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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Because of the complicated nature of representing subjugated American peoples (with a widely variegated cultural tapestry and limited imperialistic unification) in a specifically American game, it feels like American tribes are held to a completely different standard than the rest of the world. By that, I mean it would feel "wrong," historically and ethically, to place any single tribe on a pedestal as a series regular, because it would be to the exclusion of equally important cultures on the continent, as well as "selling out" the tribe to a paradigm controlled by Western/colonial interests. So I think American tribes are deliberately discouraged by politics from getting too familiar with the Civ franchise.

The compromise that VI seems to be moving toward is to treat them as "featured" civs, one-and-dones (potentially being featured again in the future), with a tacit understanding that the tribe in question will not need to worry about reconciling their relationship with the franchise in the future. This way players are exposed to diversity, tribes are given public awareness, while minimizing exploitation. While the complications are present for any non-American(/-Canadian) culture, there are simply more eggshells involved where the developers and primary consumerbase are part of the dominant, oppressive culture sharing a continent with these peoples.

At this point I'm sure the Cree won't return again due to the controversy. The Iroquois and the Sioux might end up being the safest bets for series regulars from Civ VII onwards because they have been "represented" more than once as Sitting Bull has been the leader in two games.
I would hate for it to come to that but since we've already seen some sort of controversy the last two games it might be the easiest route to go.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

At this point I'm sure the Cree won't return again due to the controversy. The Iroquois and the Sioux might end up being the safest bets for series regulars from Civ VII onwards because they have been "represented" more than once as Sitting Bull has been the leader in two games.
I would hate for it to come to that but since we've already seen some sort of controversy the last two games it might be the easiest route to go.

*Initiating Rant Mode*
I confess a lot of the 'controversy' is due to a modern Infinite Capacity For Being Offended that seems all too prevalent. IF the game is portraying an individual personal ancestor, then you have, I think, a legitimate concern. But if it is simply portraying your ethnic, political, or ancestral 'group', I suggest you should be very careful about what you are protesting, because every single such group has done things and has had leaders that by modern standards are reprehensible.
Judging historical groups and individuals by modern standards is one of the great Idiocies of our time, and all it does is assure us that we will be judged harshly by our own descendants on an equally spurious basis.

*End Rant Mode. Resume Rational Argument*

IF we are to be stuck with the Iroquois and Sioux, then at least let's Do Them Right.
First, they were the Haudenosaunee and Lakotah. Let's stop using French misunderstandings and mispronunciations to refer to people who have perfectly good names for themselves (a small point in Game Terms, but it bugs the $#@^ out of me!)
Second, they were both Tribal societies with some real differences among their tribes. Before they even think about including them again, Civ/Firaxis needs to come up with a good mechanism for showing Tribal/City State Civs with the internal differences/bonuses but overall cultural and occasionally military/political unity.
Third, explore some new Leaders FCOL. Sitting Bull has sat long enough: how about Red Cloud, the one Lakotah leader who actually dictated terms to the USA at the end of his war, and retired peacefully as a Winner. Look into one of the historical Haudenosaunee leaders instead of a semi-mythical/poetical 'Founder'.
And finally, if Geographical Completeness (TSL) is an objective, look at the other native 'Civs' in the same areas: the Algonkian tribes of the old northeast, the Shawnee or Chippewa of the Ohio/Great Lakes region or the Powhatan 'confederacy' of the Virginias, the Cheyenne, Blackfeet, Arapahoe or Pawnee of the central and northern Great Plains. Don't lets 'settle' for the same civs because they've been done before and are 'safe'.

If we wanted 'safe', we'd all be playing checkers.

 

[Zaarin]

Let's stop using French misunderstandings and mispronunciations to refer to people who have perfectly good names for themselves

Actually Algonquian and Ojibwa via French respectively, but since they mean "people eaters" and "little snakes" respectively, yes, using their endonyms would be preferable.

