[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also have a sneaking suspicion that DLC pack 3 will have two North American civs. The reasoning being that (a) none of the PNW or SW tribes have strong female leaders are less likely to be pushed back to season 2 to maintain the 3-6 gender ratio, (b) none of the aforementioned tribes would likely sell well solo in DLC pack 4 or 6 compared to Portugal/Byzantium/Assyria/Italy, (c) the Inuit are an insanely popular V mod and probably the biggest dark horse candidate beyond the Goths, and (d) if we aren't getting any more African civs then there likely is no Africa map in NFP, leaving DLC pack 6 to likely be Middle Eastern/Mediterranean and begging the question why DLC pack 3 should have anything but an America map.

I don't expect the DLC pack 3 to be North America, but if it is it would be a pleasant surprise for me.
The most reasonable combination for that I could see is maybe the Iroquois and then another tribe out west like the Navajo/Apache or something more north like the Tlingit. The Iroquois at least have Jigonhsasee as a possible female leader.

 

[reddishrecue]

I don't expect the DLC pack 3 to be North America, but if it is it would be a pleasant surprise for me.
The most reasonable combination for that I could see is maybe the Iroquois and then another tribe out west like the Navajo/Apache or something more north like the Tlingit. The Iroquois at least have Jigonhsasee as a possible female leader.

You know civ 4 colonization has a wide variety of native american tribes which is really cool. The only downside to it is that the tribes can be used by AI only.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't expect the DLC pack 3 to be North America, but if it is it would be a pleasant surprise for me.
The most reasonable combination for that I could see is maybe the Iroquois and then another tribe out west like the Navajo/Apache or something more north like the Tlingit. The Iroquois at least have Jigonhsasee as a possible female leader.

True. Although unlikely, we could see a return of the Iroquois in the same way that the Mapuche don't outright preclude the Shoshone. Although there is sufficient question as to whether a return of the Iroquois would sell as well as the introduction of very populous and landed tribes like the Navajo or Cherokee, or as well as highly popular mods like the Inuit (which, weirdly enough, could also grab at some Danish representation without needing Denmark to return).

However, I don't think it really matters for purposes of what an America DLC pack would achieve. I'm pretty sure the devs are aware that one of the things most consistently requested by players are more Native American tribes, arguably moreso than more African or Southeast Asian civs. Adding two more civs to the continent in one DLC pack would bring up representation substantially, while still leaving room for further civs to be added in the future on pace with every other region.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the Americas and especially North America were always viewed as being "behind". Adding two more civs might finally bring them up to speed, and then we could get a third in season 2. There's certainly room for at least three between the PNW, the SW, the SE/Civilized Tribes, the Iroquois, and the Inuit. And there's still potentially room for a Caribbean civ if the devs wanted to go back to the "1 NA, 1 SA" rule for next season (or I guess, one Anglo-America, one Latin America civ in this case).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Who knows? Maybe they will in NFP.

like i’ve said, this would be near impossible without reworking the maori bcs of the design overlap

 

[Zaarin]

I'd love to see two more Native North American civs, but I see the probability of that happening to be borderline nonexistent. If we did get two more, though, I'm 100% positive that the Iroquois would be one of them. They were the single most influential indigenous power in the post-Columbian New World, and their pop culture/name recognition factor is high. Meanwhile I consider the probability that one of them will be Inuit to be somewhere around 0%: they have no cities, no leaders--they don't even have anything really to draw on for unique units or unique infrastructure.

In my opinion, the remaining double civ pack will either be Middle Eastern or European.

Stupid semantic fun if it's Theoderic vs. Theodora.

The most fun thing here is that, as similar as they look, Theodoric and Theodora are completely unrelated. Theodora comes from Greek "given by God," while Theodoric comes from Gothic "people-king" and is equivalent to Celtic Toutorix, which also gives us Welsh Tudor. I just love linguistic relationships and chance resemblances like that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True. Although unlikely, we could see a return of the Iroquois in the same way that the Mapuche don't outright preclude the Shoshone. Although there is sufficient question as to whether a return of the Iroquois would sell as well as the introduction of very populous and landed tribes like the Navajo or Cherokee, or as well as highly popular mods like the Inuit (which, weirdly enough, could also grab at some Danish representation without needing Denmark to return).

