Which Native american civilization would work best in Civ V?

The Haidas!

Pros: Strong culture (totem poles!), ocean canoe UU, fills a completely unrepresented part of the world (west pacific).

Cons: Not very well known.
 
HeraldtheGreat said:
The Haidas!

Pros: Strong culture (totem poles!), ocean canoe UU, fills a completely unrepresented part of the world (west pacific).

Cons: Not very well known.
Click to expand...

Balance-wise, this would be great. An earth map with USA on the east coast, Iroquois in the middle, "Haidas" on the West Coast, with Monty in Mexico would be so much fun. If only the Maya were from "Brazil," the Americas would be so much fun.
 
Apache/Navajo would be the smart choice, though perhaps not the "easiest". Fairly well known, their settling of arid locales offers potential UA's involving deserts, represents a decent chunk of NA, fought and resisted both Mexico and the US, and had a few famous leaders to boot; Geronimo anyone? And some even lived in teepees! That's gotta be a selling point. The Comanche and Sioux weren't exactly sedentary, and this being a game revolving around cities, it just wouldn't make very much sense to include them.

Then again...the Huns.
 
HeraldtheGreat said:
The Haidas!

Pros: Strong culture (totem poles!), ocean canoe UU, fills a completely unrepresented part of the world (west pacific).

Cons: Not very well known.
Click to expand...

The name might not be very well known but the totem poles are. It would be interesting to see what they might come up with for that though, it reeks of faith based monument which we already have in the Stele.
 
The Sioux with Sitting Bull. :king:

Cherokees are interesting but I think too close to the Iroquois. I would favor Sioux over Comanche and the Mississippi (Cahokian)... I dunno. Cree and Inuit could be truly unique Tundra/Arctic Civs, but I think many see them "as not important", both are quite unknown tribes.

Pueblo or Apache could be strong choices and to have some kind of Desert bonus not seen in the game yet.

I posted this suggestion a while ago in the 2KForums:

MARDUK

The Sioux would be my favorite choice as a new Amerindian Civ in the second expansion, of course, Sitting Bull as the leader. Sure there are other good choices as well like Anasazi(Pueblo), Cherokee, Apache, Comanche, Mississippi(Cahokian) even Seminole or Inuit. But Sioux being a legacy Civ (CivII) and Sitting Bull is such a iconic and charismatic figure, imo, they would be most favorable choice.

I just can't get this picture out of my mind:

That would make a awesome leader screen. Perhaps some Buffaloes roaming in plains in the background, a few teepee's and eagle flying in the sky. :)
Sitting Bull oil painting (This painting is also pretty close of what I had imagined. Peace pipe is a nice add-on and his long feather headdress looks really cool.)
Sioux art (Every element the Sioux leader screen needs.)
Chief Sitting Bull


Suggested components for the tribe:

Sioux

Leaders: Sitting Bull, Chief Gall, Red Cloud

Capital: Yankton, Sioux Falls

Starting Bias: Plains/Grassland

Unique Unit: Dog Soldier, Replaces Cavalry 25 Stregth: 4 Movement (+1) Double flanking bonus (to 20%)

Unique Improvement: Medicineman hut. Unpack to use ability, pack to move - can be unpacked outside friendly territory. When unpacked can rapidly heal one unit stationed on UI, and slightly boosts healing of all adjacent units. When packed has 2 movement and gives adjacent military units a slight defencive bonus. Cannot unpack other Medicinemen hut on adjacent tiles to an unpacked Medicineman hut. (Unpacked it looks like a tipi, packed it looks like a travois)

Unique Ability: Sacred Circle Dance: Sun Dance: Sioux Great General units have special Sun Dance ability which activated (GG is expended) gives (X) turn period similar to Golden Age but with different bonuses; any tile which produces food produces 1 extra, production (hammers) in cities is increased 10%, and empire-wide Culture is increased by 30%.
Ghost Dance: Sioux Great Prophet units have special Ghost Dance ability which activated (GP is expended) gives (x) turn period during this time generated Faith points is doubled and units gain Faith from kills.
Click to expand...
 
