Dividing North America

[humble serf]

The general consensus among players seems to be that the best way to handle indigenous North America in Civ is to divide the continent into its most prominent sub-regions and include one nation from each region. Personally I like this model, because I think civs are most interesting when they are defined by totally unique features and abilities which encourage highly distinctive play-styles, so that's what I'll be going for in this thread. As a bare minimum, I think most people would agree that the regions of indigenous North America should include:

• The Northeast, stretching from Ontario and Michigan east to the Atlantic. Generally speaking this region includes Central Algonquian, Eastern Algonquian and Iroquoian-speaking peoples. As depicted in R&F, with their early trade, their enhanced scouting of hill and forest terrain, their confederacy-building and their Mekewaps, I would argue that the Cree civilisation represents this region. It's a little odd given that Poundmaker himself was Plains Cree and arguably belonged to a different "cultural region" of the continent, but any attempt to divide North America into rigidly-defined regions is bound to be imperfect, so these problems are always going to emerge. Mechanically speaking, the Cree in R&F are a Northeastern people, and their unique features could just as easily have been given to an Iroquois, Huron or Powhatan civilisation with only minor tweaks and name-changes.
• The Great Plains. There are plenty of nations and leaders to choose from here, but it's a difficult set of folkways to depict in a game based around static city-building. Some sort of city project enabling a district (or the city centre) to be relocated to an adjacent tile might be an interesting USP.
• The Southeast. Essentially, we're talking about the Five Civilised Tribes -- most likely the Cherokee, although given some of the left-field civ picks in R&F, we could just as easily see any of the others. The crucial unique features for a Southeastern civ would presumably be a focus on "regular" agriculture and the legacy of the Mississippian mound builders.
• The Southwest. Nubia's bonus to desert tiles is weird enough that we could easily have another desert-themed nation without the two civs overlapping. Plus, the Zulu didn't actually get any livestock-themed bonuses (not even a measly little pasture adjacency bonus for the Ikanda), so that's still unclaimed territory as far as unique civ designs go. I have a few ideas for a Southeastern civ myself, which I'll include in the next post. Bearing in mind the Puebloan controversy of Civ 5, it's important to remember that including an indigenous Southwestern civ would probably be a thorny issue for the developers, and that we might therefore never see one in-game. Nevertheless, it's worth talking about.
• The Northwest. I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, as the indigenous Northwest is my primary field of research. I'll drop my proposal for a Northwestern civ in the next post.
• The Far North. This isn't my area of expertise, but between steam, reddit and these forums I've seen so many proposals for an Inuit civilisation that I feel it deserves a place in this list.

TL;DR: Is dividing North America by region and including one-civ-per-region a good idea? If so, is this an adequate list of regions? Should there be more or fewer regions? What are each region's most interesting potential unique features? Which nations and leaders would make for good regional representatives in-game?

If we collectively build a civ for each region, we should get a strong idea of what the community wants to see with regard to indigenous North American civs.

 

[humble serf]

The Northeast -- the Iroquois

• Unique themes: trade and warfare. Most likely the best native North American civilisation for a domination victory.
• Leader: Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant)
• Capital: Onondaga
• LUA: Bound together for Strength: Land units receive +1 combat strength for every active Iroquois trade route to a major Civilisation (not domestic trade routes or routes to City-States). If you have an open trade route slot when you conquer a city, receive a free Trader unit in the capital. Units regain an extra +10 HP when they heal on a tile with a road in friendly territory.
• Agenda: Balance of Power. Likes civilisations who denounce or fight wars against his friends. Dislikes civilisations which declare friendship with his friends.
• CUA: Mourning Wars. Warmonger penalty for razing a city is halved. Half the population of a city razed by the Iroquois is redistributed to other Iroquois cities.
• UU: Rotisken’ra:kete. Musketman replacement. Ignores movement penalties from woods, rainforest and hills. Invisible to enemy civs unless they have a unit adjacent to it.
• UI: Longhouse. Granary replacement. Provides an extra +1 housing, +1 culture and +0.25 Great Merchant points.

OR the Powhatan Confederacy

• Unique themes: city-state-based gameplay.
• Leader: Wahunsenacah
• Capital: Werowocomoco
• LUA: Mamanatowick. Generate +1 envoy point per turn. Receive an envoy whenever you clear a barbarian camp or enter a tribal village.
• Agenda: Paramount Chief. Likes civilisations who are invested in city-states. Dislikes civilisations who ignore or make war against city-states.
• CUA: Mattoume. +2 food from every bonus resource which already provides at least 1 food.
• UU: Tomahawk.
• UI: Council House. Amphitheatre replacement. Provides an additional +1 envoy point per turn.