Third, explore some new Leaders FCOL. Sitting Bull has sat long enough: how about Red Cloud, the one Lakotah leader who actually dictated terms to the USA at the end of his war, and retired peacefully as a Winner.

While I'm not a huge fan of including the Lakhota simply because of how over-represented they are in the media (especially foreign media), I have to say there aren't many civs with such a wealth of interesting leaders in such a short period of time.

Look into one of the historical Haudenosaunee leaders instead of a semi-mythical/poetical 'Founder'.

Choosing a leader for the Haudenosaunee is a challenge because they didn't have individual leaders at the league level: they were led by (rather large) councils. The best place to look for leaders then is war chiefs of the individual tribes, with Mohawk war chief Joseph Brant/Theyendanegea being the obvious standout, but Seneca war chief Cornplanter and his half-brother Seneca prophet Handsome Lake would be other options. Chief Shenandoah would come with a very obvious theme song.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The "problem" with the North American Native Civs specifically is that there is such a mind-bogglingly huge variety among them, and the more we know about them, the more the Differences stand out. So, to pick 1 - 2 or even 5 - 6 Native 'Civs' means you are leaving out at least that many more that could be included, and each of which would bring something new to the table. On the one hand, it gives the designers huge leeway, on the other hand, they will always come up short unless they make a weird sort of "Pre-Colonial" Civ game in which all 12 - 24 - 36 Civilizations are New World. - I'm not suggesting they do that, but, yeah, I'd buy it . . .

I would as well. And the satisfaction and guilt would tear me in two.

At this point I'm sure the Cree won't return again due to the controversy. The Iroquois and the Sioux might end up being the safest bets for series regulars from Civ VII onwards because they have been "represented" more than once as Sitting Bull has been the leader in two games.
I would hate for it to come to that but since we've already seen some sort of controversy the last two games it might be the easiest route to go.

Maybe "regulars." Definitely not staples. I don't think even the Sioux (perhaps the easiest "empire" to fill American TSL maps) would be too happy about being in every iteration.

IF we are to be stuck with the Iroquois and Sioux, then at least let's Do Them Right.
First, they were the Haudenosaunee and Lakotah. Let's stop using French misunderstandings and mispronunciations to refer to people who have perfectly good names for themselves (a small point in Game Terms, but it bugs the $#@^ out of me!)
Second, they were both Tribal societies with some real differences among their tribes. Before they even think about including them again, Civ/Firaxis needs to come up with a good mechanism for showing Tribal/City State Civs with the internal differences/bonuses but overall cultural and occasionally military/political unity.
Third, explore some new Leaders FCOL. Sitting Bull has sat long enough: how about Red Cloud, the one Lakotah leader who actually dictated terms to the USA at the end of his war, and retired peacefully as a Winner. Look into one of the historical Haudenosaunee leaders instead of a semi-mythical/poetical 'Founder'.
And finally, if Geographical Completeness (TSL) is an objective, look at the other native 'Civs' in the same areas: the Algonkian tribes of the old northeast, the Shawnee or Chippewa of the Ohio/Great Lakes region or the Powhatan 'confederacy' of the Virginias, the Cheyenne, Blackfeet, Arapahoe or Pawnee of the central and northern Great Plains. Don't lets 'settle' for the same civs because they've been done before and are 'safe'.

If we wanted 'safe', we'd all be playing checkers.

1. To this day, I am irritated at the linguistic inconsistency in the series. We have Jadwiga, but not Caterina or Pyotr. The Ottomans really should be called the Osmans. And some of the city lists... It's not that I mind exonyms. The devs do have to keep in mind what market they are developing for, and keep the bar of entry pretty low by using more resonant terms and concepts. It's mostly the hopping back and forth between exonyms and endonyms that bothers me; it reduces immersion. Pick one and stick with it, please.

