Mississippi civilization

[nunor]

So yesterday I heard about the Mississippi civilization for the first time.

Apparently it was the most advanced civilization in North America (not counting Mexico) before the arrival of the Europeans in the 16th century, having lasted for about 8 centuries. The city of Cahokia had a populaton of 40,000 in the 13th century, which means it was about the size of Florence and 2x larger than Rome at the time, and larger than any subsequent city in the United States until the 1780s.

They were a strong religious civilization, with distinct architecture and social complexity.

Looks like it would be an obvious choice for a civ, yet no sign of it in 5 installments of Civilization, and counting. (instead we get blob Native American civs, or rotating minor tribes...)

Granted, not much is known about their leaders, but there's enough to build a solid civ with strong religion bonuses. Some suggestions of leaders and uniques:

Leader:
- Casqui (~1491-after 1540), Pacaha (lived 16th c.) ruled the rival towns of Casqui and Pacaha, eventually both forged an alliance with the Spanish
- Huhasene (lived 16th c.), chief of Quigaltam, fought the Spanish in the Mississippi river with 100 war canoes
- Great Sun (died ~1710), ruled the town of Natchez in declining period, resisted French attacks

UA: Southern Cult - River tiles yield Faith, increased Religious Pressure for all cities
UU:
- Falcon warrior, replaces Swordsman - spreads Religion when killed
- War canoe, replaces Trireme

UB/UD: Earthen mound or Woodhenge, yield extra Faith

More info:
- http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/mississ.html
- https://books.google.pt/books?id=J9...LjAA#v=onepage&q=grand soleil natchez&f=false
- https://books.google.pt/books?id=si...aX3BZEQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=quigaltam&f=false


What do you think?

 

[Zaarin]

It would be an interesting civilization, but I'd say we don't really know enough about them to include them. Also, "Southern Cult" should be "Southeastern Ceremonial Complex."

 

[the343danny]

Doubling Rome at its lowest point in history isnt much of an accomplishment.

IIRC they were quite similar to pre bronze civilizations in Mesopotamia, and stagnated as weather patterns changed. By the time the Europeans arrived, their old cities were long gone to dust. Though they might be a better fit than say the Sioux, they are not nearly as iconic. It could be interesting, however.

 

[Zaarin]

Doubling Rome at its lowest point in history isnt much of an accomplishment.

IIRC they were quite similar to pre bronze civilizations in Mesopotamia, and stagnated as weather patterns changed. By the time the Europeans arrived, their old cities were long gone to dust. Though they might be a better fit than say the Sioux, they are not nearly as iconic. It could be interesting, however.

At least in America (and perhaps even more so beyond), there's already a notion that all Native Americans are Sioux; I would strongly prefer another tribe get some media attention.

 

[nunor]

Doubling Rome at its lowest point in history isnt much of an accomplishment.

Can you provide me more examples of North American tribes which did it and which prove that's not much of an accomplishment? Also, no mention in your comment of the fact it was about the same size as Florence on the brink of the Renaissance.

IIRC they were quite similar to pre bronze civilizations in Mesopotamia, and stagnated as weather patterns changed. By the time the Europeans arrived, their old cities were long gone to dust. Though they might be a better fit than say the Sioux, they are not nearly as iconic. It could be interesting, however.

Well, the Sioux have appeared in exactly 1 (one) Civilization game, and that was Civ2, so 20 years ago. So clearly "iconic" is not Firaxis' main criterion for choosing a NA tribe.

It would be an interesting civilization, but I'd say we don't really know enough about them to include them. Also, "Southern Cult" should be "Southeastern Ceremonial Complex."

What kind of information we're missing do you think would be fundamental to make it into a playable civ?

 

[Siptah]

It would be an interesting civilization, but I'd say we don't really know enough about them to include them. Also, "Southern Cult" should be "Southeastern Ceremonial Complex."

Since Scythia made the cut, I think the information from the excavations at Cahokia (which by the way shouldn't be termed 'city', its not an urban structure if you follow the common criteria for a city, that's also why it is not comparable to Rome or Florence) is enough to include them. I'd like it personally, but I can forsee some complaining because besides being native american they are not what most people typically imagine when thinking of native americans.

 

[ehecatzin]

The one issue I have with a Cahokia civ is the same on I have against a Teotihuacan or Olmec civ, it's really hard to come by a leader for them during their golden age, and in the case of Cahokia we have to relly on chiefdom leaders to fill the gaps.

That said, the Olmecs got a better treatment this time around, with La Venta allowing us to build colossal heads. I'd love to see Cahokia and Teotihuacan added with similar treatments, Cahokia allowing you to build temple mounds and Teotihuacan giving you acces to Obsidian and Turquoise.