The problem i have with the Sioux is that they are no more significant than the Haida or the Cherokee or the Comanche or [insert native american people here]. The only reason we really know them so well is that they are 'the indians' - mortal foe of the burgeoning american republic (tyrannical English aside).

They are relevant to US history for sure, but as a society itself with relevance to its geographical and temporal region and international history its no more significant than any other tribes in the area. It's significance is as an obstacle to colonisation, much like the Zulu.

In both cases, there are far more (historically) deserving civilizations. The Cahokia had a huge cultural influence across much of America; think the Louisiana purchase, that's the kinda geographical scale of influence we are talking about.

Of course the Cahokia throws up complications, we don't know the authentic names for a lot of their settlements, or where a lot of their settlements are, or have a thorough knowledge of their culture. But frankly that kinda lack of understanding hasn't got in the way of a good civilisation for the game before.

The Cahokia would be a perfect civ for adapting to a wide cultural empire as its little niche. It could have some great unique mechanics that would fit well with our current understanding of them and we'd all be chuffed to bits with a fancy new un-generic civ!
 
Eagle Pursuit said:
Mississipian:

Pros: known cities, impressive earthworks
Cons: no known leaders from the major polities at the height of their power, no collective name
Click to expand...

Probably the best choice is Tuskaloosa. He was a bit of a smaller ruler, but he at least appears in Spanish sources so he was before the Mississippian entity collapsed entirely. They also could have a Creek speaker.

I'd throw in the Pueblo as another viable choice. The Cherokee are cool too, although they weren't quite a power player. They're most famous for being one of the "civilized" tribes who successfully conformed to western culture. They were Iroquoian speaking, though. I wish they were Algonquin instead.

I'd prefer not to have a nomadic tribe, though. We already have the Huns, who are problematic. This means no Sioux or Comanche.
 
I dislike Cahokia or Mississipian or other such civs as we have to invent too much for them (leader names, etc.). I also dislike non-native names like Pueblo which is a Spanish term after all. That's why I changed the city state of La Venta in my game as well.

I like as ideas: Inuit (unique distinct playstyle), Haida (but let's not put some popculture reference to werewolves in there :)) and Comanche (who were on their way to an empire more than others)
I can live well with: Sioux (sigh, pop culture and civ veterans), Cherokee, Navajo, a Pueblo tribe like Hopi.

I'm assuming here that South and Middle American tribal civs are a different beast from the Northern American ones. I'd guess we would get Brazil and Colombia over Tupi and Chachapoya just like I think Australia would be more interesting than Aborigines. But they are all good choices, more or less ;)
 
mitsho said:
I'm assuming here that South and Middle American tribal civs are a different beast from the Northern American ones. I'd guess we would get Brazil and Colombia over Tupi and Chachapoya just like I think Australia would be more interesting than Aborigines. But they are all good choices, more or less ;)
Click to expand...

We'd certainly get Columbia over the Chachapoya since the Chachapoya are from Peru. But we'd definitely get the Muisca before a modern Columbia
 
True_Candyman said:
....

I know it wasn't the best of examples (neither is Belfast really). I did of course say 'settling', so my wording has unwittingly outwitted you. ;)

.....
Click to expand...

Fair enough point. You did say settled, and I did ignore it. So my take on your Paris analogy was poor.

A better example would have been like calling New York an American city.
 
True_Candyman said:
We'd certainly get Columbia over the Chachapoya since the Chachapoya are from Peru. But we'd definitely get the Muisca before a modern Columbia
Click to expand...

Missing the point a bit? I was just listing up the popular options around here. I do however feel that a modern South American Civ like Brazil or Gran Colombia (Bolivar) are more probable than another tribal civ. Hey, stranger things have happened than Gran Colombia with the Holy Roman Empire as a civ in Civ4...
 
The Hurons are an off-shoot, and rivals of, the Iroquois. The Hurons were a similar constitutional confederacy of tribes.

The Algonquins were somewhat similar to the Iroquois, but you could spin them to be lakeshore-dwelling traders.

