[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

It would also be an egregious blob civ of "Polynesia" levels considering they were rivals--not to mention the Cherokee aren't even related to the other four, being Iroquoian. I could buy a Choctaw-Chickasaw blob--the two were very closely related, speaking two dialects of the same language--but a "Five Civilized Tribe" civilization might as well be Civ4's Native Americans.

Oh I know it would be very blobby. The difference between the Cherokee vs. the Muscogee-Seminole vs. Choctaw-Chickasaw are already very sprawling. It's certainly not on the same level of cultural relatedness as the Iroquois. But I also don't really want to leave any of them behind if Civ did commemorate the occasion; at least to some extent they managed to set aside their past rivalries to accomplish something together and that feels on the level of admirability as other leagues like the Delian League or Italic League. In that respect I believe it would be a sight less offensive than lumping Hawai'i, Maori, and Rapa Nui together despite them having minimal to no interaction with each other.

I imagine the happiest medium is to just do the Cherokee. They have the largest tribal affiliation (and by some accounts more than the Navajo). They could vicariously rep both the South and the Iroquoian peoples (if we aren't getting the Iroquois this time around). I know they aren't as mechanically intriguing as some of the other tribes, but they do seem to be the fairest and most marketable tribe on paper.

(they also developed their own syllabary which means we won't have to take the writing tech away from them )

 

[Zaarin]

Oh I know it would be very blobby. The difference between the Cherokee vs. the Muscogee-Seminole vs. Choctaw-Chickasaw are already very sprawling. It's certainly not on the same level of cultural relatedness as the Iroquois. But I also don't really want to leave any of them behind if Civ did commemorate the occasion; at least to some extent they managed to set aside their past rivalries to accomplish something together and that feels on the level of admirability as other leagues like the Delian League or Italic League. In that respect I believe it would be a sight less offensive than lumping Hawai'i, Maori, and Rapa Nui together despite them having minimal to no interaction with each other.

I imagine the happiest medium is to just do the Cherokee. They have the largest tribal affiliation (and by some accounts more than the Navajo). They could vicariously rep both the South and the Iroquoian peoples (if we aren't getting the Iroquois this time around). I know they aren't as mechanically intriguing as some of the other tribes, but they do seem to be the fairest and most marketable tribe on paper.

(they also developed their own syllabary which means we won't have to take the writing tech away from them )

I still think the Choctaw are the best option, both because of their own history of stability and because of Pushmataha. Another Choctaw chief, Mushulatubbee, was, I believe, the first Native American to run for Congress. Plus the Muskogean nations were very important and we've never had a Muskogean civ before, which I think is an argument for the Choctaw or Chickasaw and against the Cherokee. (Also, the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw all wrote their languages in Latin letters; I don't think they'll be treated as an oral culture.)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I still think the Choctaw are the best option, both because of their own history of stability and because of Pushmataha. Another Choctaw chief, Mushulatubbee, was, I believe, the first Native American to run for Congress. Plus the Muskogean nations were very important and we've never had a Muskogean civ before, which I think is an argument for the Choctaw or Chickasaw and against the Cherokee. (Also, the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw all wrote their languages in Latin letters; I don't think they'll be treated as an oral culture.)

Pushmataha is great as a leader. But I'm actually fine skipping on the Missippian descendants since I don't have a strong need for mound-building cultures on top of a Cahokia city-state with a mound UI. I would similarly be okay with passing on the Navajo if we got a Pueblo city-state, since they would kind of function as a pseudo-spiritual successor and mechanical substitute.

As for history of stability, given the slight pivot toward "peoples" as opposed to necessarily "empires" and toward modern identitarianism as opposed to historical relevance in VI, I would not be surprised if we got a civ or two based on a large ethnic/cultural identification, even if its claims to dominance are more a consequence of widespread, decentralized affiliation than past self-organization (we kind of see that in the choice of Scotland and Hungary as representing cultural diasporas--I realize a stretch given many cultures had diasporas, and even moreso in civs like the Mapuche and Maori which were never very organized but are now the largest ethnic group in their respective regions). And as for modern territorial/diplomatic success, the tribes are all about equal.