The Iroquois are popular though, enough to at least be one of the contenders to return. I think they are definitely more likely than the Inuit or the Cherokee for reasons. The Navajo I agree would also be good and would represent the south western part of the U.S.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The Iroquois are popular though, enough to at least be one of the contenders to return. I think they are definitely more likely than the Inuit or the Cherokee for reasons. The Navajo I agree would also be good and would represent the south western part of the U.S.

Eh I take popularity with a grain of salt where the prominence of the Iroquois is considerably affected by perspectives of history as viewed through colonists, which to a large extent was a coincidence of geography. That's not to say that they (a) weren't politically advanced or (b) didn't prove themselves a power when faced with western interference. But one does wonder if they would hold such an exceptional place in American history if colonists had been able to interact with tribes elsewhere on the continent to the extent they did with the Iroquois.

For that matter, I'm curious if the Navajo would even register with casual players as much as they do were it not for code talkers, or the Cherokee but for the Trail of Tears. They're the largest tribes in the country and arguably more successful in the long run than the Iroquois, yet it seems most tribes are lucky if they can break into common historical knowledge through a single anecdotal interaction with the colonial powers.

 

[reddishrecue]

What about The Sioux and Sitting Bull? They would appear in civ 4 as native america and in civ 5 as a city state. Their protective properties had good strategies and handed them a lot of victories over the U.S. but they turned themselves in to the U.S. because they ran out of buffalo to hunt and had other economic issues. Buffalo Bill and Sitting Bull even took a picture together showing the popularity of Sitting Bull to the world. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sitting-Bull

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What about The Sioux and Sitting Bull? They would appear in civ 4 as native america and in civ 5 as a city state. Their protective properties had good strategies and handed them a lot of victories over the U.S. but they turned themselves in to the U.S. because they ran out of buffalo to hunt and had other economic issues. Buffalo Bill and Sitting Bull even took a picture together showing the popularity of Sitting Bull to the world. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sitting-Bull

The Sioux were a city-state?

 

[Zaarin]

Eh I take popularity with a grain of salt where the prominence of the Iroquois is considerably affected by perspectives of history as viewed through colonists, which to a large extent was a coincidence of geography. That's not to say that they (a) weren't politically advanced or (b) didn't prove themselves a power when faced with western interference. But one does wonder if they would hold such an exceptional place in American history if colonists had been able to interact with tribes elsewhere on the continent to the extent they did with the Iroquois.

The Iroquois were the New World Bismarck: they took a bunch of conflicting alliances and played their stronger opponents against each other in order to keep their enemies off their lawn. It was a clever tactic, and it worked until the Iroquois couldn't agree on whom to support in the War for Independence. Had the Iroquois either had the sense to stay neutral or support the colonists, there might well be a state of Iroquoia now. Yes, they are famous because they participated in colonial history. They didn't have a choice: that the colonists were there and not leaving was a fact they had to deal with. They made the best of it, and a pretty good "best" it was.

What about The Sioux and Sitting Bull?

I have three issues here: 1) the vast majority of the world, including in the US, already believes all Native Americans are Sioux; 2) do we really need yet another pure warmonger horse-raiding civ?; and 3) the chief significance of the Sioux is as "adversaries of the United States"--e.g., their main role in pop culture was once "the great adversaries" and now in more politically correct terms "the brave resistance."

The Sioux were a city-state?

He's probably remembering a mod. They weren't a city-state in the unmodded game, certainly not that I can recall.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The Sioux were in Civ II I think. Or III. I can never get those two straight.

 

[reddishrecue]

The Sioux were a city-state?

Yes, they had Cahokia as the capital of Native America.

I have three issues here: 1) the vast majority of the world, including in the US, already believes all Native Americans are Sioux; 2) do we really need yet another pure warmonger horse-raiding civ?; and 3) the chief significance of the Sioux is as "adversaries of the United States"--e.g., their main role in pop culture was once "the great adversaries" and now in more politically correct terms "the brave resistance."