I had pros and cons of what I consider to be the five best options on the previous page of this thread, but I am most biased towards the Comanche. They had the largest territory of any Natives in North America and they were a powerful hegemony. They definitely impeded both the Americans' westward and the Mexicans' northward expansion. They were among the first to successfully adopt the horse and the musket from Europeans and used those resources to...get more horses and muskets!
 
I think Inuit would be awesome. We don't really have a civ in the game that really exploits snow or tundra tiles for yield.

I think an interesting UA or early UB for them could let them treat snow tiles as plains and tundra as grassland? Maybe an Igloo replacing the granary or something. Either that or drastically increase yield from Coast, Ocean, River and Tundra tiles, so that giving them a Snow start bias would still make them viable.
 
ahawk said:
I'd love to see Inuit. After all, snow tiles are still at this point, even with G&K, practically worthless, and an Inuit civ could make snow/ice/tundra something playable.

All we really have at this point is one belief (for tundra) and one unit (Norwegian Ski Infantry) as far as snow.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to have a civ that can use snow effectively. Even if snow isn't quite as good, they would have the advantage of not having as much coveted land.

Either the UA would give extra yields on snow tiles (and possibly tundra and ocean as well), or they could have an igloo or similar UI, though a UI would take away from the advantage of not having coveted land.

Edit: The UB idea above that I somehow missed would work well too in substitution of a UA.
 
If the Inuit were to be a civ, I would have them with a bonus to sea resources. That way they have a compelling reason to venture into temperate regions and come into conflict with other civs.
 
mitsho said:
I dislike Cahokia or Mississipian or other such civs as we have to invent too much for them (leader names, etc.).
Click to expand...

The leader could be Tuskaloosa, who was a real Mississippian leader who fought against Hernando DeSoto. We also have a pretty good idea of city names and a language (I'd pick Creek or Choctaw, but any of the successor languages would work). That's better than the Comanche and Sioux who don't have cities or Anasazi who, iirc, doesn't have a leader.

I also dislike non-native names like Pueblo which is a Spanish term after all. That's why I changed the city state of La Venta in my game as well.
Click to expand...

How about Hopi if Pueblo bothers you?
 
Louis XXIV said:
The leader could be Tuskaloosa, who was a real Mississippian leader who fought against Hernando DeSoto. We also have a pretty good idea of city names and a language (I'd pick Creek or Choctaw, but any of the successor languages would work). That's better than the Comanche and Sioux who don't have cities or Anasazi who, iirc, doesn't have a leader.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not that knowledgeable about these tribes so I reserve judgement and trust you. I did however suggest the Hopi instead of Pueblo, so I'm totally fine with that ;)

I'd say they found quite a clever way around the "no cities" with the Huns, I'd be okay if they'd just copy that system (rather than say invent names). I don't see that as big as a problem as say no leader nor language to speak. (But you point out those are less of a problem for Mississippian. Btw. how connected/same are they with Cahokia?)
 
The thing about the Comanche and the Sioux that makes them different from more historically distant tribal groups like the Huns is that we (or they) know of the locations where they traditionally made camp, and those places have names, either in their languages or in English. The names of the places that the Huns camped were forgotten to history. The names of the Comanche and Sioux camps are not.

The tribes themselves have that knowledge, and it can be further fleshed out by looking into the diplomatic and military records of the US government.

Those camps sites would become the cities if a nomadic group were to sudden become sedentary.
 
Just don't assume Firaxis is going to put a lot of work into research of civ names ;) They have always copied the city lists for France, China, etc. from the last game which mean they are still the bad/very quickly/on a tight budget done lists of Civilization 1 in 1991!

(Or I might be wrong on the city lists, I've changed them quite some time ago, still they won't do a lot of research ;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
King Phaedron
Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
TyrannusRex
(E&E) Civilization VI - Deep Dive: Kievan Rus
Replies
17
Views
528
TyrannusRex
TyrannusRex
Queen Theophania
What do you think about adding the Northern Paiute people as a Civ?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Zaarin
Zaarin
Queen Theophania
A few concepts for Native American City States
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Birch617
Birch617
Top Bottom