I wouldn't be unhappy with the Choctaw, but given the choices of the Mapuche and especially the Cree as giving preference to sheer numbers and territorial claims, I feel like the Navajo and Cherokee have a huge leg up on the other options. Just like how the Navajo kind of represent all of the Southwest except Texas, the Cherokee nation sprawled into every Dixie state except Florida and Louisiana. The Choctaw, by contrast, are mostly limited to representing Missibama. With respect to maximizing representation and accessibility, I think the devs are very likely going to lean toward the tribe more people are going to have some sort of identification with. And it's practically a running joke at this point that everyone claims to be part Cherokee.

Again, wouldn't mind the Choctaw. But I think the devs will look to the Cherokee as a safer, more marketable choice. (it fits map-gap theory better too ). Of course this is assuming they are even looking at that part of America; for all we know they are set on picking a SW or PNW civ instead.

 

[Zaarin]

But I'm actually fine skipping on the Missippian descendants since I don't have a strong need for mound-building cultures on top of a Cahokia city-state with a mound UI.

I mean, all five of the Five Civilized Tribes are Mississippian descendants; the Chickasaw simply happen to be the only ones we can connect directly to a specific mound site. But even the Cherokee were clearly part of the SEC originally.

But I think the devs will look to the Cherokee as a safer, more marketable choice.

The question is who would lead them? The most obvious option, John Ross, has the problem of being much like President Grant: a good guy presiding over an incredibly corrupt administration. Attakullakulla might work, but he's not exactly well known. His son, Dragging Canoe, is more famous but was also only a local warchief. The leader question has always been the biggest problem in my mind for both the Cherokee and the Creek.

With respect to maximizing representation and accessibility, I think the devs are very likely going to lean toward the tribe more people are going to have some sort of identification with. And it's practically a running joke at this point that everyone claims to be part Cherokee.

I wouldn't even say it's a joke. To paraphrase one Native American scholar, half the white population of the US believes itself to be part Cherokee, a tribe they nebulously place anywhere from Maine to Montana. A certain US senator springs to mind.

for all we know they are set on picking a SW or PNW civ instead.

Possibly, but I foresee potential difficulties in either of those directions. They've already been rebuffed by both the Haida (presumably) and the Tewa, and other tribes in the area may feel similarly or Firaxis may be hesitant to try again. At which rate a Plateau or Plains tribe might be Firaxis' next choice for "out West," but I'm not particularly eager for another nomadic horse raiding civ personally.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If you look at the Cree, it doesn't really matter how famous the leader of a Native American civ is. Who had heard of Poundmaker before RnF?

 

[6uho Koe]

If you look at the Cree, it doesn't really matter how famous the leader of a Native American civ is. Who had heard of Poundmaker before RnF?

Someone who uses civ mods, possibly one from V. I've never heard of Poundmaker until using one of civ v mods. It seems the developers might have got ideas from mods if not from forums here as i was surprised some civilizations I have only known from mods have appeared officially in the expansions. That or I have not lurked beyond the usual conversations of when's the expansion, dlc, etc.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I mean, all five of the Five Civilized Tribes are Mississippian descendants; the Chickasaw simply happen to be the only ones we can connect directly to a specific mound site. But even the Cherokee were clearly part of the SEC originally.


The question is who would lead them? The most obvious option, John Ross, has the problem of being much like President Grant: a good guy presiding over an incredibly corrupt administration. Attakullakulla might work, but he's not exactly well known. His son, Dragging Canoe, is more famous but was also only a local warchief. The leader question has always been the biggest problem in my mind for both the Cherokee and the Creek.


I wouldn't even say it's a joke. To paraphrase one Native American scholar, half the white population of the US believes itself to be part Cherokee, a tribe they nebulously place anywhere from Maine to Montana. A certain US senator springs to mind.


