(poll) What civs would you like to see in a hypothetical third expansion?

[Connor_CivFan]

My votes: (A LOT OF RETURNEE'S in fact only 2 new civs)

Babylon
Maya
Byzantium
Morocco
Assyria
Ethiopia
Romania
Navajo

I would have put Albania on in a heartbeat if it were on the list.

#GetAlbaniaOnCiv
#SkanderbegLeadsAlbania

 

[Phrozen]

And as said before, while the Huns are probably well-known, there are lots of other better and longer-lasting Predatory Pastoral Civs that could take their place in the game: even the Scythians, in fact, are a better choice, also Goths, Pechenegs, Kushans, Seljuks, Commache, or Lakotah would be more 'flexible' choices, with a variety of Civ-traits that could be turned into UAs, UUs, or UBs.

We know at least the Comanche had certain named bands that occupied certain geographic areas, even to the point that bands would make separate treaties with outside organizations for example the Meusebach treaty and the tribes negotiations with the newly formed Republic of Texas. Not to mention that the Comanche were one of the major, if not the major, trader and rancher of livestock in the area so their power was not just military but economic as well with a whole class of merchants, comancheros, sprang up to facilitate trade.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We know at least the Comanche had certain named bands that occupied certain geographic areas, even to the point that bands would make separate treaties with outside organizations for example the Meusebach treaty and the tribes negotiations with the newly formed Republic of Texas. Not to mention that the Comanche were one of the major, if not the major, trader and rancher of livestock in the area so their power was not just military but economic as well with a whole class of merchants, comancheros, sprang up to facilitate trade.

"Commancheria" was a recognized region with pretty specific boundaries, but as stated, this was not unusual with pastoral groups: some land is just more useful than other land, and is worth controlling and defending.

The Commanche could also have a very unusual and possibly OP Unique. According to Colonel Ranald MacKenzie of the 5th US Cavalry Regiment, who spent a good part of his career fighting and chasing them, they were "land Sea Dogs". That is, you would be tracking an entire Commanche tribe with women, children, travois, horse herds - a huge track to follow. And then all of a sudden the track and the Commanches were gone and you had no idea how or where they had disappeared to.
So a UA that Commanche units once out of a ZOC or contact with a foreign unit are not visible on the map would be perfectly appropriate - but also probably OP!

 

[Phrozen]

They were also known to appear quite suddenly, often riding by the light of the full and near full moon overnight. When I built a comanche concept I had one of the UAs being that light cavalry were invisible unless next to a hostile unit.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

"Commancheria" was a recognized region with pretty specific boundaries, but as stated, this was not unusual with pastoral groups: some land is just more useful than other land, and is worth controlling and defending.

The Commanche could also have a very unusual and possibly OP Unique. According to Colonel Ranald MacKenzie of the 5th US Cavalry Regiment, who spent a good part of his career fighting and chasing them, they were "land Sea Dogs". That is, you would be tracking an entire Commanche tribe with women, children, travois, horse herds - a huge track to follow. And then all of a sudden the track and the Commanches were gone and you had no idea how or where they had disappeared to.
So a UA that Commanche units once out of a ZOC or contact with a foreign unit are not visible on the map would be perfectly appropriate - but also probably OP!

I could see the devs splitting the difference between the Comanche and the Navajo and going with the Apache (who also had a region called Apacheria).

The thing with the Comanche is that they were already somewhat blobbed in with the Shoshone, and it would feel rather odd to split off the unique unit into its own civ and leave the Shoshone (who, although having a fewer who identify with the tribe, generally covered a larger area). Not saying they don't deserve to be in, just that their inclusion comes with some odd baggage from prior installments.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Cree and Mapuche are very large demographics, which suggests that we will get a tribe on the level of, say, the Cherokee, Navajo, or Sioux. Only a little over 10,000 individuals identify as Comanche, as compared to about 50,000 Apache and over 250,000/300,000 for the Navajo. They would definitely be the underdog in repping the American SW.

I find myself pulling back a bit on my Navajo predictions, primarily because of the powerhouse that is Geronimo. An Apache civ led by Geronimo could vicariously represent the Navajo (an Athabaskan sister tribe), and arguably better than Barboncito or Manuelito, if the aim is to have a civ with a "healer" personality. They could even reasonably have a hogan UI. But the Apache could also include some features that they developed in tandem with the Comanche. The Apache seem like the most versatile option at the moment, given that they have a pretty well-known and faceted leader and occupied a convenient middle space between two equally iconic tribes.

Idunno. I wouldn't be unhappy with the Comanche, but I also wouldn't be thrilled by our US tribal representation being heavily militaristic. I hope if we do get the Comanche they downplay the warmongering. But I also just don't see them as very likely when Geronimo is right over there, and in the alternative there are 300k Navajo in the US holding the largest quasi-independent territory.