The Great Plains -- the Sioux

• Unique themes: nomadism, mobile cities(?)

The Southeast -- the Choctaw

• Unique themes: Warfare, diplomacy, science.
• Leader: Pushmataha.

The Northwest -- the Nuu-Chah-Nulth

• Unique themes: more maritime/naval gameplay than most North Americans, high food yield (and therefore high population) without relying on farms, gift diplomacy.
• Leader: Macuina. Admittedly this is mostly because of my own interest in Nuu-Chah-Nulth culture (Nootka-Spanish diplomatic relations were the subject of my undergraduate thesis), but Macuina certainly fits the "big personality" requirement of Civ 6 leaders better than a lot of other Northwestern chiefs. I know the Haida are a popular alternative, and I'd love to see a Haida civ in-game, but personally I feel like Norway already took a lot of their most likely unique features.
• Agenda: Potlatch -- Macuina likes leaders who give him gifts (trade deals where he offers nothing in return), and is prone to giving gifts to his friends and allies. He hates leaders who do not reciprocate his gift-giving. This is outrageously oversimplified, but I think it'd make for a very fun, interesting and distinctive leader to meet in-game.
• Capital: Yuquot.
• LUA: Undetermined
• CUA: Salmon Harvest -- +1 food and +1 gold on every unimproved tile adjacent to a river. In my opinion this is the single most distinctive thing about the Pacific Northwest -- the ability to build complex, stratified societies without developing agriculture, thanks to the abundance of salmon and the ability to preserve it for long periods through smoking it. This would probably be an incredible bonus in the early game, not only because there are so many tiles adjacent to rivers but also because the Nuu-Chah-Nulth would need far fewer builders. They would probably want to start farming after Feudalism (and certainly after Replaceable Parts), but hopefully they'd get enough of a boost from their early game river yields that it'd be easy to catch up in terms of builder infrastructure by the mid-to-late game.
• UU: Undetermined
• UI: Smokehouse -- watermill replacement, unlocked at Sailing, must be built on a river. In addition to the usual benefits, provides +1 housing, +1 food to fishing boats and +1 food to all tiles adjacent to a river. Essentially I think the Nuu-Chah-Nulth ought to be an early game food powerhouse, tied largely to rivers and coastlines, who can use their unusually large pre-agricultural population to develop rapidly towards their choice of victory condition. To compensate for this early game power, I think their CUA should become less useful in the later game as farming becomes more and more attractive as an alternative.

The Southwest -- the Navajo

• Unique themes: while organised religion and proselytism aren't features of any indigenous faith of North America, I think it would be interesting (from a gameplay point of view) to have at least one Native American civilisation oriented towards a religious victory. In my opinion, the Southwest is the best region for such a design, most likely through a Hopi, Navajo or Puebloan civ. In addition, better use of pasture improvements, Natural Wonders and desert tiles would all make for interesting Southwestern UX's. As mentioned above, we have to bear in mind the Puebloan controversy of Civ 5, and accept that we might never actually see a Southwestern civ included in the game.

The Far North -- the Inuit

• Unique themes: better use of snow/ice tiles(?)

 

[Zaarin]

You forgot the Eastern Woodlands, and I'd say the Cree have the Plains covered. For an Eastern Woodlands tribe, I'd like to see the Powhatan, but the Iroquois are perhaps more likely. EDIT: Ah, I see you did cover the Eastern Woodlands and consider the Cree part of that. That's fair, but I still want my Powhatan.

I reluctantly agree with you about the Nuu-Chah-Nulth. I'd rather see a more northern PNW tribe--the Tlingit, the Haida, the Tsimshian--but they're hard pressed for interesting leaders.

For the Southeast, I think the Choctaw are the obvious choice thanks to Pushmataha--the standout leaders of the Creek and Cherokee sold their people out, and the Chickasaw don't have as many big personality leaders.

The Southwest is another challenge. The Tewa have asked not to be included, and some have speculated the Hopi and Zuni might feel the same way. That leaves the Navajo and the Apache, and I think we can rule out the Apache because do we really need yet another horse raider civilization? So pretty much that leaves the Navajo, led by Manuelito, presumably.

I really don't understand the appeal of including the Inuit. They were subsistence hunter-gatherers that lived in small nomadic bands or occasionally tiny settlements. I don't think they're a good fit for Civilization. (I want to emphasize that I don't mean that as a judgment on their culture, which is very interesting. I simply mean they'd be a poor choice for a civ because they didn't really have...well, any of the things that Civilization traditionally assumes civs had: cities, leaders, agriculture, etc.)


