What Native American tribe do you expect/want?

Which Native American tribe do you expect/want?


  • Total voters
    453
I think considering their tendency to mix previous incarnations of civs up a bit, especially those in under-represented areas, in this game (mali --> songhai, khmer --> siam) Sioux is a bit unlikely.

That would explain the choice of Pueblo, but then with that unavailable, would they have reverted to a previous pick?
 
That would explain the choice of Pueblo, but then with that unavailable, would they have reverted to a previous pick?

In the case of native americans i would lean towards no. There are so many candidates which could be seen as "the alternative" that are perhaps as or more relevant to the series than the Sioux.

Especially after the mess that was the native americans in civ iv, they may be wanting to steer clear of sitting bull so he loses some heat.
 
I think True Candyman may have a point - after the reaction to the Native America civ from Civ 4, the devs might be trying to shy away from Native American stereotypes or even typical archetypes in general, and the Sioux and Sitting Bull are archetypical native Americans, perhaps even stereotypical in their presentation. Perhaps the devs might want a native American civ that, while not a completely bizarre choice only specialist anthropologists would recognize, doesn't fall as neatly into such expected archetypes or stereotypes.

That's not to say it won't be the Sioux. It doesn't definitely confirm them out, nor do I think it even reduces their chances, but it is something to consider.
 
Sitting Bull was not the problem. The problem was that, in a game which saw fit to distinguish the Holy Roman Empire from Germany, and Byzantium from both Greece and Rome, they decided to treat all the Native American groups as if they were completely interchangeable. So instead of making a "Sioux" civ, they made the most generic "Native American" civ--even going so far as to call it that!--that one could imagine. They gave it a Sioux leader, a Cheyenne UU, a Pacific Northwestern UB, and a capital from the Mississippian culture! It was as though they had made Shaka leader of "the Africans", or made one "Asia" civ with, say, Mao Zedong as leader and a samurai UU. The way it was implemented could scarcely have been more offensive if they had been called "the Red Indians".

With the Iroquois in Civ V, they've avoided repeating that mistake. They made everything about the civ Iroquoian, and though so far there haven't been any other Native American groups added (north of Mesoamerica), they at least didn't treat the Iroquois as though they could stand in for every other group. They wanted to add the Pueblo, which would have been amazing, and though it's a shame that the Pueblo said no, at least we know they were trying to add another Native American group, different from the Iroquois, to be treated differently.

I don't see any reason to avoid using Sitting Bull, and they've given me good reason to expect that if they did use him, it would be as the leader of a distinctly Sioux civ, with all Sioux uniques. (And given that they'd have to go to the actual Lakota for a voice actor, it's likely they'd be asked to use the name "Lakota" instead of "Sioux", which would be even better still.) That would be a fine addition to Civ V, and would not cause anything like the problems that Civ IV's "Native America" caused, because it was their clumsy and colonialist way of handling it that caused the problems, not the use of Sitting Bull.
 
I don't see any reason to avoid using Sitting Bull, and they've given me good reason to expect that if they did use him, it would be as the leader of a distinctly Sioux civ, with all Sioux uniques. (And given that they'd have to go to the actual Lakota for a voice actor, it's likely they'd be asked to use the name "Lakota" instead of "Sioux", which would be even better still.) That would be a fine addition to Civ V, and would not cause anything like the problems that Civ IV's "Native America" caused, because it was their clumsy and colonialist way of handling it that caused the problems, not the use of Sitting Bull.

What would their city list be? The Sioux never founded cities and I don't think anybody wants another Hun-type name stealing.
 
What would their city list be? The Sioux never founded cities and I don't think anybody wants another Hun-type name stealing.

I'm not an expert on the Sioux people, and I'm not attempting to advocate for their inclusion specifically. My point is that if they don't put the Sioux into Civ V, I don't believe it will be because they think it was Sitting Bull that angered people last time and that he needs to lay low to give them time to cool off, as some people are suggesting. And that if they did include the Sioux, that it would likely be treated as a uniquely Sioux civ that would not be as controversial as the "Native American" civ so rightly was.
 
What would their city list be? The Sioux never founded cities and I don't think anybody wants another Hun-type name stealing.

As I've already mentioned before, they were in Civ II, and they had a city name list in that game. Although it is a bit... well, stereotypical sounding, which might lead the devs to make a new list for them.

That said, True_Candyman does make an excellent point against the inclusion of the Sioux for pure PR reasons, probably the best argument I've heard thus far against them. My money's still on them, but less so now.
 