I wonder how politique it would be to make a Native American strategy game. It seems like even the best representation feels insufficient, given how many strong cultures there are to work with.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I could see the devs splitting the difference between the Comanche and the Navajo and going with the Apache (who also had a region called Apacheria).

The thing with the Comanche is that they were already somewhat blobbed in with the Shoshone, and it would feel rather odd to split off the unique unit into its own civ and leave the Shoshone (who, although having a fewer who identify with the tribe, generally covered a larger area). Not saying they don't deserve to be in, just that their inclusion comes with some odd baggage from prior installments.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Cree and Mapuche are very large demographics, which suggests that we will get a tribe on the level of, say, the Cherokee, Navajo, or Sioux. Only a little over 10,000 individuals identify as Comanche, as compared to about 50,000 Apache and over 250,000/300,000 for the Navajo. They would definitely be the underdog in repping the American SW.

I find myself pulling back a bit on my Navajo predictions, primarily because of the powerhouse that is Geronimo. An Apache civ led by Geronimo could vicariously represent the Navajo (an Athabaskan sister tribe), and arguably better than Barboncito or Manuelito, if the aim is to have a civ with a "healer" personality. They could even reasonably have a hogan UI. But the Apache could also include some features that they developed in tandem with the Comanche. The Apache seem like the most versatile option at the moment, given that they have a pretty well-known and faceted leader and occupied a convenient middle space between two equally iconic tribes.

Idunno. I wouldn't be unhappy with the Comanche, but I also wouldn't be thrilled by our US tribal representation being heavily militaristic. I hope if we do get the Comanche they downplay the warmongering. But I also just don't see them as very likely when Geronimo is right over there, and in the alternative there are 300k Navajo in the US holding the largest quasi-independent territory.

I wonder how politique it would be to make a Native American strategy game. It seems like even the best representation feels insufficient, given how many strong cultures there are to work with.

You can also make the case for "many strong cultures" among the pastoral 'civilizations' of the central Eurasian steppes, but they are safely much older, for the most part long gone and not as well known. Also, the Native American cultures are far more diverse, covering as they do terrain and geography ranging from ultra-high mountains (Andes, Rockies) to flat plains to desert to forest, rain forests, near Tundra, coastal, marsh (Florida, Gulf coast) etc. Name the terrain, there's an American Pre-Columbian and/or Post-Columbian culture to fit into it.
As to size considerations, I suggest that current size is not the best choice for a NA Civ. First, because the Native American market is not significant to computer games and second, because there is a huge difference between what most of the tribes controlled in people and territory at their peak and now. The Commanche now, for instance, are stuffed onto and near a reservation in western Oklahoma with the Kiowa. At their peak, they controlled almost everything south of Kansas from near Arkansas to the southern Rockies, and are just about the only native group that actually pushed back the European frontier, regaining over 150 miles of territory in Texas by making it simply impossible for European/American farmers and ranchers to survive there. Neither the Lakotah nor the Cree nor the Apache ever managed that.

Finally, Quanah Parker is also a pretty well-known Leader for the Commanches, there was a fairly popular history of him and the Commanches written a few years ago (free publicity never hurts), and they are not limited to 'merely a militaristic Civ: As stated earlier, they were one of the few tribes who scientifically bred horses for desired traits, so could get some serious Unique related to Pasturage, trading Horses and other pasture-improved Resources - the fact that Quanah Parker ended his days asa a successful cattle rancher reinforces this emphasis. Also, if you want to go Counter-Intuitive, both the Commanche and the Kiowa, before they got horses from the Spanish, were farming tribes, raising corn along the watered river-bottoms of (modern) north Texas and Oklahoma and eastern New Mexico: the game could include them as a 'typical' agricultural Civ with the ability to Convert/Upgrade to a Pastoral Civ later - a later-game land-bound Maori, which would certainly be a radical departure for the game - and Gathering Storm indicates, I think, that the Firaxians are not adverse to (somewhat) Radical Departures . . .

All that said, the fact is that I'd welcome any well-done new Native American Civ: even compared to Africa, the American continents are poorly represented, IMHO, with some huge gaps that beg to be filled with Civs and new concepts for Civs in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

The thing with the Comanche is that they were already somewhat blobbed in with the Shoshone, and it would feel rather odd to split off the unique unit into its own civ and leave the Shoshone (who, although having a fewer who identify with the tribe, generally covered a larger area). Not saying they don't deserve to be in, just that their inclusion comes with some odd baggage from prior installments.

