if I had to think it up from scratch. As long as it's a Civ that opens up unique uses for Snow and Tundra tiles, I'm happy.

Luis Tupatu of the Pueblo
Capital: Chaco Canyon (if an strong 'Anasazi' connection is prefered), Acoma (if not)
Unique Ability: The Place That Always Was — Ancient and Classical Cities generate +1 and +1 for each era after founding. Once Theology is discovered, these early cities add half their total generation to the city's generation so long as they share the same religion as your Capital.
Unique Building: Kiva (Temple) — In addition to the usual +2 , generates +1 for each type of Specialist in the city.
Unique Unit: Koshare (Inquisitor) — While on a City tile, provides +2 and halves foreign religion pressure.

Cofitachequi of the Mississippians
Capital: Cahokia (for general Mississippians), Cofitachequi (for Southeastern Mississippians)
Unique Ability: Southern Death Cult — Whenever a Great Person is expended you gain Tourism equal to ten times the population of your largest or oldest city and one Mississippian Artifact. The Population of that city then decreases by 1/5, rounding down to a minimum of one.
Unique Building: Temple Mound (Temple) — In addition to the usual +2 , generates +1 Tourism and may hold one Artifact.
Unique Unit: Apalachee Archer (Crossbowman) — 20 , Range 2, +20% versus Mounted units, 10.

K'alyaan of the Tlingit
Capital: Sitka
Unique Ability: People of the Tides — Double Luxury Resources provided by Pearls, Crabs, and Whales. Work Boats provide +1 .
Unique Building: Totem Pole (Monument) — In addition to the usual +1 , generates +1 for each unique animal resource worked by the City.
Unique Unit: Yaakw Oarsman (Spearman) — Treated as a Naval unit while embarked and can gain Naval promotions.

Koyah of the Haida
Capital: Ninstints
Unique Ability: Northwest Slave Traders — When an enemy unit is killed, all Cities gain (unit's / # of Cities) . Gain a Worker with every Great General or Great Admiral.
Unique Building: Chiefly Plankhouse (Market) — In addition to the usual effects, multiplies the the city receives from enemy units (haven't decided by how much yet).
Unique Unit: Killer Whale Canoe (Privateer) — Begins with Targeting I.

phaethon16 said:

Question for the Haida fans: what would their play style look like, and who would be their leader and what would be their capital? Actually, if every person could tell me this for their favorite native civ, that would be great.

Click to expand...

Well, I posted an idea in a link. They're known as the Vikings of the Pacific Northwest, but I had them a bit more subtle than that. They're good for food and culture and the occasional naval attack.

Leader: Koyah
Unique Unit: War Canoe (replaces Trireme, better at attacking cities. Get a free worker upon capturing the city).
Unique Building: Totem Pole (replaces Monument, +1 food)
Unique Ability: Potlach (receive culture every time you give a gift to a city-state or agree to a request from a friendly civ).

So the Haida were sort of an aggressive people? I could see that, but I think the devs said they didn't want any aggressive native civs, but maybe that was just for BNW.

The Haida and the Tlingit could both potentially be an aggressive Civ. They're closely allied cultures (and today form the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska), and were active participants in the Northwest slave trade that existed in pre-Contact and early post-Contact times. Since the Haida are slightly more famous for their raids than the Tlingit, I opted to give them that focus as a Civ and give the Tlingit a focus on other resources for trade. Of course, no culture is that one-dimensional, so either could have their focus shifted to fit a few different niches in the game as needed.

If the Devs said they didn't want an aggressive Native Civ, I really hope it was because the Iroquois and the Aztecs were already in the game, who are both rather aggressive.

phaethon16 said:

So the Haida were sort of an aggressive people? I could see that, but I think the devs said they didn't want any aggressive native civs, but maybe that was just for BNW.

Click to expand...

They said they didn't want an aggressive civ for Brave New World. They wanted to contrast their choice with the Zulu, who were undeniably aggressive. They wanted to show a peaceful side of Native North American culture.