1)Some Indians were so christian that even the U.S. helped them out.
2)There was a native civilization that did invade the other civilizations but most people would think it was the Sioux.
3)I didn't know there was a pop culture naming the Sioux as the great adversaries nor the brave resistance. Some smaller native american tribes relied on the U.S against really aggressive Sioux or native american tribes.

 

[Zaarin]

Buffalo Bill and Sitting Bull even took a picture together showing the popularity of Sitting Bull to the world.

Missed this line when I responded to the other. They didn't just take a picture together. Sitting Bull was in Buffalo Bill's Wild West show. I'd say it was less a demonstration of Sitting Bull's popularity and more of how far the mighty had fallen that he had to resort to appearing in a traveling variety show for money.

Yes, they had Cahokia as the capital of Native America.

Cahokia was not Sioux. It was Mississippian. "Native America" was a hodgepodge of cultures from all across the continent. There's a reason it's the most despised civilization design in the franchise's history.

1)Some Indians were so christian that even the U.S. helped them out.
2)There was a native civilization that did invade the other civilizations but most people would think it was the Sioux.

How are either of these relevant to what I said?

3)I didn't know there was a pop culture naming the Sioux as the great adversaries nor the brave resistance.

In older American media, their defeat was the signature event of Manifest Destiny; since then they've been romanticized as the archetype of the "Noble Savage" resisting the "Evil Oppressive Civilization." Activists for a variety of causes (especially environmental ones, even though the Sioux kind of wrecked the environment through over-hunting--oops) still invoke their image.

 

[reddishrecue]

Cahokia was not Sioux. It was Mississippian. "Native America" was a hodgepodge of cultures from all across the continent. There's a reason it's the most despised civilization design in the franchise's history.

Yes, Cahokia was in Mississippi in civilization 5 but it was the capital of native america in civilization 4. I didn't mean to cause any confusion to real history.

How are either of these relevant to what I said?

You're right in question 1 and 2, The Sioux could've been that tribe that raided Americans and did build grudges to Americans that caused hatred towards all Indians even if the other Indians they saw afterwards were peaceful.

In older American media, their defeat was the signature event of Manifest Destiny; since then they've been romanticized as the archetype of the "Noble Savage" resisting the "Evil Oppressive Civilization." Activists for a variety of causes (especially environmental ones, even though the Sioux kind of wrecked the environment through over-hunting--oops) still invoke their image.

Manifest Destiny was American expanding to the Pacific, along with Native American genocide. As for the Sioux hunting I agree they did over-hunt for furs and food.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I have three issues here: 1) the vast majority of the world, including in the US, already believes all Native Americans are Sioux; 2) do we really need yet another pure warmonger horse-raiding civ?; and 3) the chief significance of the Sioux is as "adversaries of the United States"--e.g., their main role in pop culture was once "the great adversaries" and now in more politically correct terms "the brave resistance."

My main reason for not including the Sioux would be number 2. The Cree fill the "Great Plains" role fine without it being over the top and no horse raiding unit.

I could care less about number 3 because I wouldn't necessarily mind Manuelito for the Navajo, Geronimo for the Apache, or even Tecumseh of the Shawnee and all of them are considered major adversaries of the U.S. though maybe not the Navajo as much.

 

[untitledjuan]

I think my biggest wish its to get a Muisca Civ but its very unlikely (at least for this pass) cuz of the Hunza city states but in futue pass/dlc they could be added and change that city state to a Calima or a Quimbaya city state

I am a huge fan of the Muisca, my university is even trying to reconstruct their language, they're really interesting and have some quite interesting leader choices. However, I do think Gran Colombia or Colombia lead by Simón Bolívar is way more representative for a lot of peoples in Latin America than the Muisca. Just by having Bolívar in you're including territories from all the northern part of Spanish-speaking South America an large parts of central america and the Caribbean, as well as being a a society/culture(s)/civilisation that still exists to this day. So I'd still prefer Gran Colombia/Colombia over the Muisca, as much as I love them as well and I am glad that Hunza is a city-state and that the ancient theme of GC has Muisca and other indigenous and African influences, not just Spanish musical influence