I never really understood why we got a "covert Comanche" civ in Civ5's Shoshone. I mean, sure, Pocatello was interesting, but it's not like the Comanche were lacking for leader options. I guess Civ5 was still willing to be more blobby than Civ6 (e.g., Polynesia and The Celts), even if they backed down from some of Civ4's more egregious blobs ("Native Americans").

I wouldn't be unhappy with the Comanche, but I also wouldn't be thrilled by our US tribal representation being heavily militaristic.

I'm not fond of overly militaristic civs because it doesn't suit my playstyle, but of the four indigenous New World civs we currently have, two are non-war oriented (Cree, Inca), one has militaristic abilities but is still chiefly oriented towards peaceful victory (Mapuche), and one is militaristic (Aztec). So while I personally would prefer another non-militaristic civ, a militaristic one wouldn't be out of place. Of course, we could get both: the Maya for a less militaristic New World civ and someone like the Comanche or Apache or Lakhota for a more aggressive New World civ. Of course, we could just as well get a militaristic Maya and less militaristic Choctaw. Or a militaristic Maya and semi-militaristic Iroquois. (And I do hope if the Iroquois return they're portrayed more militantly than Civ5's treehugging hippie Iroquois. IMO three things distinguished the Iroquois: their sophisticated government and knack for political intrigue, their craftsmanship, and their brutal unceasing mourning wars that terrorized tribes and settlers from Canada to the Carolinas. In a sense, the Iroquois were the Assyrians of the New World.)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I never really understood why we got a "covert Comanche" civ in Civ5's Shoshone. I mean, sure, Pocatello was interesting, but it's not like the Comanche were lacking for leader options. I guess Civ5 was still willing to be more blobby than Civ6 (e.g., Polynesia and The Celts), even if they backed down from some of Civ4's more egregious blobs ("Native Americans").

You stated it yourself, because the Shoshone were still a blob civ. The devs wanted only one West American tribe, they wanted it to feel mostly archetypal, and they wanted it to cover as much territorial ground as possible. The Shoshone alone were a strong contender, but I think they were pushed ahead of the Navajo, Apache, and Blackfoot because, with a bit of artistic liberty the spinoff Comanche tribe could also be considered "Shoshone," effectively doubling their territorial claims. The Comanche were necessary to justifying the Shoshone in V's imperialistic paradigm, and that was contingent on them having only token representation within the broader Shoshone heritage.

The same thing happened with Polynesia, only it was more obviously patchwork than the Shoshone. The problem with both the Comanche and Shoshone now is similar to the problem with Polynesia in VI. The devs had effectively three options to choose between: the Maori, on the western end with the largest population; the Hawaiians, on the eastern end with the second largest population; and the Tongans, who were central and had the largest "empire" and trade network. The Maori won out because they carried more representation with them, and serve as kind of an "origin civ" for the rest of Polynesia. While I think pure population will factor into which SW civ is chosen, I think the devs will also need to "justify" choosing one over the others. The Comanche were clearly more powerful than the Shoshone, but they were also an offshoot and don't vicariously represent other cultures in the region like the Maori do, so the "justification" would have to be from a different angle, and it would ultimately be weaker than the Maori's. I think the Shoshone don't stand a strong chance at all within VI's paradigm, given that on their own they aren't as culturally distinct as the Comanche, the Navajo, or the Apache.

Between all of the options, and disregarding leader potential, the Navajo seem to stand out the most. Just like the Apache are kind of halfway between the Navajo and the Comanche, the Navajo are halfway between the Apache and the Puebloans, and probably the closest thing we can get to the Puebloans without their consent. So the Navajo have the strongest "origin" angle. But absent an origin angle, as I've observed elsewhere the Navajo are also the most successful North American tribe in the modern era with the largest degree of pseudo-independence. This could be another "justification" for including them over other tribes.

I'm not fond of overly militaristic civs because it doesn't suit my playstyle, but of the four indigenous New World civs we currently have, two are non-war oriented (Cree, Inca), one has militaristic abilities but is still chiefly oriented towards peaceful victory (Mapuche), and one is militaristic (Aztec). So while I personally would prefer another non-militaristic civ, a militaristic one wouldn't be out of place. Of course, we could get both: the Maya for a less militaristic New World civ and someone like the Comanche or Apache or Lakhota for a more aggressive New World civ. Of course, we could just as well get a militaristic Maya and less militaristic Choctaw. Or a militaristic Maya and semi-militaristic Iroquois. (And I do hope if the Iroquois return they're portrayed more militantly than Civ5's treehugging hippie Iroquois. IMO three things distinguished the Iroquois: their sophisticated government and knack for political intrigue, their craftsmanship, and their brutal unceasing mourning wars that terrorized tribes and settlers from Canada to the Carolinas. In a sense, the Iroquois were the Assyrians of the New World.)