I'm not certain we'll even get one more Native American civ after the base game came with 0, but having four more would make me extremely happy indeed.

 

[Phrozen]

Would the Comanche be Plains or Southwest? Their territory covered parts of both.

 

[Zaarin]

Would the Comanche be Plains or Southwest? Their territory covered parts of both.

I'd call them Southwest, but we also just had them in Civ5 in a weird hybrid with the Shoshone (why they didn't just call the civ "Comanche" is anyone's guess). And they'd be Yet Another Horse Raider Civ.

 

[humble serf]

You forgot the Eastern Woodlands, and I'd say the Cree have the Plains covered. For an Eastern Woodlands tribe, I'd like to see the Powhatan, but the Iroquois are perhaps more likely.

Could you elaborate on the Cree being a Plains tribe based on their depiction in R&F? As an ethnic group they of course span both the Northeast and the Plains, and Poundmaker himself was Plains Cree, but personally I don't think any of the Cree UX's in R&F suit a "Great Plains" playstyle -- whereas every single one of their features could be renamed, re-skinned and given to the Iroquois or Powhatan (I mean, come on: the LUA is about confederacy-building!) to create an accurate and interesting Northeastern Woodlands feel. Not that I wouldn't enjoy a Powhatan civ, but I don't see what they'd offer that Poundmaker doesn't already have covered -- whereas I feel like Red Cloud, Peta Nocona or some other Plains chief would present a very different way to play the game.

I agree with you about the Inuit, I've never fully understood why so many people try to shoehorn them into civ -- but if it's what people want to play, I'm not going to complain about more indigenous American options in-game.

A religious victory-oriented Navajo nation sounds like an interesting (and legally actionable) civ design for the southwest, and the Choctaw would be my personal preference for the southeast for a whole host of reasons. I'm going to add both of those to the civ post.

Given that we're still waiting on the Maya and the Inca, it might be wishful thinking to expect more North Americans from the devs -- but if the Cree and the Mapuche can make it into the game, I'm not about to give up hope yet.

Would the Comanche be Plains or Southwest? Their territory covered parts of both.

In terms of game mechanics I'd put them as more of a Plains nation. That is to say the Comanche would probably play very much like the Cheyenne in-game, but rather differently from the Navajo.

 

[Phrozen]

I'd call them Southwest, but we also just had them in Civ5 in a weird hybrid with the Shoshone (why they didn't just call the civ "Comanche" is anyone's guess). And they'd be Yet Another Horse Raider Civ.

To be fair the Shoshone and Comanche were once one cultural group and shared the same language. Just the Comanche got horses and migrated south out of Wyoming and proceeded on a path of conquest across west Texas and eastern New Mexico. A Comanche civ would be much more warlike than the Shoshone in Civ 5 were.

 

[Zaarin]

Could you elaborate on the Cree being a Plains tribe based on their depiction in R&F? As an ethnic group they of course span both the Northeast and the Plains, and Poundmaker himself was Plains Cree, but personally I don't think any of the Cree UX's in R&F suit a "Great Plains" playstyle -- whereas every single one of their features could be renamed, re-skinned and given to the Iroquois or Powhatan (I mean, come on: the LUA is about confederacy-building!) to create an accurate and interesting Northeastern Woodlands feel. Not that I wouldn't enjoy a Powhatan civ, but I don't see what they'd offer that Poundmaker doesn't already have covered -- whereas I feel like Red Cloud, Peta Nocona or some other Plains chief would present a very different way to play the game.

That's all perfectly fair. I just suspect that if we get a Plains tribe, it will be the Sioux, and the Sioux are already over-represented in the media to the point that many non-Americans (and even some Americans) think all Native Americans are Sioux. So I guess one could say I'd rather see a Woodlands tribe than a Plains tribe just because I'd find it more interesting. Yes, the Cree could just as easily have been called the Powhatan or Iroquois (the Mekewap is a little different--probably would have gone for a Granary-replacing longhouse for the Iroquois and I'm not even sure what I'd do for a UI for the Powhatan off the top of my head), but that doesn't mean one couldn't do something different with them, too. And aside from media bias favoring Plains tribes, there's also the fact that the game is already overflowing with horse raiders.

