Which Native american civilization would work best in Civ V?

^The main reason why they were behind was because of where and how they lived. Making them inherently slower to advance just because of their civilization's name is kind of silly.

Silly? Huron? Well, perhaps. But I'd like you to read about Dekanawida/Deganawida, who in fact was the founder of the Iroquois Confederacy, or, let's use their "silly" real tribe name, the Haudenosaunee. Hiawatha was more like his follower.
Well, some say that this great Peacemaker, Deganawidah, in fact was a Huron He persuaded the Haudenosaunee(Iroquois) to stop the constant infighting and abandon cannibalism . In fact the Huron were a confederacy, more or less, similarly to the Iroquois. The problem is, they sided with France and the Iroquois, as we know, with the British crown, it did cost the Huron dearly in the end. Perhaps that's why the Huron are shunned in the game, just like the Sioux are, the enemies of Britain, and later, more importantly, the US, mustn't be glorified. Am I way off?

Why not, instead of the arguing about which native North American tribe deserves to be in the game, (we all know it should not have been Shoshone!), I suggest they just re-create the good old idea from civ4.
Just bring back the American Natives as one nation! I would like to suggest using names of tribes as city names, besides Cahokia.
I'd call this nation/tribe in Civilization 6 "Amerindia", and it's cities would, among others have names such as: Iroquois, Apache, Comanche, Sioux, Powhatan, Pawnee, Shoshone, Osage, Seminole, Cherokee, Mohican, Huron, Algonquin, and many others.
This tribe would definitely be very expansionistic, honorable (but perhaps not at first contact), spiritual and militaristic. At the same time quite slow to develop new technologies. Why?
Because you just can't give a nation nothing but bonuses! there have to be bonuses but also a drawback to each nation, that way the game balances itself. Otherwise all experienced human players would only choose to play as one of a group of few nations with best qualities, creating inferiority among their, carefully designed, tribes, and that's what the designers do not want for sure. They want you to try and play as each civ, it draws you into the game more.

WChrisMullen said:

I would put my bet on Sioux. They're veterans of the series, and unique enough from the Iroquois. However, the main problem would be distinguishing their playstyle from the Mongols of the Huns.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is as big a problem as some people are suggesting.

(It might be a reason to make designing them lower priority than other civilizations, but not for excluding them altogether).

1) This is my personal preference (although I'm sure I'm not unique here), but I prefer playing on real maps with civilizations in their historic starting areas.

As such, the distinguishing features of a civilization (in terms of gameplay) are not just UU/UB/leader traits/etc, but where they are on the map and who their neighbours are.

(Perhaps most importantly, the Sioux would be adjacent to a powerful expansionist civ (the US), wheras the Huns and Mongols would not be).

And even on a random map, a game with three nomadic horse-archer civs will be different from one with only one.

2) The Huns, the Mongols, and the Sioux (or Plains Indians) were active at different times in history (Late Classical, Medieval, and Early Modern respectively). Their UU would be Horse Archer, Knight, and Cavalry replacements, respectively.

3) While famous for their horse archers, both the Huns and Mongols were also very good at besieging and sacking cities, and their gameplay should reflect this. As far as I am aware, this was not a notable feature of the Sioux, so that is at least should mke for one gamplay difference.

4) While not so famous for it, the Mongols (and according to Prof. Christopher Beckwith, the Huns as well) were also very interested in trade, and this was an important factor in bother their reasons for expansion and their internal politics. I don't know much about the Sioux, but this could be another thing that they would do differently.

daft said:

Why not, instead of the arguing about which native North American tribe deserves to be in the game, (we all know it should not have been Shoshone!), I suggest they just re-create the good old idea from civ4.
Just bring back the American Natives as one nation!

Click to expand...

This actually made me cringe. That's a terrible idea that would generate just as much heat as it did in 4. No, the better solution is to just pick whichever civilizations they can make fun ideas out of, which is exactly what they're doing. As for why they picked the Shoshone? It offered a western power and had the possibility for Comanches as a unit.