I suppose you are right, there. As far as game balance goes, I could understand it. As far as personal preference goes, meh.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I for one voted for the Navajo but would be OK with any new North American tribe.
For the sake of this game's theme which being settling new cities and developing the land around them, the Navajo seem like the solid choice though for the American Southwest though I agree with Geronimo having a large personality could make the Apache a contender.
Unless they do a pastoral Civ option/movable cities for the Comanche, I don't see it happening as it would probably be another militaristic horse raider Civ.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Same here. The Navajo of course would be welcome I'd be quite fascinated and open to a Comanche civ that explored movable cities (I'd hope for a Hopi civ but who knows what could happen). Regardless, I'd still be a bit sad since I'd hope for at least 3 more North American civs to cover the NE (Iroquois or Powhatan), PNW (Tlingit), and SW (Navajo or Hopi[?]) but that seems practically impossible now and we'd be extremely lucky to get 2 in a 3rd expansion.

 

[Krajzen]

As a great fan of medieval Islamic civilizations everything hurts me when I think of the real possibility that Maghreb will remain empty for sake of yet another tribe with population less than one million and its theme being either anticolonial resistance or environmental bonuses. The former is covered by Mapuche very well (they also cover horse warfare) so Comanche, Apache, Sioux etc seem quite redundant to me (especially as they'd all have to be hardcore militarist civs). The latter - by Maori. Cree are forest dwellers so that collides with the niche of eastern US native groups, and traders which also collides with Mound Builders (even besides Cahokia city state and, much worse, catastrophic lack of data on MB). Firaxis probably still cannot put Pueblo people in game as they tried and failed to do so in civ5 bnw due to some cultural sensitivity issues, and besides the niche of "desert civ" is covered by Mali. Unless they wanna make "desert high yield civ" which I still think is just as fundamentally idiotic idea as "snow civ" and would end up as fundamentally bad as Canada.

Although I cannot decide what would I like less: yet another native "civ" which didn't even build cities but has to be here as an obligatory representation, or Babylon which has to be here because of "tradition" despite being extremely similar to Sumer.

Regarding "world history importance" there are two extremely important civs which are somehow left out, one of Leonardo da Vinci and another of Averroes. Firaxis pls

 

[Zaarin]

Cree are forest dwellers so that collides with the niche of eastern US native groups, and traders which also collides with Mound Builders (even besides Cahokia city state and, much worse, catastrophic lack of data on MB).

Well, the Cree the in-game civ are modeled on are actually Plains dwellers. They conflict much more with the Sioux or the Cheyenne than the Iroquois IMO. As for Cahokia, we will never have a Cahokian civ for the same reason we will never have a Harappan civ or a Minoan civ. (Though of the three, the Mound Builders are the most feasible. We do at least have some city and leader names and languages for the leader to speak.)

Firaxis probably still cannot put Pueblo people in game as they tried and failed to do so in civ5 bnw due to some cultural sensitivity issues

There are other Puebloan peoples besides the Tewa. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hopi, for instance, were more amenable to inclusion. However, I suspect that if Firaxis chose a Southwestern civ, they'd go for the Puebloan's traditional rivals the Navajo, who are the second largest tribe in the US and well accustomed to media attention. I myself would rather see an Eastern tribe (whether Northeastern like the Iroquois or Southeastern like the Choctaw) or a PNW tribe, but I can see why a Southwestern tribe would appeal to the TSL crowd--that region always ends up in Aztec hands in TSL games IME.

yet another native "civ" which didn't even build cities but has to be here as an obligatory representation

The Iroquois built cities (reasonably large ones for their technology level, in fact). The Powhatan built cities. The "Five Civilized Tribes" minus the Seminoles built cities. The Navajo built cities. The PNW wasn't urbanized in a European sense, but it was permanently settled and had the highest population density in the New World outside of Mesoamerica. The Mound Builders built cities (though, again, they're problematic as a civilization).

Babylon which has to be here because of "tradition" despite being extremely similar to Sumer.

It wouldn't be so similar to Sumer had Sumer not been so incompetently designed, but given that I concede I'd rather have Assyria.

Averroes

I'd love to see al-Andalus, but I wouldn't hold my breath: it overlaps with Spain and Arabia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, the Cree the in-game civ are modeled on are actually Plains dwellers. They conflict much more with the Sioux or the Cheyenne than the Iroquois IMO. As for Cahokia, we will never have a Cahokian civ for the same reason we will never have a Harappan civ or a Minoan civ. (Though of the three, the Mound Builders are the most feasible. We do at least have some city and leader names and languages for the leader to speak.)