2. I don't see a Tribal/City-State mechanic going very far mechanically without becoming excessively complicated. Civ isn't meant to be a historically accurate simulation; just a historically suggestive virtual board game. I don't think differentiating internal tribes is what's lacking here, elsewise nearly every civ would fall under that criticism. Bavaria is so different from Brandenburg, guys, and I'm just so offended the devs neglected to show that in Germany's design.

3. Depends on the overarching thesis of the game. Since VI is focusing on culture heroes and personifications to more strongly embody their respective peoples, Sitting Bull and Hiawatha are very strong candidates to fit in with the rest of the cast. Under a different design philosophy, of course I would support different leaders, for the same reasons that I'm thankful for abandoning the same tired roster of Washington, Napoleon, Hannibal, Caesar, Hammurabi, Maria Teresa, Elizabeth, and Catherine. It gets stale. (Now, is this new design philosophy likely? I'm dubious, because the franchise is sold on resonance, and what resonates with most people is what few things that stuck with them in their high school history class. But still, nothing wrong with hoping for even more radical shifts in the franchise.)

4. Well, in the broadest sense, given that we have America smack in the center of the Atlantic seaboard and Canada wedged up against the Great Lakes, the Powhatan and Anishinaabe don't really "fill" anything. And mechanically, the plains peoples would be fighting against the Cree for design space. The biggest "gaps" on the map are, as others have observed, the Pacific coast, the Southwest, and the Caribbean. HOWEVER, in another installment starting fresh, I could see the Powhatan or Anishinaabe replacing the Iroquois, or the Blackfoot replacing the Sioux/Cree, even moreso if for some reason Canada is left out.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. To this day, I am irritated at the linguistic inconsistency in the series. We have Jadwiga, but not Caterina or Pyotr. The Ottomans really should be called the Osmans. And some of the city lists... It's not that I mind exonyms. The devs do have to keep in mind what market they are developing for, and keep the bar of entry pretty low by using more resonant terms and concepts. It's mostly the hopping back and forth between exonyms and endonyms that bothers me; it reduces immersion. Pick one and stick with it, please.

Being both a historian and a bit of a linguist, a little consistency would be nice. Heck, ANY consistency would be nice . . .

2. I don't see a Tribal/City-State mechanic going very far mechanically without becoming excessively complicated. Civ isn't meant to be a historically accurate simulation; just a historically suggestive virtual board game. I don't think differentiating internal tribes is what's lacking here, elsewise nearly every civ would fall under that criticism. Bavaria is so different from Brandenburg, guys, and I'm just so offended the devs neglected to show that in Germany's design.

I agree, it cannot be done comprehensively without becoming complex and annoying. But, for instance, there have been 'city state/tribal' Mod Civs in V and VI that had at least a nod towards the concept: either the city by its name or by your choice, for instance, starting with a Bonus for a certain type of District, or yield (extra Production, Religion, Gold, Favor, specific Military Unit Production, extra Charge in their Builders, etc), so that not every city in the civ started out identical. I rather liked that system because, of course, it meant that the cities became less distinct as the Civ developed, which is exactly what has happened historically.
Although, having lived in both Bavaria and Brandenburg (well, West Berlin) I have to admit that they are still very distinct in culture, language, and general attitude . . .

3. Depends on the overarching thesis of the game. Since VI is focusing on culture heroes and personifications to more strongly embody their respective peoples, Sitting Bull and Hiawatha are very strong candidates to fit in with the rest of the cast. Under a different design philosophy, of course I would support different leaders, for the same reasons that I'm thankful for abandoning the same tired roster of Washington, Napoleon, Hannibal, Caesar, Hammurabi, Maria Teresa, Elizabeth, and Catherine. It gets stale. (Now, is this new design philosophy likely? I'm dubious, because the franchise is sold on resonance, and what resonates with most people is what few things that stuck with them in their high school history class. But still, nothing wrong with hoping for even more radical shifts in the franchise.)