That being said, the Haida (and Tlingit too) were known for warfare and slave trading, but they were also known for a complex culture that involved gift giving ceremonies and artwork in the form of Totem Poles. It's far too complex to just give them one thing. However, yes, they were not peaceful. Nor were the Mississippians.

Aside from the Pueblo, it's hard to find a tribe not involved in any warfare. The Cherokee are technically not a good example (having fought with many Europeans), but they at least quickly settled down and took up farming with the goal of co-existing, so they might be a viable choice.

Louis XXIV said:

The Cherokee are technically not a good example (having fought with many Europeans), but they at least quickly settled down and took up farming with the goal of co-existing, so they might be a viable choice.

Click to expand...

The Cherokee as a whole had very little conflict with Europeans except for some smaller tribes inside the Cherokee. That's how the got the name Civilized Tribe.

seancolorado said:

Surprised the very famous and influential Utes have zero votes. I wonder if that has anything to do with the somewhat geographic overlap with the Shoshone

Click to expand...

Yay, another Ute supporter! Yes they have some overlap with the Shoshone, but they would be fun as a civ, I think. Hell, they even have a state (and a fairly successful college football team) named after them!

So I voted for the Ute, Cherokee, Inuit, Seminole, and Shawnee (who I most want to see). Or was I only supposed to vote for 1?

I also voted for Other North American, specifically I would love to see the Arawak.

Sioux and Lakota are in fact the same tribe AFAIK.

Really? My mistake. To the other person, you're only supposed to vote for 3 civs, but oh well. I don't really care.

The Sioux and the Lakota are not the same, though Lakota are often referred to as the Sioux (and depending on who you're taking to, they may or may not find that offensive). "Sioux" is a French exonym, derived from the Ojibwa or Odawa word for the members of the Očhéthi Šakówiŋ, the Seven Council Fires. In English, it's usually called the The Great Sioux Nation (in which context 'Sioux' is rarely considered offensive), or more rarely the Oceti Sakowin. The Lakota account for three of the Seven Council Fires, and the eastern and western Dakota account for two each.

The Nakota (the Assiniboine and the Stoney) are closely related to the Western Dakota but were not members of the Great Sioux Nations. Instead they formed the Iron Confederacy with Plains Cree and Saulteaux (Plains Ojibwa). Because of their alliance with Algonquian-speaking Cree and Ojibwa, the Nakota received the name hohe, rebels, from the Great Sioux Nation.

No lie, that's interesting. I like hearing about Native American history, because even though I live in a country with a native population, we learn next to nothing about them in school. So, it's always nice to learn a little more about the Sioux, even if I don't live in their area.

It's a little gratifying to see that the Shawnee are doing as well as the Inuit. I can see the value in a snow/ice civ, but I find that most of the time Inuit civs just end up compensating for their weak start bias instead of doing something cool. I'd rather just play a civ with a jungle or grassland start bias and avoid the snow regions all together.

I want so hard Caral, the first civilization of the Americas, unfortunately, there's no much information about them, only they didn't use armies, only trade

Well, what do we know about them that makes them interesting?

Well, they fished.

phaethon16 said:

Well, what do we know about them that makes them interesting?

Click to expand...

They were the first town center of the Americas, and maybe of the western hemisphere, and, as I know, they were a peaceful people, without need of weapons. Those city models that you see in mesoamerica, were thought by them before, in the south. Also, being this a civilizations game, I think all pristine civilizations should be included

Caral Civilization summary:
30th century BCE - 18th century BCE
30 major towns
No evidence of weaponry
Arose about 1000 years after Sumer, arose around the time of the pyramids, arose about 2000 years before the Olmec
Was not extensively explored until the 1990s

No offense, but is that it? It's cool that they were so early, but that alone doesn't merit their inclusion does it?

KreacherB749 said:

No offense, but is that it? It's cool that they were so early, but that alone doesn't merit their inclusion does it?

Click to expand...

I think the fact there has been no weapons found is really cool. Could be a completely peaceful div, play style wise.