What Native American tribe do you expect/want?

Here is the "tomahawk" picture for all those who didn't see it:

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/bnw_paxeast_nineveh.jpg

They seem to have beards (or could be shadows).

If anyone wants to compare them to existing pictures of tribes it would be certainly welcome.

They seem to have bears, mohawk, and dark skin. I do wonder what, or who they might be.

ImperialChaos said:

Here is the "tomahawk" picture for all those who didn't see it:

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/images/bnw_paxeast_nineveh.jpg

They seem to have beards (or could be shadows).

If anyone wants to compare them to existing pictures of tribes it would be certainly welcome.

Click to expand...

Bahahah
They kinda look like Mr. T now that I think of that dark area as a beard
Maybe we can hire the A-Team (if we can find them)!

Another strike against the Sioux is their potential lack of new/compelling game play. We've got two, fairly nomadic, horse focused Civs. Do we really need a third?

Villager720 said:

Another strike against the Sioux is their potential lack of new/compelling game play. We've got two, fairly nomadic, horse focused Civs. Do we really need a third?

Click to expand...

If they come up with a really original mechanic that reflects their nomadic lifestyle, yeah, why not?

To be honest I dont think the Sioux will be in BNW, I imagine other native will be in, either Cherokee, Navajo or Comanche (Im still holding for Pueblo with a diferent leader).

But In my opinion, the Sioux would be ideal for a DLC scenario.

The ability to move 'cattle' ressources would be strong and original in my mind, but that of course can fit with so many other civs. Other than that, yeah, I'm not sure. Though from the civs released so far, the expansion could get away with another warmonger. It's 3 (Poland, Assyria, Zulu) vs. 2 (Brazil, Portugal) so far. 5-4 for peaceful leaders could be a good fit for the balance of the game.

codepoet said:

Bahahah
They kinda look like Mr. T now that I think of that dark area as a beard
Maybe we can hire the A-Team (if we can find them)!

Click to expand...

I pity the fool who would go up against a siege tower like that.

Godswood said:

They seem to have bears, mohawk, and dark skin. I do wonder what, or who they might be.

Click to expand...

The dark skin and beards do confuse me too. (If they're beards.)

I believe the dark area is just black war paint.

I think it is shadows under their chins.

Sioux by a huge margin, I like that. With America and the Iroquois, I think the Sioux would fit nicely to finish North America.

Off topic - I'd expect one more African civ. Morocco would be my guess. Since Kongo seems to be out it would be nice to have a Central African civ of some sort as well. As far as the last two, I'd like to see Israel in some form, and Hungary, Romania, Vietnam, or other comparable Southeast Asian civ.

Eagle Pursuit said:

I think it is shadows under their chins.

Click to expand...

Well, they still look darker skinned than the nearby Assyrian units.

nokmirt said:

Sioux by a huge margin, I like that. With America and the Iroquois, I think the Sioux would fit nicely to finish our United States history lesson.

Click to expand...

I fixed that comment for you. With the Sioux we would have an appallingly representation of North America, The United States and peoples in bumped into. The Iroquois were a power in their own right but there were a great many others before the US was even a twinkle in a colonialists eyes.

Uh, can you give any examples of major North American powers that America didn't bump into? I'll readily admit that my knowledge of Native American history is very poor and is limited to little more than them in relation to the US.

Arachnofiend said:

Uh, can you give any examples of major North American powers that America didn't bump into? I'll readily admit that my knowledge of Native American history is very poor and is limited to little more than them in relation to the US.

Click to expand...

The Mississippian Empire and Publean Empire. The Mississippians collapsed through smallpox before Europeans met them (smallpox traveled faster than the Europeans could) and I think the same thing happened to the Publeans.

Sioux (civ II sentiment) with 'early game is everything' attitude.
UA << Happy Hunting Ground >> Cities can move 1 tile per turn before classical era; culture cost of acquiring new tiles reduced by 25% in all cities
UU: Sioux Scout with 3 movement and half cost
UB: Tipi (replacing granary) with any kind of raw extra bonus c5food://)

I would love to see truely nomadic civ, while scouts might be good on Pangaea to become a leader of World Congress.

I would prefer them to be called 'Sioux Tribe' than 'Sioux Empire'... It's probably not gonna happen though.

True_Candyman said:

I fixed that comment for you. With the Sioux we would have an appallingly representation of North America, The United States and peoples in bumped into. The Iroquois were a power in their own right but there were a great many others before the US was even a twinkle in a colonialists eyes.

Click to expand...

I have to say this strikes me as a pretty daft argument. At the moment, the North American continent has representation by four civs. Half of those (Aztecs, Maya) have nothing to do with the United States, temporally or geographically. Meanwhile, there are fifteen civs from Europe known so far, counting Poland and the return of Portugal. There are three (Huns, Carthage, and, as implemented, the Celts) who are only in the game because they had a connection to the Romans. There are two from the island of Great Britain (England and, again as implemented, the Celts), which makes that island considerably more over-represented than North America when the relative sizes of the regions is taken into account.

Historically, they've been very bad about putting in Native groups from what is now the United States. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca have appeared pretty consistently, but no Civ game to date has included more than one Native group from north of Mesoamerica. Civ II had the Sioux, Civ III had the Iroquois, Civ IV had the lazy and token "Native Americans", and Civ V has the Iroquois again. Meanwhile Europe gets more and more crowded every game.

Even if there are three Native American groups added for BNW, that would bring the total for North America up to seven, which would make it tied with the Middle East/North Africa region. (Actually, if it's true that Morocco is in, that would still put the Middle East/North Africa at one civ more than the entirety of North America.)

North America is not over-represented. The United States is not over-represented. If any region is over-represented in Civ, whether Civ V or any other version, it is and has always been Europe. North America is empty by comparison.

Why would the make the Native American so dark skinned? Perhaps some of them were, but on a whole they're weren't. It could be the picture making the color different but beside the mohawk they don't look entirely Native American; or at least the general image of them.

Loaf Warden said:

North America is not over-represented. The United States is not over-represented. If any region is over-represented in Civ, whether Civ V or any other version, it is and has always been Europe. North America is empty by comparison.

Click to expand...

And if North America is empty by comparison, then Africa and Southeast Asia are even emptier (or at least just as)

We just have to accept the fact that the winners write history and civ will always be euro-centric in order to maximize sales

Loaf Warden said:

North America is not over-represented. The United States is not over-represented. If any region is over-represented in Civ, whether Civ V or any other version, it is and has always been Europe. North America is empty by comparison.

Click to expand...

So true.

Loaf Warden said:

There are three (Huns, Carthage, and, as implemented, the Celts) who are only in the game because they had a connection to the Romans.

Click to expand...

But Carthage was pretty important by it's own right, even though they were implemented in a Rome-centric way (elephants, crossing mountains).,

VermelhoRed said:

Carthage was pretty important by it's own right, even though they were implemented in a Rome-centric way (elephants, crossing mountains).,

Click to expand...

It was, but unfortunately, there wouldn't be any way to include them that wasn't Rome-centric. We know very little about their society that doesn't come to us through the Romans. As important a power as they were in their time, their legacy today consists primarily of the Punic Wars. And since their debut in Civ II, that has been the focus. Hannibal was the leader right up until Civ V, even though he was not much of a ruler when he came to power and is only famous because he caused so much fear to the Romans on the battlefield. And in Civ V they switched the leader to Dido, but then, as you say, gave them a UU and a UA straight from the Punic Wars. I think we can safely say the Punic Wars are the only reason Carthage has ever been in a Civ game.