Possibly, but I foresee potential difficulties in either of those directions. They've already been rebuffed by both the Haida (presumably) and the Tewa, and other tribes in the area may feel similarly or Firaxis may be hesitant to try again. At which rate a Plateau or Plains tribe might be Firaxis' next choice for "out West," but I'm not particularly eager for another nomadic horse raiding civ personally.

who are the tewa? i’ve never heard of them

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Possibly, but I foresee potential difficulties in either of those directions. They've already been rebuffed by both the Haida (presumably) and the Tewa, and other tribes in the area may feel similarly or Firaxis may be hesitant to try again. At which rate a Plateau or Plains tribe might be Firaxis' next choice for "out West," but I'm not particularly eager for another nomadic horse raiding civ personally.

It seems to me that the Navajo or Apache wouldn't feel out of place considering the amount of media attention they get already.

who are the tewa? i’ve never heard of them

The linguistic group of Pueblo that Pope belonged to.

 

[Zaarin]

If you look at the Cree, it doesn't really matter how famous the leader of a Native American civ is. Who had heard of Poundmaker before RnF?

That's fair. None of the Five Civilized Tribes has a leader famous on the scale of, say, Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, or Geronimo; the most famous would probably be John Ross (Cherokee), William McIntosh (Creek), Menawa (Creek), Osceola (Seminole), and Pushmataha (Choctaw). All except Osceola and Pushmataha have various problems that make them less than ideal (and in the case of Osceola, I'd consider the Seminole to be the lowest priority of the five, as they were essentially Creek refugees).

who are the tewa? i’ve never heard of them

Popé's Puebloan tribe.

It seems to me that the Navajo or Apache wouldn't feel out of place considering the amount of media attention they get already.

I don't know enough about the Apache to comment, but the Navajo may have religious beliefs that would make them uncomfortable with inclusion. I know many older Navajo belief that photographing someone steals the person's soul, for instance. While I don't think many young Navajo believe that, I'm not sure how that would influence the tribal council's feelings about the matter.

 

[Virdrago]

If you look at the Cree, it doesn't really matter how famous the leader of a Native American civ is. Who had heard of Poundmaker before RnF?

I did. I did a project on the Cree when I was nine. Of course, until last year, I had never heard of the Mapuche, so your point stands.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I mean, all five of the Five Civilized Tribes are Mississippian descendants; the Chickasaw simply happen to be the only ones we can connect directly to a specific mound site. But even the Cherokee were clearly part of the SEC originally.

Don't the Choctaw also have Nanih Waiya?

The question is who would lead them? The most obvious option, John Ross, has the problem of being much like President Grant: a good guy presiding over an incredibly corrupt administration. Attakullakulla might work, but he's not exactly well known. His son, Dragging Canoe, is more famous but was also only a local warchief. The leader question has always been the biggest problem in my mind for both the Cherokee and the Creek.

Problematic administrations don't seem to matter much to the devs so much as whether they adequately personify the culture and/or are venerated to some degree? We have Kristina, who abdicated within a few years and supposedly bankrupted the country. We have Seondeok who was a military failure. We have Victoria who was just a figurehead. As far as I can discern Ross was generally well-liked except by the same sort of minority in every population that mistrusts politicians merely because they try to negotiate with the enemy. I haven't heard anything on anything more "corrupt" than that.

Possibly, but I foresee potential difficulties in either of those directions. They've already been rebuffed by both the Haida (presumably) and the Tewa, and other tribes in the area may feel similarly or Firaxis may be hesitant to try again. At which rate a Plateau or Plains tribe might be Firaxis' next choice for "out West," but I'm not particularly eager for another nomadic horse raiding civ personally.

I'm curious if we will ever find out what happened with the Haida. The story might not be the same; it's possible maybe the Haida were an easier target but they were waiting on communication from the Cree which for whatever reason they wanted more. Or maybe they heard from the Salish and decided to go with them as the "American" tribe, since the Haida would double up with the Cree in Canada and leave America vacant. Maybe they have a dozen more civs planned and the Haida were just put off.