To some extent, although the exact amount can be dated, any commercial game/enterprise has to consider its audience/market, and the market for a game based however loosely on history has to consider the abysmal lack of basic knowledge on the subject, or the prejudices learned about the subject. I don't think that should completely limit our choices, though, and in the majority of Five in Civ VI now it hasn't. While Victtoria, Robert Bruce, Theodore Roosevelt, Pyotr are well known - partly because of recent books, TV shows, and other non-game media about them - how many fo the general English-speaking population could have identified Tomyris, Tamar, Seondok, or Poundmaker? I think there's room for variation, if the leaders are well done and evocative of some aspect of the Civ that is readily Identifiable to the general gaming customers.

4. Well, in the broadest sense, given that we have America smack in the center of the Atlantic seaboard and Canada wedged up against the Great Lakes, the Powhatan and Anishinaabe don't really "fill" anything. And mechanically, the plains peoples would be fighting against the Cree for design space. The biggest "gaps" on the map are, as others have observed, the Pacific coast, the Southwest, and the Caribbean. HOWEVER, in another installment starting fresh, I could see the Powhatan or Anishinaabe replacing the Iroquois, or the Blackfoot replacing the Sioux/Cree, even moreso if for some reason Canada is left out.

Let me throw out an alternative concept here. Instead of worrying about TSL, as in Geographical Location for a Civ, how about looking at Variety in geographical Type of Civ. Instead of which earlier Civ is in the same area as modern Canada, look at which native civs are in northern forest, coastal marsh, Great Plains, Mountains, desert, etc. Within this framework, you would have some Civs (Cree among them) that actually thrived in distinctly different different geographies: great plains and northern forest. The Lakotah, in fact, had elements living in marshy forest (modern Minnesota) and the great plains, and in an area like the North American southwest you have a group like the Comanche that ranged from desert to great plains and tribes like the Apache and Ute that lived from desert to mountain terrain. That would give, so to speak, a different menu to choose from in selecting and modeling Civs.
Just a thought.

 

[Zaarin]

Depends on the overarching thesis of the game. Since VI is focusing on culture heroes and personifications to more strongly embody their respective peoples, Sitting Bull and Hiawatha are very strong candidates to fit in with the rest of the cast.

Well, regarding the Haudenasaune, I would argue that still makes Joseph Brant a leading contender: highly regarded by his people and a big personality.

how many fo the general English-speaking population could have identified Tomyris, Tamar, Seondok, or Poundmaker?

While I'm never one to have broad confidence in general education, I think at least the first three would have some currency in select niche audiences: Tomyris and Tamar because of Rejected Princesses, Seondeok because of a number of K-dramas like Queen Seondeok and The King's Dream. Granted those are both niche audiences. And by coincidence Poundmaker received some currency because a Cree headman decided to make the most of the situation to advance his political agenda.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I agree, it cannot be done comprehensively without becoming complex and annoying. But, for instance, there have been 'city state/tribal' Mod Civs in V and VI that had at least a nod towards the concept: either the city by its name or by your choice, for instance, starting with a Bonus for a certain type of District, or yield (extra Production, Religion, Gold, Favor, specific Military Unit Production, extra Charge in their Builders, etc), so that not every city in the civ started out identical. I rather liked that system because, of course, it meant that the cities became less distinct as the Civ developed, which is exactly what has happened historically.

Although, having lived in both Bavaria and Brandenburg (well, West Berlin) I have to admit that they are still very distinct in culture, language, and general attitude . . .

I could see that working. Though it's a gimmick that would probably only work for a single civ. And it would probably be Italy.

To some extent, although the exact amount can be dated, any commercial game/enterprise has to consider its audience/market, and the market for a game based however loosely on history has to consider the abysmal lack of basic knowledge on the subject, or the prejudices learned about the subject. I don't think that should completely limit our choices, though, and in the majority of Five in Civ VI now it hasn't. While Victtoria, Robert Bruce, Theodore Roosevelt, Pyotr are well known - partly because of recent books, TV shows, and other non-game media about them - how many fo the general English-speaking population could have identified Tomyris, Tamar, Seondok, or Poundmaker? I think there's room for variation, if the leaders are well done and evocative of some aspect of the Civ that is readily Identifiable to the general gaming customers.