 

[Guandao]

I had an issue with Pocatello and Hiawatha's backgrounds in Civ5, there were completely devoid of buildings or structures of any kind. Gave the impression that Native Americans just simply lived in nature. It was a missed opportunity to place Hiawatha inside or outside a longhouse.

Hopefully, whether the Mississippians get added to the game or not, the Native American leaders' backgrounds contain signs of habitation or structures.

I would love for the Mississippians to be represented in the game, or any Southeast Native American groups, for that matter. Another area I wished was represented in the game is the Pacific Northwest. Apparently, the Puebloans are off limits, sadly, I also wished they were represented in the game (perhaps the O'odham could take their place, the descendants of the Hohokam people).

 

[Zaarin]

Since Scythia made the cut, I think the information from the excavations at Cahokia (which by the way shouldn't be termed 'city', its not an urban structure if you follow the common criteria for a city, that's also why it is not comparable to Rome or Florence) is enough to include them. I'd like it personally, but I can forsee some complaining because besides being native american they are not what most people typically imagine when thinking of native americans.

This is pretty much my point: the names we have for their cities are largely of European origin, the names we have of leaders presided over their decline (observe: they were already on the verge of collapse when DeSoto passed through, and by the time the next Europeans arrived they were gone entirely), etc. Consequently, anything we know of the civ would either by hypothetical or derived from the end of their civilization. There are better options to portray Native American societies at their height.

I had an issue with Pocatello and Hiawatha's backgrounds in Civ5, there were completely devoid of buildings or structures of any kind. Gave the impression that Native Americans just simply lived in nature. It was a missed opportunity to place Hiawatha inside or outside a longhouse.

Hopefully, whether the Mississippians get added to the game or not, the Native American leaders' backgrounds contain signs of habitation or structures.

I would love for the Mississippians to be represented in the game, or any Southeast Native American groups, for that matter. Another area I wished was represented in the game is the Pacific Northwest. Apparently, the Puebloans are off limits, sadly, I also wished they were represented in the game (perhaps the O'odham could take their place, the descendants of the Hohokam people).

If I could choose only one Native American civilization to be in game, it would be the Haida (though the Tlingit, Tsimshian, or Kwakwaka'wakw would be equally acceptable). The cultural achievements of the PNW are second to none, and I would love to see them represented in the game.

 

[ehecatzin]

I had an issue with Pocatello and Hiawatha's backgrounds in Civ5, there were completely devoid of buildings or structures of any kind. Gave the impression that Native Americans just simply lived in nature. It was a missed opportunity to place Hiawatha inside or outside a longhouse.

Hopefully, whether the Mississippians get added to the game or not, the Native American leaders' backgrounds contain signs of habitation or structures.

They were not the only ones, Tokugawa was standing on the grass, Alexander had a mountain bg, and some had minimun estructures, Polynesia, Indonesia and the Mongols.

All the bg in civ6 so far show some sort of architecture, even Tomyris, the bg being inside her tent, hopefully when we get more native american civs they'll get the same treatment.

If I could choose only one Native American civilization to be in game, it would be the Haida (though the Tlingit, Tsimshian, or Kwakwaka'wakw would be equally acceptable). The cultural achievements of the PNW are second to none, and I would love to see them represented in the game.

I agree in that the Haida would be a great addition to the game, I think we've been requesting them since civ5.

I think we could expect to get at least a minimun of 2 native north americans in civ6, hopefully more. I didn't mind the Shoshone however I would have liked it if the Comanche angle was more important (I'd prefer a Comanche civ). If I had to pick 3 I would go Iroquois, Comanche and Haida.

 

[Zaarin]

I think we could expect to get at least a minimun of 2 native north americans in civ6, hopefully more. I didn't mind the Shoshone however I would have liked it if the Comanche angle was more important (I'd prefer a Comanche civ). If I had to pick 3 I would go Iroquois, Comanche and Haida.

Good choices based on significance. My personal selection would be Haida, Cherokee (or Iroquois--there's no question that the Iroquois were probably the most significant tribe in North America from the sixteenth through early eighteenth centuries, when that role was taken over by the Creek in the eighteenth and nineteenth), and Cree just for the sake of variety. I'd actually prefer the Creek in place of the Cherokee: that would be confusing in contrast with the Cree, but they could pull a "Comanche/Shoshone" and call them Ojibwa or Anishinaabe, whom they are closely related to...Or call the Creek Muscogee, which would be more correct anyway--and would have the bonus that the Muscogee (along with their cousins, the Chickasaw) are the clearest descendants of the Mississippians aside from the Natchez and Caddo/Pawnee.