Honestly I believe the Iroquois won't be included due to mainly Canada coming in. For TSL purposes it would cram them in between both America and Canada and make the eastern part of North America crowded.
The Cree are also a mix of both Plains dwellers and have some characteristics that the northeastern woodlands tribes have and for those reasons I would think they would look to a more southern tribe.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly I believe the Iroquois won't be included due to mainly Canada coming in. For TSL purposes it would cram them in between both America and Canada and make the eastern part of North America crowded.

Well, they've said that TSL is one thing they consider, but I don't think they'd exclude a civ based solely on TSL--I mean, have you ever put Double Greece, Macedon, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Ottomans, Persia, Arabia, Sumer, Phoenicia, Egypt, and Nubia on the same TSL map?

The Cree are also a mix of both Plains dwellers and have some characteristics that the northeastern woodlands tribes have and for those reasons I would think they would look to a more southern tribe.

IMO a Southeastern civ doesn't have a lot to offer in terms of flavor (their most compelling unique would have been an anachronistic Mississippian Mound, and the Cahokia city-state has now filled that niche). Not that it couldn't be done, but I think Cahokia has made it less desirable.

Personally I don't think an Iroquois civ would look anything like the Cree. It would have warfare bonuses (ideally something involving stealing population) and diplomatic bonuses (in another post I suggested alliance points for each ally at war with another ally). I'd imagine its UI being a Granary-replacing Longhouse that adds Production and Gold, maybe Culture. While the tomahawk is perhaps more recognizable, I'd make their UU a rifleman--European guns are what made the Iroquois the premier indigenous power in eastern North America. Where Poundmaker likes civs who make peace, Thayendanegea likes civs who go to war with his allies. (As for the TSL concern, I'm not sure about the default TSL maps but YnAMP has alternate TSL starts. If the Iroquois are in game, move the Canadian capital to Vancouver or Churchill.)

 

[Guandao]

Yes, I've had quite an interest in the Tocharian languages for a variety of reasons, not least of all the myriad reasons they're not where they're "supposed to be" (an Indo-European language in western China...that's centum instead of satem--what?!). With the discovery of Tocharian C, I understand there's even some reason to believe that the Tokharoi, long thought a misidentification, may have in fact been Iranianized Tocharians.

Well, it wasn't called Western China back then.....therefore it's wasn't part of China back then.

Well, they've said that TSL is one thing they consider, but I don't think they'd exclude a civ based solely on TSL--I mean, have you ever put Double Greece, Macedon, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Ottomans, Persia, Arabia, Sumer, Phoenicia, Egypt, and Nubia on the same TSL map?


IMO a Southeastern civ doesn't have a lot to offer in terms of flavor (their most compelling unique would have been an anachronistic Mississippian Mound, and the Cahokia city-state has now filled that niche). Not that it couldn't be done, but I think Cahokia has made it less desirable.

Personally I don't think an Iroquois civ would look anything like the Cree. It would have warfare bonuses (ideally something involving stealing population) and diplomatic bonuses (in another post I suggested alliance points for each ally at war with another ally). I'd imagine its UI being a Granary-replacing Longhouse that adds Production and Gold, maybe Culture. While the tomahawk is perhaps more recognizable, I'd make their UU a rifleman--European guns are what made the Iroquois the premier indigenous power in eastern North America. Where Poundmaker likes civs who make peace, Thayendanegea likes civs who go to war with his allies. (As for the TSL concern, I'm not sure about the default TSL maps but YnAMP has alternate TSL starts. If the Iroquois are in game, move the Canadian capital to Vancouver or Churchill.)

No more interest in a Southeastern Amerindian Civ.....? I'm not sure you read my thick Handbook of North American Indian book on the Southeast. It's the thickest in my collection (most citations/sources, dates to the early 2000s). Most well-researched/recent in the Smithsonian Institution's printing.

Where does your interest lie in now? Northeast (Iroquois) and Pacific Northwest?

 

[Zaarin]

Well, it wasn't called Western China back then.....therefore it's wasn't part of China back then.

Well, it's part of China now and it's located much further east than any other IE language outside of China prior to the modern age when Russian displaced most of the Siberian languages. (Use of Sanskrit as a liturgical language in Southeast Asia doesn't really count; Tocharian B and Tocharian C were everyday languages.)

No more interest in a Southeastern Amerindian Civ.....? I'm not sure you read my thick Handbook of North American Indian book on the Southeast. It's the thickest in my collection (most citations/sources, dates to the early 2000s). Most well-researched/recent in the Smithsonian Institution's printing.

Where does your interest lie in now? Northeast (Iroquois) and Pacific Northwest?