Not many could have identified those leaders, but similarly they wouldn't have known much about those civs as a whole. So it's not really a lack of familiarity with leaders so much as being totally ignorant of the "second-tier" civs thanks to spotty, sensationalist history curricula.

However, if one can just make the leap to even acknowledging Scythia, Georgia, Silla, or the Cree, these are, for the most part, extremely obvious leader choices. Tomyris is a culture hero in Kazakhstan and is famous for killing the quintessential Persian/Iranian culture hero. Tamar's namesake was the primary goddess of the Georgian pantheon. Poundmaker is practically the only person who should lead the Cree because of Treaty 6. In many respects, inclusion of these "obscure" civs is the actual obstacle, and once that is surpassed everything, including the leaders, carries extreme in-group resonance, to the point that VI's new additions are basically teaching players the fundamentals of overlooked regions of the world.

So "resonance" kind of takes on different forms depending on the civ. For new additions, it seems to be functioning as a yardstick of what will make the players understand and accept these new civs, rather than what they will recognize and be drawn toward.

Let me throw out an alternative concept here. Instead of worrying about TSL, as in Geographical Location for a Civ, how about looking at Variety in geographical Type of Civ. Instead of which earlier Civ is in the same area as modern Canada, look at which native civs are in northern forest, coastal marsh, Great Plains, Mountains, desert, etc. Within this framework, you would have some Civs (Cree among them) that actually thrived in distinctly different different geographies: great plains and northern forest. The Lakotah, in fact, had elements living in marshy forest (modern Minnesota) and the great plains, and in an area like the North American southwest you have a group like the Comanche that ranged from desert to great plains and tribes like the Apache and Ute that lived from desert to mountain terrain. That would give, so to speak, a different menu to choose from in selecting and modeling Civs.
Just a thought.

That's closer to how I view proposed Native American civs, because geography influences their mechanical playstyle quite a bit. Part of why I'm all for a Navajo/Apache/Comanche civ is because they necessarily developed irrigation and ranching techniques (although ranching seems a bit poached by "Poundmaker" leading the Cree). That automatically creates a niche for them that no other tribe would compete with.

It's also why the Shoshone were a good counterpart to the Iroquois in V. Although given that we have a "plains" tribe and a "horse raider" tribe in VI, I am not optimistic of the Shoshone/Ute or Sioux returning, at least not until other obvious geographic niches are filled. A desert tribe. A coastal tribe. Maybe a river/lake tribe, although again because of Canada and Cahokia the design space is crammed.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I could see that working. Though it's a gimmick that would probably only work for a single civ. And it would probably be Italy.

I saw it in Modded versions of Iroquois and Switzerland - where I think it was misplaced, because any differences among the Swiss Cantons were quickly submerged in their 'national reputation' in the late Medieval Era: compared to all their neighbors (France, HRE) they were too small to be able to afford individuality!
I agree that it might be a mechanism for including the Renaissance Italian City States, but I think it could also be applied to the Haudenosaune and/or the Classical Greeks. In fact, among the candidates I would argue that the Greeks need internal differentiation more than anybody, because mere Leader alternatives don't begin to show the cultural/political/military differences between Athens and Sparta, let alone the other individualistic city states like Thebes, Corinth, Argos, or the region of Thessaly. But, I spent over four years studying the Greek/Macedonian classical world in undergrad and grad school, so I'm seriously prejudiced here, and can probably enumerate 'differences' that others would have trouble seeing and the game would 'paper over' in a heartbeat . . .

. . . In many respects, inclusion of these "obscure" civs is the actual obstacle, and once that is surpassed everything, including the leaders, carries extreme in-group resonance, to the point that VI's new additions are basically teaching players the fundamentals of overlooked regions of the world.

