RedCourtJester
King
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2024
- Messages
- 960
Mississippians, just like the Shawnee. We are talking about a game that has such very historic options as Egypt > Songhai.Put another way, you have much more confidence that historical pathways will make sense, especially on release, than I do, though I hope most at least broadly make sense after a few rounds of DLC. (Though I'm willing to buy Mississippians to Haudenosaunee. We have no clue where the Iroquoian peoples came from; they show up in the Great Lakes around the 12th century. Also at least one Iroquoian people, the Cherokee, practiced a Mississippian lifestyle. The Tuscarora, Meherrin, and Nottaway may have as well, though I don't believe that's the case. If the Haudenosaunee are modern, I'd also happily buy Mississippian > Powhatan > Haudenosaunee...though as much as the Powhatan are actually a top pick for me, I'm not sure they fit well with the Shawnee being Exploration as well--they share a design space and a language family, and I'd rather spread the love around, even if the Algic languages spread from coast to coast.)
Remember when Egypt -> Songhai turned out to just be hiding Egypt -> Abassid, which makes a lot more sense?
Do we really think the progression at launch will be Egypt -> Songhai -> Hausa when Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa establishes a much stronger historical throughline? Moreover, if SEA gets a "narrative" of exactly three civs (Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam), Polynesia is likely to get exactly three civs (Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii), East Africa is likely to get exactly three civs (Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda), Mesoamerica is likely to get exactly three civs (Maya -> Inca -> ???)...at some point we just need to accept that maybe West Africa also is planned to get a narrative of exactly three civs. And similarly for the Tecumseh path.
I will grant that we could probably stretch Mississippians into Iroquois. That may happen. But I think standing next to a Tecumseh throughline, especially if it ends in Anishinaabe, would just feel like the "bargain" version of trying to connect together three civs under a theory of "tribal unity." In part Brant doesn't quite represent the same degree of pan-Native optimism that Tecumseh does. I see what you are going for, it could indeed happen if the devs want the Iroquois in. But I suspect that pathway might skip the Powhatan and just move Mississippian -> Haudenosaunee -> Anishinaabe again.
With respect to the Cherokee, the fact that Tecumseh allied with the Muscogeans, the Cherokee are Mississippian, and all of them are now kind of unified under the Five Civilized Tribes, does I believe make the Five Tribes a potential pivot for the Tecumseh line, probably even more appropriate than the Lakota if we are viewing the line as being centered around Tecumseh's heritage and not the Mississippians. So I do think you're not wrong for looking their way as an option. ACTUALLY, come to think of it, if you really wanted to end up in Iroquoian modern, Missisippian -> Cherokee -> Iroquois would be half-decent, albeit not quite as well-glued together as Tecumseh -> Anishinaabe. Thoughts.