You're right, it's possible the Navajo and other SW tribes might shut Firaxis down and they will pivot again to a plains tribe or the Shoshone again. We won't know until they release another American tribe and that might not even happen this year. I, too, would prefer if we had something a bit more stable than a horse raiding civ. So I'm not especially keen on the Comanche although I wouldn't mind them, and I would prefer the Apache be given a lot of Navajo-adjacent abilities like farming and medicine if the devs went that root. Although even the Apache would feel a little tired after we just got Gran Colombia as a horsey, farmy civ. I think for me it's Navajo or nothing; if they can't get Navajo they might as well look at the Oklahoma or PNW tribes.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

given they wanted the haida in the first place, i think there’s a good chance that they perhaps looked into, or are still looking into, alternative PNW options, including hopefully, the Tlingit and Coast Salish

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If we got the Navajo and an Oklahoma tribe like the Cherokee, I don't see why Canada can't have both the Cree and the Tlingit. I'm also not completely dismissing the Haida yet, although that Cree icon looks pretty similar to Haida art.

That's extremely wishful thinking, though. I would expect at least a dozen other civs to be added to fill out other gaps in the map--on top of whatever we get in NFP--before we got as many as three or four more NA tribes.

 

[Lord Lakely]

A Sioux or Iroquois return seems more likely to me? The Sioux especially who haven't been in the game since Civ 2 would certainly *feel* like a new civ (and not necessarily a pure horse raider civ - I'm willing to share my own design to underline this point if needed.)

Question though: if Firaxis were to go for a Muscogean tribe, why wouldn't they just go for the Creek? The Creek call themselves "Muscogee" (which could serve as the name of the civ itself) and while their leader choices might be less interesting than Choktaw/Chikasaw isn't there enough overlap between the four non-Cherokee tribes to join combine them into one single civ with a maybe Cherokee UU. Or would that be on the level of Welsh-speaking woad-painted Brittanic Queen, who received faith from trees and had a Gallic UU and an Irish UB and who settled modern Irish, Cornish, Scottish, Breton, Mancunian and Welsh cities? (nb.: kind of funny how this post also lowkey exploresThe Concepts Zaarin Has A Pavlovian Fear Of. sorry brah)

Secondly, if a 5CT civ were to happen, what would the UU and UI be? The clear contender is the Cahokia Mound but that's already a CS tile improvement (and I don't see Cahokia being included into a Muscogean city list - not if Firaxis has the intention of being historically accurate ). So kindly run me through the options, please. The idea of a 5CT civ intrigues me but in the words of our mighty internet encyclopedia, this article has reached a stub and needs further expansion.

 

[AntSou]

As far as I can discern Ross was generally well-liked

He is too westernised in his outlook. Since Poundmaker is already in western influenced attire, I'd expect the next NA leader to don more traditional attire.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A Sioux or Iroquois return seems more likely to me? The Sioux especially who haven't been in the game since Civ 2 would certainly *feel* like a new civ (and not necessarily a pure horse raider civ - I'm willing to share my own design to underline this point if needed.)

Considering the most that we know about their history comes from them moving onto the plains I'm afraid they would be .

Question though: if Firaxis were to go for a Muscogean tribe, why wouldn't they just go for the Creek? The Creek call themselves "Muscogee" (which could serve as the name of the civ itself) and while their leader choices might be less interesting than Choktaw/Chikasaw isn't there enough overlap between the four non-Cherokee tribes to join combine them into one single civ with a maybe Cherokee UU. Or would that be on the level of Welsh-speaking woad-painted Brittanic Queen, who received faith from trees and had a Gallic UU and an Irish UB and who settled modern Irish, Cornish, Scottish, Breton, Mancunian and Welsh cities? (nb.: kind of funny how this post also lowkey exploresThe Concepts Zaarin Has A Pavlovian Fear Of. sorry brah)

Honestly I'd rather take another Celtic blob over this 5 civilized tribes blob. Not that I want either.
At least the Celtic languages are closer than the Cherokee is to the rest of the Muskogean language.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

Honestly I'd rather take another Celtic blob over this 5 civilized tribes blob. Not that I want either.
At least the Celtic languages are closer than the Cherokee is to the rest of the Muskogean language.