"new additions are basically teaching players -" That in a nutshell is why I'm still commenting on the game and playing it. The chance that it can be both an entertaining and a learning tool is too good to walk away from.

That's closer to how I view proposed Native American civs, because geography influences their mechanical playstyle quite a bit. Part of why I'm all for a Navajo/Apache/Comanche civ is because they necessarily developed irrigation and ranching techniques (although ranching seems a bit poached by "Poundmaker" leading the Cree). That automatically creates a niche for them that no other tribe would compete with.

It's also why the Shoshone were a good counterpart to the Iroquois in V. Although given that we have a "plains" tribe and a "horse raider" tribe in VI, I am not optimistic of the Shoshone/Ute or Sioux returning, at least not until other obvious geographic niches are filled. A desert tribe. A coastal tribe. Maybe a river/lake tribe, although again because of Canada and Cahokia the design space is crammed.

Luckily, Canada covers an area big enough to have room for more than one Civ, and Cahokia is going to remain a City State because we just don't know enough about the "mound builders" to make a Civ out of them. That means at least to me, potentially there is room for the Cree, Shawnee, Lakotah, Pawnee, Cheyenne, Haudenosaune - but not all of them in one game.

And I agree that before they whip up another plains tribe, or another eastern woodlands tribe that sits right between the early core of both Canada and the USA, they need to work on one (or more) of the southwestern tribes/peoples which range in that one area from agricultural 'city building' cliff dwellers to pastoral premier horse-raising hunters. Since we already have 'desert' Civs from elsewhere in the world (Mali, Egypt, Nubia) I'd suggest that the Pacific Northwest, which presented a starting area unique in the world, should come first if they have to whittle the choice down to only 1 more NA Civ.

 

[Jkchart]

Ugh, please no.


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.


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


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.)


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.)

Since you mention the fact that they lack agriculture, think of how you could easily do another Maori/Mali style drawback by not allowing Farms (or perhaps just unlocking them late)...there's lots of potential for a PNW civ and I'm all for it.

 

[Krajzen]

Who was Averroes again? Wasn't he Ibn Rushd, the North African/or Moorish Arabic polymath? How is he qualified to lead Morocco in a Civ game, given he didn't wield political power unlike the historical sultans? I like the idea of Yusuf bin Tashfin or Ismail ibn Sharif leading Morocco in Civ6, if they return. Or an alternative Berber/or Tuareg Civ lead by Kahina/Dihya or Tin Hinan.

I said "civs of da Vinci and Averroes", not led by

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Since you mention the fact that they lack agriculture, think of how you could easily do another Maori/Mali style drawback by not allowing Farms (or perhaps just unlocking them late)...there's lots of potential for a PNW civ and I'm all for it.

PNW Civ:
Can't build Farms until, say, Construction Tech is researched
BUT
Start with Sailing Tech, and can Harvest Coastal resources, and Deer, Wheat, Rice, Sheep, Cattle Bonus Resources from the start (basically, all the stuff Hunter-Gatherers would normally hunt/gather)
AND/OR:
Any Bonus animal Resource (Cattle, Sheep, Deer) provides +1 Food
AND/OR:
All Fishing Boats provide +1 Food
AND/OR:
All Coastal Tiles provide +1 Food
AND/OR (as suggested before):
a Head Canoe (Galley replacement) on a Coastal Resource provides +1 of all Yields from that Resource (except Amenities).
AND/OR: "The Salmon Bonus"
Any tile next to a river yields +1 Food.