And the Muisca would really overlap in TSL map with Gran Colombia, their capitals were located in the same spot, not more than 15 km away from each other in real life. I'd rather have another South American nation from the region around Argentina, be it native or even Argentina itself. Though I dont think it is very likely considering what has been speculated here thus far

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Yes, Cahokia was in Mississippi in civilization 5 but it was the capital of native america in civilization 4. I didn't mean to cause any confusion to real history.

Oh wow you're right. I will accept that.

The Iroquois were the New World Bismarck: they took a bunch of conflicting alliances and played their stronger opponents against each other in order to keep their enemies off their lawn. It was a clever tactic, and it worked until the Iroquois couldn't agree on whom to support in the War for Independence. Had the Iroquois either had the sense to stay neutral or support the colonists, there might well be a state of Iroquoia now. Yes, they are famous because they participated in colonial history. They didn't have a choice: that the colonists were there and not leaving was a fact they had to deal with. They made the best of it, and a pretty good "best" it was.


I have three issues here: 1) the vast majority of the world, including in the US, already believes all Native Americans are Sioux; 2) do we really need yet another pure warmonger horse-raiding civ?; and 3) the chief significance of the Sioux is as "adversaries of the United States"--e.g., their main role in pop culture was once "the great adversaries" and now in more politically correct terms "the brave resistance."

Eh, as far as "adversaries of the United States" go, the Great Sioux Nation was also a confederacy and was also aggressively expansionist, so it occupies quite a similar role in American history as the Iroquois, even if it wasn't as successful defending against colonization. Granted, I still agree with Alexander's Heteroi that the Cree are doing a fine job representing the plains tribes so I don't really have a need for the Sioux nation, but I do think that they are closer to the Iroquois in regional dominance than many other tribes.

And, again, as far as making the best of things go, the Navajo and the Five Civilized tribes seem to have come out on top of circumstances as best anyone could for being evicted and marched out of their homelands. They're now the most landed and populous tribes in the nation, to my mind modern success stories that at least put them up for consideration against the Iroquois if not represent a more enduring legacy that is so attractive to the VI developers.

And, I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Inuit are also holding steady with a population of around 160,000, putting them as one of the largest native groups on the continent just behind I believe the Cree, Ojibwe, Navajo, and Cherokee if estimates are to be believed. The Inuit mod for V is insanely popular, pretty much tied with Vietnam which is one of the most subscribed mods. They have a distinct arctic flavor that no other civ besides the smaller Saami or the mildly controversial Yakuts could compare, and have the additional versatility of having maritime aspects to their culture and a stronger history of exploring and expanding into territory. They have at least a few infrastructure and unit options. It feels like the Mapuche fudging city lists and the Maori using a legendary leader might have been laying the foundations to justify the Inuit. While I don't have any particularly strong desire to have the Inuit in the game (with the exception of that polar bear icon), I think they are a major contender if a second season is planned, and certainly far more likely to appear than Iceland. To my mind they don't completely fail to supply any of the necessary design elements for a civ, and are so extremely unique, and popular that I actually think people are discrediting their likelihood when in fact minimalism might be their greatest ticket to inclusion. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them in VI; in fact the only reason I can imagine representing a real challenge to their inclusion would be how imbalanced it might be to have only one civ with arctic tile exceptions. The Inuit are precisely the type of baity, trendy civ like Georgia, Canada, Vietnam, that the devs would go for if they could cobble together a coherent design.

Also also, I just found out that there are in fact more people of Irish heritage in the world than of Scottish heritage, and in fact more than French, Italians, English, Poles, Ukrainians, or Spanish. If anyone wants even more reason to be bitter that we have Scotland and not Ireland. Also Bengalis are the third largest ethnic identification in the world so come on Dhaka city-state.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Sioux's focus should be environmental, not necessarily based around horse raiding. Their cultural traditions revolve around respecting nature in its pristine state. I don't expect them in NFP because the abilities I would imagine firaxis would give them are already roughly covered by Bull Moose Teddy and the Ethiopians.

