True_Candyman
Emperor
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
Isn't that just places where the Sioux fought?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.
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.There are plenty of interesting Western groups:
Comanche
Utes
Apache
Navajo
Haida
etc
I still feel that the Tomahawk unit points us East though.