In other words, any, all or most of those changes will result in a lot of food in the early game without needing Farms

 

[Jkchart]

PNW Civ:
Can't build Farms until, say, Construction Tech is researched
BUT
Start with Sailing Tech, and can Harvest Coastal resources, and Deer, Wheat, Rice, Sheep, Cattle Bonus Resources from the start (basically, all the stuff Hunter-Gatherers would normally hunt/gather)
AND/OR:
Any Bonus animal Resource (Cattle, Sheep, Deer) provides +1 Food
AND/OR:
All Fishing Boats provide +1 Food
AND/OR:
All Coastal Tiles provide +1 Food
AND/OR (as suggested before):
a Head Canoe (Galley replacement) on a Coastal Resource provides +1 of all Yields from that Resource (except Amenities).
AND/OR: "The Salmon Bonus"
Any tile next to a river yields +1 Food.

In other words, any, all or most of those changes will result in a lot of food in the early game without needing Farms

It would certainly be a cool way to play since you would look at the land and the resources differently, exactly as a PNW culture would. I'm all for it.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

PNW Civ:
Can't build Farms until, say, Construction Tech is researched
BUT
Start with Sailing Tech, and can Harvest Coastal resources, and Deer, Wheat, Rice, Sheep, Cattle Bonus Resources from the start (basically, all the stuff Hunter-Gatherers would normally hunt/gather)
AND/OR:
Any Bonus animal Resource (Cattle, Sheep, Deer) provides +1 Food
AND/OR:
All Fishing Boats provide +1 Food
AND/OR:
All Coastal Tiles provide +1 Food
AND/OR (as suggested before):
a Head Canoe (Galley replacement) on a Coastal Resource provides +1 of all Yields from that Resource (except Amenities).
AND/OR: "The Salmon Bonus"
Any tile next to a river yields +1 Food.

In other words, any, all or most of those changes will result in a lot of food in the early game without needing Farms

The farm/fishing boats/coastal stuff feels a lot like the Maori. I would think the harvesting mechanic would be a nice counterpart to the Maori, but practically speaking I think any tribe would not want to be depicted as resource-greedy.

I would probably go with harvesting coastal resources and river tiles providing +1 food. That feels like it captures the PNW the best, at least as far as resources go. The biggest complication I see is that it's hard coming up with other dimensions to develop. I don't see PNW tribes as having a major religious, scientific, military, or diplomatic legacy. I could see maybe a religious bent, if only to fill design space. The only thing they really stand out in is coastal trade systems, and if the Swahili or Chola or Champa are added they might as well be dead in the water. (And I think those civs are more likely, given that they would synergize conceptually better with an economic overhaul if we got corporations and fleshed out luxury resources).

The PNW is filed in "problem areas" for me, along with the Caribbean, the Arctic Circle, Western Australia. They indisputably have interesting cultures to work with; the problem is those cultures fall just short of the sort of exceptional achievements which facilitate easy, intuitive game design--particularly in a game where 42 civs are already taking up mechanical design space. I think they stand a long-shot, but only if concessions and self-limitations are made to the gameplay, because otherwise they are just too hard to bring up to the same standards as the rest of the cast. Make them tailored to specific scenarios or single era challenges, sell them as handicapped or hard mode civs, something to give them representation but not force them into "high civilization" roles that just don't feel very authentic to them.

It absolutely must be called "The Salmon Bonus" though. Whatever it is.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't see PNW tribes as having a major religious, scientific, military, or diplomatic legacy. I could see maybe a religious bent, if only to fill design space.

On the one hand, all societies before the 19th century were religious, which makes religious bonuses at once always a safe bet and yet in most cases a slightly banal one (especially given the dreadful state of religion in Civ6). However, I will say some of the PNW tribes had rather unique religions, especially in regards to how they syncretized and nativized Christianity (particularly see the Tsimshian in that regard).

I would agree that they're not really suitable for scientific bonuses or military bonuses (war was highly ritualized in the PNW). I'm of two minds on diplomacy. On the one hand, if you want to give a Native American civ diplomatic bonuses the Iroquois and the Powhatan are far and away the obvious choices here. However, the PNW tribes had some really interesting peacemaking ceremonies involving exchanging hostages (called "white deer") and intangible resources; I could see giving a PNW tribe a unique peacemaking mechanic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

On the one hand, all societies before the 19th century were religious, which makes religious bonuses at once always a safe bet and yet in most cases a slightly banal one (especially given the dreadful state of religion in Civ6). However, I will say some of the PNW tribes had rather unique religions, especially in regards to how they syncretized and nativized Christianity (particularly see the Tsimshian in that regard).