What PR reasons? Because they made an offensively amalgamated civ before? They're not doing it that way now. The Iroquois are purely Iroquoian. The Pueblo were going to be genuinely Pueblo. If the Lakota themselves raised a similar objection as the Pueblo, that would be a reason to leave them out. If the Lakota were okay with it and gave their cooperation, then the farce that was "Native America" in Civ IV would have nothing to do with what they're doing now.
 
I concur with Loaf Warden, they generalized the hell out of Native Americans in CIV IV, and that was more than likely where the bad feedback came from.

If they do decide to go the more nontraditional route, and not choose one of the more known tribes, perhaps the Inuit then? They could have an excellent tundra/ice terrain bonus.
 
I also don't think the city list is such an insurmountable thing. The Sioux, the Apache, the Cherokee, the Arawak, and the Tupi were all in Civilization IV: Colonization, and they all had city lists. I'm not in a position to know if the Sioux city names in Civ IV: Col are better than the ones in Civ II, but they could at least be used.
 
I think the Sioux will not be chosen for 2 reasons:

1) They have already done the Sioux, and there are plenty of other Native American groups which offer compelling gameplay options. So why not explore some others? They went with the Iroquois over the Sioux in vanilla, and they were prepared to go with the Pueblo over the Sioux now.

2) The Sioux are not the Zulu. They have only been in one iteration of the game, and they are not nearly favorable enough for repeat due simply to player demand.
 
I think that the Sioux should be merged with the other Plains Indian tribes, because the Sioux were too small historically. Or Firaxis could do to Iunit. That would be cool.
 
Either Sitting Bull for the Plains Tribes, or Crazy Horse.
 
I think the Sioux will not be chosen for 2 reasons:

1) They have already done the Sioux, and there are plenty of other Native American groups which offer compelling gameplay options. So why not explore some others? They went with the Iroquois over the Sioux in vanilla, and they were prepared to go with the Pueblo over the Sioux now.

2) The Sioux are not the Zulu. They have only been in one iteration of the game, and they are not nearly favorable enough for repeat due simply to player demand.

I agree with Eagle. (I'm saying that a lot recently.) With the wonderful assortment of Native American cultures the developers can choose from, the devs will most likely choose one that can offer something mechanically unique and that plays into the themes of the new themes of the game. I don't pretend to be an expert on Native American culture (though I do go to the Native American museum somewhat frequently here in DC...so at least I try to learn)...but does the Sioux history offer any interesting economic, tourism or diplomatic mechanics?

Given the Zulu's inclusion, I also have to think the devs will avoid adding yet another warmonger Civ. Not to mention any productive/warmonger Native American Civ would end up being way too much like the Iroquois.

The Apache certainly could do something with the new mechanics, though that term encompasses a lot of loosely related tribes. Geronimo's history post-defeat diplomacy with the U.S., ultimately culminating in his meeting with Teddy Roosevelt at Roosevelt's inauguration, could provide some fertile ground for diplomacy options.
 
2) The Sioux are not the Zulu. They have only been in one iteration of the game, and they are not nearly favorable enough for repeat due simply to player demand.

Sitting Bull was in IV but didn't represent the Sioux. So I'd say 1.5 ;)

The Pueblo were a western tribe so I assume Fireaxis would attempt another western one since that dissipated. While I favor the Sioux any western/plains tribe would be alright with me. The Apache weren't done in a civ, as far as I know, so Geronimo representing them could be interesting.
 
The Apache were in the Civ Colonization remake, but I still think the Sioux are relatively unlikely.
 
What western tribe is left? Comanche, maybe? It was my initial Native American favorite.

Leader: Quanah Parker
 
There are plenty of interesting Western groups:

Comanche
Utes
Apache
Navajo
Haida
etc

I still feel that the Tomahawk unit points us East though.
 
As I've already mentioned before, they were in Civ II, and they had a city name list in that game. Although it is a bit... well, stereotypical sounding, which might lead the devs to make a new list for them.

That said, True_Candyman does make an excellent point against the inclusion of the Sioux for pure PR reasons, probably the best argument I've heard thus far against them. My money's still on them, but less so now.
Isn't that just places where the Sioux fought?
There are plenty of interesting Western groups:

Comanche
Utes
Apache
Navajo
Haida
etc

I still feel that the Tomahawk unit points us East though.
That unit looks similar to what someone would expect in a hilly area. And the Southeast is pretty hilly. My bet is still on the Cherokee.

Plus, it's not hard to find native speakers of Cherokee. They are rather old but I have met a few that just speaks Cherokee. (There is about 20,000 Cherokee speakers in the US. More if you don't include native speakers.)
 
Top Bottom