A religious victory-oriented Navajo nation

Regarding a religiously oriented Native American civ, Mesoamerica is the obvious place to look (though I doubt we'll ever see a non-war oriented Aztec or non-science oriented Maya, and hoping for a third Mesoamerican civ like the Mixtec or Zapotec is a pipe dream), but in North America there were also the early "Pan-Indian" religious movements in the Great Lakes and Northeast: Neolin of the Lenape/Delaware or Tecumseh/Tenskwatawa of the Shawnee, for instance. Not my first choice personally, but I know there are people here who very much want to see Tecumseh included.

the Choctaw would be my personal preference for the southeast for a whole host of reasons.

Likewise.

Given that we're still waiting on the Maya and the Inca, it might be wishful thinking to expect more North Americans from the devs -- but if the Cree and the Mapuche can make it into the game, I'm not about to give up hope yet.

Yeah, I don't know what to expect. The base game shipped without a single civ native to the New World (the Aztec were added as day 1 DLC), but then R&F comes along and makes two rather surprising choices. I'd like to think we'll get more, but I'd be a little surprised unless we get either inter-expansion DLC or a third expansion.

To be fair the Shoshone and Comanche were once one cultural group and shared the same language. Just the Comanche got horses and migrated south out of Wyoming and proceeded on a path of conquest across west Texas and eastern New Mexico. A Comanche civ would be much more warlike than the Shoshone in Civ 5 were.

True. But given that they actually had a pretty potent empire there they also would have made more sense.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Could you elaborate on the Cree being a Plains tribe based on their depiction in R&F? As an ethnic group they of course span both the Northeast and the Plains, and Poundmaker himself was Plains Cree, but personally I don't think any of the Cree UX's in R&F suit a "Great Plains" playstyle -- whereas every single one of their features could be renamed, re-skinned and given to the Iroquois or Powhatan (I mean, come on: the LUA is about confederacy-building!) to create an accurate and interesting Northeastern Woodlands feel. Not that I wouldn't enjoy a Powhatan civ, but I don't see what they'd offer that Poundmaker doesn't already have covered -- whereas I feel like Red Cloud, Peta Nocona or some other Plains chief would present a very different way to play the game.

I consider the Cree to be a hybrid of both the Northeast and Great Plains with the latter being predominant. Poundmaker himself was a Plains Cree and his ability has to deal with trading not only with camps but with pastures. Besides I hope this will be the closest we get to a nomadic Plains tribe because it's hard to depict them correctly in the first place.
That's why I'm thinking for the next one we have a closer shot for a southern tribe with it being either the Southwest for the Navajo or one of the Civilized Tribes from the Southeast.

 

[Plymouth]

Though perhaps geographically unlikely, I still believe there is a strong possibility we'll be seeing the Iroquois at some point in CIV VI. With a very good choice for female leader that literally everyone can agree on (Jigonsaseh) and a seriously unique culture and system of governance, I would be somewhat surprised if the Iroquois Confederacy (one of the most important groups. if not the most important group, of early colonial North America) does not see inclusion in CIV VI. However, I would also like another native civ in the Southwest United States to even out the map geographically and culturally. If the Navajo are willing, I think they'd be a pretty good fit.

 

[humble serf]

That's all perfectly fair. I just suspect that if we get a Plains tribe, it will be the Sioux, and the Sioux are already over-represented in the media to the point that many non-Americans (and even some Americans) think all Native Americans are Sioux. So I guess one could say I'd rather see a Woodlands tribe than a Plains tribe just because I'd find it more interesting. Yes, the Cree could just as easily have been called the Powhatan or Iroquois (the Mekewap is a little different--probably would have gone for a Granary-replacing longhouse for the Iroquois and I'm not even sure what I'd do for a UI for the Powhatan off the top of my head), but that doesn't mean one couldn't do something different with them, too. And aside from media bias favoring Plains tribes, there's also the fact that the game is already overflowing with horse raiders.

I'd agree that the Plains tribes translate worse into Civ than the Woodland tribes (compare Age of Empires 3, where the Sioux and the Iroquois work equally well in a real-time strategy setting). Assuming we don't get one-tribe-per-region, which we almost definitely won't, I'd happily see the Plains ignored in favour of the Southeast, Southwest or Northwest. Certainly I don't want Red Cloud to be included if he's just going to be another Tomyris, and as you mentioned earlier with regards to the Inuit, the folkways of the Plains are difficult to implement in a game based around city-building and static agriculture.

On the other hand, I don't really want to see Poundmaker and Powhatan in the same game if it means we don't get Macuina or Manuelito. One Algonquian-speaking confederation-builder is enough for me, whether or not we count the Cree as a Plains tribe. And as much as I like Tecumseh, I'd also rule him out of Civ 6 for the same reason.