What do I want in future games, though? That's difficult. Let's say they keep a few constants: leader must be dead for at least 15 years before they're used as a leader in the game (Mao, Civ1); Iroquois, Aztec, Maya and Inca must be in the game (though Inca aren't in North America, so aren't part of this discussion); and they're going to continue using large groups for their civilizations, rather than small tribes.
The Shoshone still sound good, but if they want to switch it up, my suggestion is the Navajo. There are known leaders, they're a large tribe (not confederacy), and we know enough about the culture to form a civilization, plus they can get a codetalker/ing unit/ability (obviously, espionage focused).
Other than that, I can't think of much. I'd like to say Athabaskans, but I can't really find too many accomplishments or well-known leaders. The Inuits would also be great and they even have cities in Nunavut, but that's still a pretty new territory, so any leaders would be mythical. Paul Okalik in Civilization 13, I guess.
Sioux also sound good, if we're not going to have the Shoshone in the game, but they definitely need cities. I'm not going to bother covering them anymore than this because they have have, indeed, been in the game before.

That's a terrible idea that would generate just as much heat as it did in 4. No, the better solution is to just pick whichever civilizations they can make fun ideas out of, which is exactly what they're doing. As for why they picked the Shoshone? It offered a western power and had the possibility for Comanches as a unit.

What do I want in future games, though? That's difficult. Let's say they keep a few constants: leader must be dead for at least 15 years before they're used as a leader in the game (Mao, Civ1); Iroquois, Aztec, Maya and Inca must be in the game (though Inca aren't in North America, so aren't part of this discussion); and they're going to continue using large groups for their civilizations, rather than small tribes.
The Shoshone still sound good, but if they want to switch it up, my suggestion is the Navajo. There are known leaders, they're a large tribe (not confederacy), and we know enough about the culture to form a civilization, plus they can get a codetalker/ing unit/ability (obviously, espionage focused).
Other than that, I can't think of much. I'd like to say Athabaskans, but I can't really find too many accomplishments or well-known leaders. The Inuits would also be great and they even have cities in Nunavut, but that's still a pretty new territory, so any leaders would be mythical. Paul Okalik in Civilization 13, I guess.
Sioux also sound good, if we're not going to have the Shoshone in the game, but they definitely need cities. I'm not going to bother covering them anymore than this because they have have, indeed, been in the game before.[/QUOTE]


I agree completely about the Navajo, I did mention them before, them and the Hopi, instead of the Shoshone.
However, including the famed Comanche Riders as part of the Shoshone nation is just as adequate as Norwegian Ski Infantry being a Danish unit.
If the designers want to include one native western Native American tribe then the Sioux(Lakota), Navajo(or Hopi), Apache, Comanche, Haida, Cheyenne, or, perhaps most of all the Anasazi is the best choice.

To be honest, Native North American tribes weren't as advanced as the many European and Asian nations included in the game, or weren't advancing technologically as well as those, due to a plethora of issues, respect of nature as part of their beliefs among them,
so I think this should be reflected in the game. However, offsetting this with strong expansionism and (honorable) militarism should still make them capable of winning the game.

In Civ 4 I did enjoy playing as Native Americans, and have always been fascinated by their ways and many cultures.

Nah, the Comanche were an offshoot of the Shoshone and still spoke a Shoshone dialect. Really, they should try to stick with confederations and stay away from single tribes, with the exception of something large. Some of the groups you mention would work well, but just going with with small tribes doesn't really work as well in practice as it sounds like it should in theory. And really, going the other way and using Native American as a catch-all civilization is just like using an entire European civilization...and nobody wants that.

daft said:

Silly? Huron? Well, perhaps. But I'd like you to read about Dekanawida/Deganawida, who in fact was the founder of the Iroquois Confederacy, or, let's use their "silly" real tribe name, the Haudenosaunee. Hiawatha was more like his follower.
Well, some say that this great Peacemaker, Deganawidah, in fact was a Huron He persuaded the Haudenosaunee(Iroquois) to stop the constant infighting and abandon cannibalism . In fact the Huron were a confederacy, more or less, similarly to the Iroquois. The problem is, they sided with France and the Iroquois, as we know, with the British crown, it did cost the Huron dearly in the end. Perhaps that's why the Huron are shunned in the game, just like the Sioux are, the enemies of Britain, and later, more importantly, the US, mustn't be glorified. Am I way off?

Click to expand...

I just realized this was to me because it didn't actually address anything I said. What I said was silly was forcing a civilization to advance more slowly because that's what happened in history, even if they're not on a true location start.