"Will Rogers leads Oklahoma in Sid Meier's Civilization VI. Their UB is the Casino, their UU is the Sooner, and their UA is 'TWISTER!!!' which causes extra damage from natural disasters."

*shudders*

 

[TeddyMain]

I still don't really expect the Iroquois, considering the region they represent is already cramped as is with both America and Canada.

This is probably the NA regions I expect to be represented by a new civ ranked from most likely to least likely IMO:

SW (Navajo, Apache, Comanche) > NW (Tlingit, Haida, Salish) > Arctic (Inuit, maybe Yupik or Dene?) = SE (Cherokee, Creek, Mississippi) > Plains (Sioux, although isn't this area kinda represented already by the Cree?) > NE (Iroquois)

 

[Jkchart]

There are some lovely suggestions in the last few dozen pages of this thread, so it makes me hope we do get a "Final Frontier" pass after this year of DLC. I'm sad we can't have everything.

On a related note, though I'm sure I've been on opposite sides of arguments with @PhoenicianGold in the past, I fully support a Bulgaria civ, especially seeing as they had not one, not two, but THREE empires (you know, if you count the more modern Tsardom as an Empire ) and hundreds of years of cultural and military history. I was very pleased to see them pop up in the definitive edition of AOEII, and we have yet to see any of the South Slavic nations appear. They are also probably less controversial than anyone in former Yugoslavia.

 

[Zaarin]

Don't the Choctaw also have Nanih Waiya?

Perhaps. It's not known for certain. Whereas that the Chickasaw are from Chicaza is 100% certain.

I haven't heard anything on anything more "corrupt" than that.

You'll note I explicitly stated he wasn't corrupt.

I'm curious if we will ever find out what happened with the Haida. The story might not be the same; it's possible maybe the Haida were an easier target but they were waiting on communication from the Cree which for whatever reason they wanted more. Or maybe they heard from the Salish and decided to go with them as the "American" tribe, since the Haida would double up with the Cree in Canada and leave America vacant. Maybe they have a dozen more civs planned and the Haida were just put off.

The Cree very strongly look like they were intended to be the Haida and that they went pretty far into development as the Haida.

I don't see why Canada can't have both the Cree and the Tlingit.

(The Tlingit are located almost entirely in Alaska. )

Question though: if Firaxis were to go for a Muscogean tribe, why wouldn't they just go for the Creek? The Creek call themselves "Muscogee" (which could serve as the name of the civ itself) and while their leader choices might be less interesting than Choktaw/Chikasaw isn't there enough overlap between the four non-Cherokee tribes to join combine them into one single civ with a maybe Cherokee UU. Or would that be on the level of Welsh-speaking woad-painted Brittanic Queen, who received faith from trees and had a Gallic UU and an Irish UB and who settled modern Irish, Cornish, Scottish, Breton, Mancunian and Welsh cities?

Yeah, that's Boudicca levels of blob. Maybe even Polynesia levels of blob. The thing is, all four major tribes were serious competitors. The Cherokee aren't even related to the rest. They even ended up on opposite sides of the Civil War (where the Creek sided with the Union and the other four sided with the Confederates). Based purely on prominence, yeah, the Creek are ideal. Creek leadership has problems, though, in that the actual tribal leadership betrayed the tribe, while the Red Sticks never led the whole tribe. So sure, you could choose Menawa, but he was never the leader of the Creeks, just the Red Sticks. Opothleyahola would be a little better, but still...My general point about the Choctaw and Chickasaw is that, unlike the Creek and Cherokee, they were not only prosperous but also stable. They never had the kind of internal turmoil that plagued the Creek and Cherokee. On top of that, they both have some great big personality leaders, particularly Pushmataha of the Choctaw.

He is too westernised in his outlook. Since Poundmaker is already in western influenced attire, I'd expect the next NA leader to don more traditional attire.

Then we can just cross out the Five Civilized Tribes altogether. Their entire thing was "adaptation instead of resistance." Any FCT leader is going to be dressed in Western-influenced (if not just Western) attire, and most of them are in fact going to be part white.