Regarding a religiously oriented Native American civ, Mesoamerica is the obvious place to look (though I doubt we'll ever see a non-war oriented Aztec or non-science oriented Maya, and hoping for a third Mesoamerican civ like the Mixtec or Zapotec is a pipe dream), but in North America there were also the early "Pan-Indian" religious movements in the Great Lakes and Northeast: Neolin of the Lenape/Delaware or Tecumseh/Tenskwatawa of the Shawnee, for instance. Not my first choice personally, but I know there are people here who very much want to see Tecumseh included.

If there was ever a Civ game which would ditch the Maya in favour of the Mixtec, it's this one. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it isn't impossible.

The main reason I'd like to see a religious Native American civ (which I'll admit would be much more logical coming from, say, the Inca) is for gameplay variety: if all five North American civs end up with an ancient-era UU and some variation of the Mekewap ("Your people make better use of their local terrain. Here's +2 production and +1 food from forests/rivers/deserts/camps/pastures/whatever, now go pick a victory type and see if you can win."), they won't be as fun or as interesting as they deserve to be, and that defeats the purpose of including them in the first place. It might not be 100% logical, but I'd rather have the gameplay variety of, say, religious Navajo, domination Haida and scientific Cherokee than three more Cree-style "pick a victory type and use your random yield buffs to make it work" civs. Nothing against the Cree civ design, I'd just like my Americans to feel as different from one another as possible.

Yeah, I don't know what to expect. The base game shipped without a single civ native to the New World (the Aztec were added as day 1 DLC), but then R&F comes along and makes two rather surprising choices. I'd like to think we'll get more, but I'd be a little surprised unless we get either inter-expansion DLC or a third expansion.

I'm holding out for three expansions. It could happen.

I consider the Cree to be a hybrid of both the Northeast and Great Plains with the latter being predominant. Poundmaker himself was a Plains Cree and his ability has to deal with trading not only with camps but with pastures. Besides I hope this will be the closest we get to a nomadic Plains tribe because it's hard to depict them correctly in the first place.
That's why I'm thinking for the next one we have a closer shot for a southern tribe with it being either the Southwest for the Navajo or one of the Civilized Tribes from the Southeast.

Agreed. From a TSL point of view the Southwest feels the most likely (lots of open space, roughly equidistant between Washington, Tenochtitlan and Mikisiw), but I'd also take the Southeast or the Northwest over the Plains in a game like civ.

 

[Zaarin]

On the other hand, I don't really want to see Poundmaker and Powhatan in the same game if it means we don't get Macuina or Manuelito. One Algonquian-speaking confederation-builder is enough for me, whether or not we count the Cree as a Plains tribe. And as much as I like Tecumseh, I'd also rule him out of Civ 6 for the same reason.

In principle I agree--I'd like to see more linguistic diversity. Civ6 just seems like a great fit for Powhatan (the chief), with its focus on big personalities and unexpected choices.

If there was ever a Civ game which would ditch the Maya in favour of the Mixtec, it's this one. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it isn't impossible.

I'll actually be pretty annoyed if that happens. I don't care if Monty is a staple; I'd rather see the Aztec excluded than the Maya, as much as I'd like to see Eight Deer Jaguar Claw lead the Mixtec.

The main reason I'd like to see a religious Native American civ (which I'll admit would be much more logical coming from, say, the Inca) is for gameplay variety: if all five North American civs end up with an ancient-era UU and some variation of the Mekewap ("Your people make better use of their local terrain. Here's +2 production and +1 food from forests/rivers/deserts/camps/pastures/whatever, now go pick a victory type and see if you can win."), they won't be as fun or as interesting as they deserve to be, and that defeats the purpose of including them in the first place. It might not be 100% logical, but I'd rather have the gameplay variety of, say, religious Navajo, domination Haida and scientific Cherokee than three more Cree-style "pick a victory type and use your random yield buffs to make it work" civs. Nothing against the Cree civ design, I'd just like my Americans to feel as different from one another as possible.

I agree. That's why, despite the leader issue, I'd love to see a northern PNW tribe like the Haida or Tlingit, who would be a great pick of a Culture Victory-focused Native American civilization, not just another "woods, horses, and peace pipes" stereotype.

Agreed. From a TSL point of view the Southwest feels the most likely (lots of open space, roughly equidistant between Washington, Tenochtitlan and Mikisiw), but I'd also take the Southeast or the Northwest over the Plains in a game like civ.

I'm actually rather surprised that 26 years in we've never had a Southeastern tribe in game. Crossing my fingers for the Choctaw or Chickasaw and not the Cherokee...