I wouldn't say I'm not interested in a Southeastern tribe; I'm simply concerned about what its uniques would be--do we need another horseback rifleman? What about its unique infrastructure? That being said my priority would look something like this: one of Iroquois or Powhatan; Choctaw; a PNW tribe like the Tlingit, Tsimshian, or Haida.

The Iroquois and Powhatan were regionally extremely powerful and both have ideal leader choices in Thayendanegea and Powhatan respectively. The Iroquois were massively influential in American history; their power ranged across the entire Atlantic coast and as far west as the Great Lakes. They also offer opportunities for a unique design. The Powhatan would be more straightforward and their power was more regional (and cut short by Jamestown), but they have an extremely charismatic leader in Wahunsenacawh/Powhatan.

I'm unclear what direction they'd take a Choctaw design, but of the Five Tribes they have the best leader choice in Pushmataha. My greatest concern here is that they'll do to him what they did to Afonso/Mvemba: "Indianize" him for fear of charges of whitewashing, even though the most distinguishing feature of the Five Tribes is their blending of European and Native traditions--and the fact that Pushmataha was a vocal advocate of the continued symbiotic relationship.

The PNW absolutely ought to be represented. It's unique. It's cultural achievements are the nonpareil of North America. It had the highest population density in the New World outside of Mesoamerica. However, I do grant Morningcalm's objection that finding a leader is difficult. One could go with someone like Sheiksh I, but it wouldn't be without controversy. They could pull a Kupe and make Yeil (Raven) the leader--but he's even more explicitly mythical than Kupe. (I do not, however, concede that Norway makes a PNW civ irrelevant. Coastal raiding is one direction one could take the Haida specifically, but the Tlingit or Tsimshian would be much more craft/food/culture/faith based. A Warrior replacement with wooden armor would be pretty awesome looking; most fighting was done on land anyway. Alternatively the war canoe could be made an early naval exploration unit that is fast, has little attack, can't go to see, but can pop goody huts.)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Same here. The Navajo of course would be welcome I'd be quite fascinated and open to a Comanche civ that explored movable cities (I'd hope for a Hopi civ but who knows what could happen). Regardless, I'd still be a bit sad since I'd hope for at least 3 more North American civs to cover the NE (Iroquois or Powhatan), PNW (Tlingit), and SW (Navajo or Hopi[?]) but that seems practically impossible now and we'd be extremely lucky to get 2 in a 3rd expansion.

I don't really feel a need for the NE, especially since I think if the Inuit are ever added they will take up Greenland, which is a bigger space that could use filling.

However, I wouldn't mind if the Tlingit were eventually thrown in. There are a couple civs like the Tlingit which could never be mechanically mind-blowing. Which on the one hand makes them a hard sell for new content. But, on the other hand makes them extremely easy to develop as late cycle extras.

Regarding "world history importance" there are two extremely important civs which are somehow left out, one of Leonardo da Vinci and another of Averroes. Firaxis pls

Averroes or Yusuf, yes please. We need Morocco.

Something Italian would be very nice. But, again, if we don't get Byzantium blobbed into Rome it's going to be a lot harder for the devs to justify.

Well, they've said that TSL is one thing they consider, but I don't think they'd exclude a civ based solely on TSL--I mean, have you ever put Double Greece, Macedon, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Ottomans, Persia, Arabia, Sumer, Phoenicia, Egypt, and Nubia on the same TSL map?

Eh, the difference is that NA tribes are for the most part optional and seem to be chosen to fill TSL spots. Whereas it's really hard to sell a civ game without Greece, the Ottomans, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, at minimum. Poland, Russia, Nubia, don't and really trod on anyone else's territory. So really the only civs which were "squeezed" in were Macedon and Phoenicia, and both had good reasons.

Macedon was released alongside Persia as kind of the western seat of power for the same general territory. Plus, Alexander is one of the only leaders in history who was effectively the sole driving and unifying force behind an empire (and Cyrus was a comparable Persian culture hero). So in several respects the Macedon/Persia DLC is a bit of an anomaly, primarily an excuse to include two major imperial personifications.

And Phoenicia *seems* to be filling a lot of roles at once. On the one hand, it blobs Carthage into Phoenicia to suit VI's cultural design. On another hand, it moves the Phoenician capital away from Tunisia to (likely) make room for a Moroccan civ. And on yet another hand, it is trying to fill in spaces expected by players to be filled by other civs, particularly Palmyra and Assyria (and imo has succeeded in obviating those options).

I'm not sure Southeastern civ doesn't have a lot to offer in terms of flavor (their most compelling unique would have been an anachronistic Mississippian Mound, and the Cahokia city-state has now filled that niche). Not that it couldn't be done, but I think Cahokia has made it less desirable.