I sitll support the Tlingit or Navajo the most as the native american civ (if we get one. Maybe GC took the slot that could've gone to the NA civ). Iroquois is a good choice, but not in Civ 6. Diplomacy sucks in this game and I doubt they'll make it unsuck.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And the Muisca would really overlap in TSL map with Gran Colombia, their capitals were located in the same spot, not more than 15 km away from each other in real life. I'd rather have another South American nation from the region around Argentina, be it native or even Argentina itself. Though I dont think it is very likely considering what has been speculated here thus far

Considering we already have the Mapuche that is very close to where buenos Aires is already I don't think that would happen. That's probably also a reason why they went with Gran Colombia as well. I could maybe see in the future them swapping Gran Colombia and the Mapuche for the Muisca and Argentina, but who knows?

And, I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Inuit are also holding steady with a population of around 160,000, putting them as one of the largest native groups on the continent just behind I believe the Cree, Ojibwe, Navajo, and Cherokee if estimates are to be believed. The Inuit mod for V is insanely popular, pretty much tied with Vietnam which is one of the most subscribed mods. They have a distinct arctic flavor that no other civ besides the smaller Saami or the mildly controversial Yakuts could compare, and have the additional versatility of having maritime aspects to their culture and a stronger history of exploring and expanding into territory. They have at least a few infrastructure and unit options. It feels like the Mapuche fudging city lists and the Maori using a legendary leader might have been laying the foundations to justify the Inuit. While I don't have any particularly strong desire to have the Inuit in the game (with the exception of that polar bear icon), I think they are a major contender if a second season is planned, and certainly far more likely to appear than Iceland. To my mind they don't completely fail to supply any of the necessary design elements for a civ, and are so extremely unique, and popular that I actually think people are discrediting their likelihood when in fact minimalism might be their greatest ticket to inclusion. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them in VI; in fact the only reason I can imagine representing a real challenge to their inclusion would be how imbalanced it might be to have only one civ with arctic tile exceptions. The Inuit are precisely the type of baity, trendy civ like Georgia, Canada, Vietnam, that the devs would go for if they could cobble together a coherent design.

Then maybe we should stop beating the dead horse.
Unless they can find a reasonable leader I don't see it happening. The leader for the Civ 5 mod is just the legendary first Inuit and I don't see anything else in particular about him. When you google him it just goes to the mod page on steam.

Also also, I just found out that there are in fact more people of Irish heritage in the world than of Scottish heritage, and in fact more than French, Italians, English, Poles, Ukrainians, or Spanish. If anyone wants even more reason to be bitter that we have Scotland and not Ireland.

I'm not bitter. I mean technically the country of Scotland has more population currently than Ireland, not counting Northern Ireland. I don't think it matters.
That being said I wonder how many are considered Scotch-Irish, like me, which some people might count as only Irish unaware of the Scottish people that went to live in Northern Ireland?

Sioux's focus should be environmental, not necessarily based around horse raiding. Their cultural traditions revolve around respecting nature in its pristine state. I don't expect them in NFP because the abilities I would imagine firaxis would give them are already roughly covered by Bull Moose Teddy and the Ethiopians.

I'd be surprised if half of their abilities weren't centered around horse raiding. Their UU would definitely be a cavalry unit and whatever leader they would have, whether it be Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse etc., would have some sort of war/aggression ability.

 

[SMcM]

Considering we already have the Mapuche that is very close to where buenos Aires is already I don't think that would happen. That's probably also a reason why they went with Gran Colombia as well. I could maybe see in the future them swapping Gran Colombia and the Mapuche for the Muisca and Argentina, but who knows?

Yes that's quite possible I agree. It's also worth remembering how big a place Brazil is, it wouldn't unreasonable at all to add an indigenous civ like the Tupi people in that region as future Civ VI DLC.