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Would California be a worthy region to include? Granted, the Chumash would probably be the only noteworthy group from there but I thought it would at least be worth considering.

As much as I like the idea of an Inuit civ, I also agree that it seems really unlikely that we'd get an American civ from that far north.

I know that we'll probably only get 3-5 Native American civs so we should be highly selective about which ones we'd want, but I still feel like we can have both the Iroquois and the Powhatan. On one hand, the Iroquois are among if not the most advanced Native American group with several great leader choices (not to mention a worthy female leader). On the other hand, Powhatan is such a cool charismatic leader choice who feels perfect for this game. Its such a hard choice to only pick one of them that I just really want both of them, even if it means the Northeast will feel a bit crowded.

I also definitely agree with having the Choctaw for the Southeast.

Maquinna leading the Nuu-Chah-Nulth sounds like a good choice for the Northwest though I'd still love to see the Tlingit lead by Gush X'een (especially to see the Tlingit armor on the warriors). The Haida have been a popular choice (apparently they were even going to be in Rise and Fall before being replaced by the Cree) but they're definitely lacking in info on their leaders. One of the few Haida leaders I've found with decent info on is Albert Edward Edenshaw though I don't know if he'd be considered a big personality.

The Navajo are probably the best option for the Southwest though I do understand the appeal of the Comanche and the respect that their empire had. Iron Jacket would be a pretty cool leader to see.

I personally wouldn't swap the Maya with the Mixtec but I would probably pick them as the next Mesoamerican civ after the Maya though!

 

[humble serf]

I agree. That's why, despite the leader issue, I'd love to see a northern PNW tribe like the Haida or Tlingit, who would be a great pick of a Culture Victory-focused Native American civilization, not just another "woods, horses, and peace pipes" stereotype.

Maquinna leading the Nuu-Chah-Nulth sounds like a good choice for the Northwest though I'd still love to see the Tlingit lead by Gush X'een (especially to see the Tlingit armor on the warriors). The Haida have been a popular choice (apparently they were even going to be in Rise and Fall before being replaced by the Cree) but they're definitely lacking in info on their leaders. One of the few Haida leaders I've found with decent info on is Albert Edward Edenshaw though I don't know if he'd be considered a big personality.

I really don't understand the lukewarm attitude towards the Nuu-Chah-Nulth on these forums, I gotta say. Macuina's interactions with Esteban Martinez, Jose Mozino, Pedro Alberni, George Vancouver and especially Bodega y Quadra -- and this is just in the four years from 1789 to 1792, without even considering his later reign -- make him one of the most bizarre and brilliant chiefs in the history of colonial North America. He placed a bounty on the rifle of the Spanish commandant who killed his brother. Pedro de Alberni wrote a song about his magnanimity (to the tune of a French nursery rhyme) which soon spread across much of the tribal Northwest. He dined every day for several months in Bodega's log cabin as a Spanish gentleman, quickly learned impeccable 18th-century table manners, and then within a few years of Bodega's departure became the proud owner of numerous European slaves. He played British, Spanish and American captains against each other expertly, and in the process made his people so wealthy that tribes from the interior of British Columbia began migrating towards the coast to attempt to emulate the economic model of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth. He was the paramount chief of Vancouver Island for decades at a time when four of the great powers were vying for control of the area -- and yet he died peacefully of old age, leaving behind a people who had been neither colonised nor converted by westerners.

I'll admit the Tlingit have cooler armour, but I don't think we're "stuck" with the Nuu-Chah-Nulth just because Macuina's life is better-documented than most of his neighbours'. He's well-documented for a reason.

The Nuu-Chah-Nulth have whale hunters, potlatches, seaworthy canoes, fine arts and craftsmanship (in the late 18th century, Nuu-Chah-Nulth woodcarvings were bought by western sailors and sold as far away as Guangzhou and London) and a very distinctly Northwestern sense of style (their hats, cloaks and piercings in particular). If anything, I'd argue they're a perfect "quintessential PNW" civ, which is what I'd most like to see if we're only getting one-tribe-per-region (at best). Their playstyle would most likely be a unique blend of culture, seafaring and high food yields without needing farms -- whereas you could throw together a passable Haida civ just by renaming all of Norway's UX's and coming up with a new agenda.

Would California be a worthy region to include? Granted, the Chumash would probably be the only noteworthy group from there but I thought it would at least be worth considering.

Oh I would love to see a California native civ -- Pomo or Chumash would be my top picks -- but it feels like another Inuit/Great Plains situation where the culture wouldn't quite translate into workable game mechanics. The big USP of the Chumash would be ocean-worthy canoe-building in the very early game, but Norway already has something of a handle on that, and if we're going to get another early ocean-hopper civ, I'd much rather it was somebody Polynesian or Micronesian.