Agreed. Within the existing design of VI, I think the Choctaw and Muskogee are not happening now that we have Cahokia. It feels like a compromise so they can focus on other regions of NA.

I still prioritize the Navajo over any other NA tribe mechanically. I would rather have a desert agricultural civ over a coastal or forest civ. And unique spies over unique boats or scouts. They just seem to more clearly fill a unique niche globally, whereas other suggestions only fill a unique niche regionally.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

As a great fan of medieval Islamic civilizations everything hurts me when I think of the real possibility that Maghreb will remain empty for sake of yet another tribe with population less than one million and its theme being either anticolonial resistance or environmental bonuses.

Though I certainly find some native NA tribes to be quite worthy of inclusion or at least consideration, I do agree with you that Maghreb (not to mention Africa as a whole) is also pretty empty or underrepresented. An Almohad Morocco lead by Yusuf would be very cool to see! I'll continue to hope we'll see more African civs (I'm currently looking into some Zimbabwean leaders so hopefully that could work out too to fill out the continent).

I wouldn't be surprised if the Hopi, for instance, were more amenable to inclusion.

We can only hope!

Personally I don't think an Iroquois civ would look anything like the Cree. It would have warfare bonuses (ideally something involving stealing population) and diplomatic bonuses (in another post I suggested alliance points for each ally at war with another ally). I'd imagine its UI being a Granary-replacing Longhouse that adds Production and Gold, maybe Culture. While the tomahawk is perhaps more recognizable, I'd make their UU a rifleman--European guns are what made the Iroquois the premier indigenous power in eastern North America. Where Poundmaker likes civs who make peace, Thayendanegea likes civs who go to war with his allies. (As for the TSL concern, I'm not sure about the default TSL maps but YnAMP has alternate TSL starts. If the Iroquois are in game, move the Canadian capital to Vancouver or Churchill.)

The Iroquois should definitely be a strong choice to return, though admittedly I am a bit concerned with the number of spaces left. Assuming we're only getting a 3rd expansion and no DLC (though an Assyria and Iroquois DLC would be a cool theme for a warfare DLC) and that they're sticking with the 4 returning and 4 new format, it would be hard to decide how to fit the Iroquois and Morocco into the 4 returning slots when we also want Ethiopia, Maya, Portugal, etc. Guess we'll just have to hope for either more DLC or a really large 3rd expanion.

I wouldn't say I'm not interested in a Southeastern tribe; I'm simply concerned about what its uniques would be--do we need another horseback rifleman? What about its unique infrastructure? That being said my priority would look something like this: one of Iroquois or Powhatan; Choctaw; a PNW tribe like the Tlingit, Tsimshian, or Haida.

I'd have to agree as well, as much as I'd want a Choctaw civ they probably wouldn't be quite a unique as 1 of the NE or PNW groups and the Cahokia city state made it (will not impossible) certainly less tempting. That being said, it would be cool if they had an ability that let them use a UI from an ally.

My greatest concern here is that they'll do to him what they did to Afonso/Mvemba: "Indianize" him for fear of charges of whitewashing, even though the most distinguishing feature of the Five Tribes is their blending of European and Native traditions--and the fact that Pushmataha was a vocal advocate of the continued symbiotic relationship.

Not putting Pushmataha in that dapper suit would be such a missed opportunity.

However, I do grant Morningcalm's objection that finding a leader is difficult. One could go with someone like Sheiksh I, but it wouldn't be without controversy. They could pull a Kupe and make Yeil (Raven) the leader--but he's even more explicitly mythical than Kupe.

It has been difficult but I've been digging around and found some good leader choices in Chief Shotridge and Chief Katlian.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . .The PNW absolutely ought to be represented. It's unique. It's cultural achievements are the nonpareil of North America. It had the highest population density in the New World outside of Mesoamerica. However, I do grant Morningcalm's objection that finding a leader is difficult. One could go with someone like Sheiksh I, but it wouldn't be without controversy. They could pull a Kupe and make Yeil (Raven) the leader--but he's even more explicitly mythical than Kupe. (I do not, however, concede that Norway makes a PNW civ irrelevant. Coastal raiding is one direction one could take the Haida specifically, but the Tlingit or Tsimshian would be much more craft/food/culture/faith based. A Warrior replacement with wooden armor would be pretty awesome looking; most fighting was done on land anyway. Alternatively the war canoe could be made an early naval exploration unit that is fast, has little attack, can't go to see, but can pop goody huts.)

Let me add a few Kopeck's worth here . . .

