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.