I know that we'll probably only get 3-5 Native American civs so we should be highly selective about which ones we'd want, but I still feel like we can have both the Iroquois and the Powhatan. On one hand, the Iroquois are among if not the most advanced Native American group with several great leader choices (not to mention a worthy female leader). On the other hand, Powhatan is such a cool charismatic leader choice who feels perfect for this game. Its such a hard choice to only pick one of them that I just really want both of them, even if it means the Northeast will feel a bit crowded.

The more I think about it, if we don't want a Great Plains civ we could probably get another Woodland civ. Poundmaker is way off to the west in TSL, so the Iroquois would have a pretty good starting spot. Powhatan would be extremely close to Teddy, but that sort of thing doesn't stop Saladin and Cleo (or any of our six dozen beloved Hellenes) from getting a spot in the game.

The big problem (as I see it) is building an Algonquian alliance- and trade-based tribe from a wooded area without just creating Poundmaker 2.0. Perhaps the Powhatan confederacy could be represented in-game via bonuses to the city-state mechanic, rather than the alliance mechanic? Being suzerain over a bunch of CS's is sort of like having a confederation, after all.

 

[Zaarin]

Would California be a worthy region to include? Granted, the Chumash would probably be the only noteworthy group from there but I thought it would at least be worth considering.

California is noteworthy for having the greatest linguistic diversity of any region of the continent, but problematically it was also one of the less developed regions technologically without the complex culture of the PNW to recommend it.

I personally wouldn't swap the Maya with the Mixtec but I would probably pick them as the next Mesoamerican civ after the Maya though!

This is my thought as well. Let the Aztec sit out one game, but not the Maya.

I really don't understand the lukewarm attitude towards the Nuu-Chah-Nulth on these forums

For me personally it's not that I find the Nuu-Chah-Nulth uninteresting; it's more that the Northern PNW--the Tlingit, the Haida, the Tsimshian--represented the apex of PNW artistic and cultural traditions. Yes, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (and their cousins the Makah) were unique in the region as whalers, and they were also probably the region's greatest warriors and slavers, but culturally and socially they were not as sophisticated as the Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Haida, which is why I'd prefer to see one of those three personally. (The Tlingit would be my top choice.)

or any of our six dozen beloved Hellenes

Yes!

The big problem (as I see it) is building an Algonquian alliance- and trade-based tribe from a wooded area without just creating Poundmaker 2.0. Perhaps the Powhatan confederacy could be represented in-game via bonuses to the city-state mechanic, rather than the alliance mechanic? Being suzerain over a bunch of CS's is sort of like having a confederation, after all.

This is the direction I'd take it. Powhatan didn't make alliances with equals: he brought them under his paramountcy through conquest or allegiance. Sounds like a much better fit for city-state bonuses than alliances to me. As for the Iroquois, I'd give them bonuses to diplomacy on the one hand (since their interactions with the European powers were all about maintaining neutrality, conflicting alliances, and a balance of power) but also some heavy-hitting aggressive bonuses on the other (I mean, they drove the Sioux onto the Plains, crushed the Huron and Algonquin, and raided as far south as the Carolinas), perhaps something related to mourning wars (half the population of razed cities is distributed to Iroquois cities, perhaps?). So yeah, I think there's definitely room to make them distinct from each other and from Poundmaker.

 

[TyrannusRex]

I think the Sioux (though they themselves are many tribes grouped together) would be most people's obvious choice for the plains.
It'd be a good opportunity to bring back Sitting Bull without him representing the blob civ to end all blob civs, "Native Americans".

(PS: If anyone's interested in hearing my take on the Sioux civ, just ask. The UU and UI are taken from a Civ 5 mod I found (since I honestly couldn't think of anything better), but the abilities are mine.)

 

[humble serf]

This is the direction I'd take it. Powhatan didn't make alliances with equals: he brought them under his paramountcy through conquest or allegiance. Sounds like a much better fit for city-state bonuses than alliances to me. As for the Iroquois, I'd give them bonuses to diplomacy on the one hand (since their interactions with the European powers were all about maintaining neutrality, conflicting alliances, and a balance of power) but also some heavy-hitting aggressive bonuses on the other (I mean, they drove the Sioux onto the Plains, crushed the Huron and Algonquin, and raided as far south as the Carolinas), perhaps something related to mourning wars (half the population of razed cities is distributed to Iroquois cities, perhaps?). So yeah, I think there's definitely room to make them distinct from each other and from Poundmaker.