The defining Uniqueness of the PNW cultures was that the area supported the densest population of Hunter-Gatherers in the world. Between the super-abundant seafood (Salmon, shellfish, whales) and shore food (berries, game, roots) they never had to develop agriculture to survive and thrive.
Which means they could have (in Civ Terms) a completely unique Resource model, in which they don't have to build Farm Improvements or Fishing Boats if they don't want to. Give them the ability to get an extra Point of Two of resources from each tile or each Tile with a Bonus/Luxury Resource on it, and they Start Out Unique.

The other Must Have Feature, which @Zaarin alludes to, is the Cultural Uniqueness, specifically the cultural artifacts:
1. The brightly painted (a form of heraldry, in fact) Head Canoes for whaling, fishing, trading or raiding - talk about your Multi-Purpose Unique Unit! The Haida, Makah and other tribal groups traded long coastal distances with them, and harvested both 'regular' Fish and Whales, in addition to coastal raiding, which was as much about Redistributing Population as it was about destruction. This one Unique could be a combination Fishing Boat to enhance output from Coastal Resources, a coastal raider that, for instance, turns destroyed enemy units into Population Points for the nearest PNW city, and a Unit that extends trade Routes by sea.
2. The 'Totem' Poles (actually, Boundary, Clan/Family, Commemorative, Death, or Shame Poles) which, again, are Multi-Purpose, and the purposes include Culture, Diplomacy, and Loyalty. A Shame Pole was designed to humiliate a leader - foreign or domestic - so potentially, a Monument that reduces the effectiveness of (other Civ's) Governors or Leaders.
3. Plank houses with a distinctive Prow-shaped roofline: PNW Cities could have a very distinctive graphic compared to anyone else in the game, at least for the Ancient/Classical/Medieval Eras.
4. Warriors in Wooden Armor. Again, an absolutely distinctive graphic. This could be a Warrior substitute with extra Bonus versus Ranged and a no-penalty attack from the sea to represent one aspect of the Head Canoe.

Too many possibilities to ignore, IMHO.

 

[Zaarin]

I think if the Inuit are ever added

Ugh, please no.

Eh, the difference is that NA tribes are for the most part optional and seem to be chosen to fill TSL spots. Whereas it's really hard to sell a civ game without Greece, the Ottomans, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, at minimum. Poland, Russia, Nubia, don't and really trod on anyone else's territory. So really the only civs which were "squeezed" in were Macedon and Phoenicia, and both had good reasons.

Macedon was released alongside Persia as kind of the western seat of power for the same general territory. Plus, Alexander is one of the only leaders in history who was effectively the sole driving and unifying force behind an empire (and Cyrus was a comparable Persian culture hero). So in several respects the Macedon/Persia DLC is a bit of an anomaly, primarily an excuse to include two major imperial personifications.

And Phoenicia *seems* to be filling a lot of roles at once. On the one hand, it blobs Carthage into Phoenicia to suit VI's cultural design. On another hand, it moves the Phoenician capital away from Tunisia to (likely) make room for a Moroccan civ. And on yet another hand, it is trying to fill in spaces expected by players to be filled by other civs, particularly Palmyra and Assyria (and imo has succeeded in obviating those options).

If it seems like I was objecting to that, I wasn't. TSL means nothing to me as I very rarely play TSL maps. IMO TSL is a meaningless consideration except insofar as representing different regions means representing different cultures.

The Iroquois should definitely be a strong choice to return, though admittedly I am a bit concerned with the number of spaces left. Assuming we're only getting a 3rd expansion and no DLC (though an Assyria and Iroquois DLC would be a cool theme for a warfare DLC) and that they're sticking with the 4 returning and 4 new format, it would be hard to decide how to fit the Iroquois and Morocco into the 4 returning slots when we also want Ethiopia, Maya, Portugal, etc. Guess we'll just have to hope for either more DLC or a really large 3rd expanion.

Call them the Mohawk and say they're new à la Phoenicia vis-à-vis Carthage?

The defining Uniqueness of the PNW cultures was that the area supported the densest population of Hunter-Gatherers in the world.

Not only that but they essentially developed a sedentary post-agricultural lifestyle...without agriculture. (Some of the Coast Salish appear to have been beginning to deliberately cultivate skunk cabbage and the Tlingit placed sticks in the water to attract herring roe, but all that's pretty irrelevant.)

3. Plank houses with a distinctive Prow-shaped roofline: PNW Cities could have a very distinctive graphic compared to anyone else in the game, at least for the Ancient/Classical/Medieval Eras.

When I designed a Tlingit civ in another thread I actually proposed a ḵwaan (clan house) as a unique improvement. (Also as an interesting aside, the Cree's city graphics appear to be based on the PNW style, which adds to the other hints that the Haida were originally considered for R&F.)