There's two strong civ designs emerging here. The Iroquois have always felt like the premier North American domination victory civ to me, and I think combining a strong military with a focus on trade would make for some very interesting gameplay: the only way you can take advantage of both your military prowess and your improved trade is by playing different civs off against one another; conquering one civ neighbour without losing the support of another. Sounds like a fun way to play Iroquois to me.

So how about something like this:

• Leader: Jigonsaseh
• Capital: Onondaga
• LUA: Undetermined
• Agenda: Undetermined
• CUA: Beaver Wars: Land units receive +1 combat strength for every active Iroquois trade route to a foreign Civilisation (ie. not domestic trade routes or routes to City-States, or else this would probably be broken and exploitable). If you have an open trade route slot when you conquer a city, receive a free Trader unit in the capital.
• UU: Mohawk Káhule: Musketman replacement. Not sure exactly what sort of bonuses I'd give here (a simple combat bonus in forest tiles is tempting, but the Khevsur isn't exactly the most interesting UU in the game), I just think a gunpowder-era UU would suit the Iroquois, especially if it brings with it a power spike in the Renaissance and Industrial eras.
• UI: Longhouse. I believe you mentioned this as a granary replacement?

As for Powhatan -- there are currently only three city-state bonuses in the game by my count. Pericles wants a culture victory through controlling CS's; Tamar sort-of wants a religious victory through controlling CS's; Barbarossa wants a domination victory which involves conquering CS's. Since Powhatan doesn't seem an obvious choice for a science victory, how about something more direct: extra envoys?

• Leader: Wahunsenacah
• Capital: Werowocomoco
• LUA: Mamanatowick: Receive an envoy whenever you clear a barbarian camp, enter a tribal village or adopt a new government type.
• Agenda: Undetermined
• CUA: Undetermined
• UU: Undetermined
• UI: Undetermined

(PS: If anyone's interested in hearing my take on the Sioux civ, just ask. The UU and UI are taken from a Civ 5 mod I found (since I honestly couldn't think of anything better), but the abilities are mine.)

By all means! That's the kind of discussion I was hoping to start with this thread.

 

[Phrozen]

Powhatan's capital would be Werowocomoco. He was born in Powhatan but it wasn't the capital of the Confederacy. Werowocomoco was settled since at least 13th century so it was a very important regional village.

As for his ability. Trade routes to city states should gain a bonus and envoy bonus should be larger.

 

[humble serf]

Thanks for the correction, I'll update the previous post shortly.

You're probably right about the envoy bonus -- I think +1 envoy at a time is a good way of handling it, but there should be more things which can trigger a free envoy. I'll think on that tomorrow, but please let me know any ideas you might have.

I'm not so sure about the trade routes, though. The Cree are already a trade+diplomacy civ, and the Iroquois (according to our vision) are a trade+domination civ. I can see the logic in buffing Powhatan's traders to his confederate city-states, but we should be careful to avoid giving every North American tribe a trader-focused civ design.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There's two strong civ designs emerging here. The Iroquois have always felt like the premier North American domination victory civ to me, and I think combining a strong military with a focus on trade would make for some very interesting gameplay: the only way you can take advantage of both your military prowess and your improved trade is by playing different civs off against one another; conquering one civ neighbour without losing the support of another. Sounds like a fun way to play Iroquois to me.

So how about something like this:

• Leader: Jigonsaseh
• Capital: Onondaga
• LUA: Undetermined
• Agenda: Undetermined
• CUA: Beaver Wars: Land units receive +1 combat strength for every active Iroquois trade route to a foreign Civilisation (ie. not domestic trade routes or routes to City-States, or else this would probably be broken and exploitable). If you have an open trade route slot when you conquer a city, receive a free Trader unit in the capital.
• UU: Mohawk Káhule: Musketman replacement. Not sure exactly what sort of bonuses I'd give here (a simple combat bonus in forest tiles is tempting, but the Khevsur isn't exactly the most interesting UU in the game), I just think a gunpowder-era UU would suit the Iroquois, especially if it brings with it a power spike in the Renaissance and Industrial eras.
• UI: Longhouse. I believe you mentioned this as a granary replacement?

It's definitely an interesting approach. Although I'm not sure if Jigonsaseh would fit in well with a domination focus Civ since she was known to unite people. Chief Joseph Brant might be a better leader in that regard. Of course then again it was just the Iroquois she united, according to legend, so who knows I'd still like her.
The longhouse as a Granary replacement makes since. It can add extra housing as well since it's so long.