I would agree that they're not really suitable for scientific bonuses or military bonuses (war was highly ritualized in the PNW). I'm of two minds on diplomacy. On the one hand, if you want to give a Native American civ diplomatic bonuses the Iroquois and the Powhatan are far and away the obvious choices here. However, the PNW tribes had some really interesting peacemaking ceremonies involving exchanging hostages (called "white deer") and intangible resources; I could see giving a PNW tribe a unique peacemaking mechanic.

Aside from 'Uniques" like Sea Resource availability early on, early sea trading, Totem/Crest Poles, one 'peculiar' emphasis among the PNW might be Adaptabilty in Economics/Politics. There were individuals and tribes up here who had very little trouble adapting the "White Man's Way" - and even beating him at it.

Taking from my Profile as an example, the Steilacoom traded with the local Hudsons Bay post at Nisqually just south of them, providing game and supplies which the Post then supplied to trappers in exchange for furs from the interior. One 'chief' even hunted down and returned cattle and sheep that wild dogs had run off from the Hudsons Bay pastures. What they didn't know as that the 'wild dogs' belonged to that same native, who was 'farming' the Hudsons Bay people by getting paid to return the same cattle he had run off in the first place, and making a tidy profit in the process. He died a half-century later in Seattle, a prominent and very successful businessman!
Other examples from the PNW are the tribes who have been very successful in the 20th century developing fish and shellfish 'farming' in artificial bays and coves - a modernized version of the harvesting they did a century earlier.
And, of course, they have enthusiastically adopted the modern Native American trapping of White Men for their pelf using Casinos. That's not peculiar to the PNW by any means, but many of the PNW tribes have kept the Gold gained within a Tribal Context, sharing it out by Tribe instead of by individual entrepreneur (and even having a policy of hiring only Tribal Members within the Casino to keep the Gold within the Tribe)

An ability to 'Adopt', say, Civics/Policy Cards from Civs they contact without 'researching' them would be something quite different in a Civ - and useful throughout the game.

And given the speed with which the sea-going tribes of the PNW adopted sailing rigs, which I've commented on in previous posting, this could (very carefully or it would be OP) even be extended to Technologies.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Aside from 'Uniques" like Sea Resource availability early on, early sea trading, Totem/Crest Poles, one 'peculiar' emphasis among the PNW might be Adaptabilty in Economics/Politics. There were individuals and tribes up here who had very little trouble adapting the "White Man's Way" - and even beating him at it.

...

And, of course, they have enthusiastically adopted the modern Native American trapping of White Men for their pelf using Casinos. That's not peculiar to the PNW by any means, but many of the PNW tribes have kept the Gold gained within a Tribal Context, sharing it out by Tribe instead of by individual entrepreneur (and even having a policy of hiring only Tribal Members within the Casino to keep the Gold within the Tribe)

Neither of these seem to uniquely characterize the PNW, however, not to mention seem problematic in that they either conform to or are defined by colonialism.

I have no idea whether the PNW tribes were any more or less adaptive than other tribes, although I am aware of Washington and British Columbia containing quite a bit of tribal territory. Still, one could make similar observations about the Navajo, or the Hawaiians. Or, if you want to take modern phenomena into effect, everyone and their mother claims to be part Cherokee these days. Even if the PNW were especially integrative, it would be difficult to separate conscious cultural integration on the part of the tribes with the geographical fact that they were generally the last tribes contacted by "White Man," affording quite more opportunity for circumstances to develop which minimized conflict.

I definitely know for a fact that there is nothing unique about PNW casinos, other than, again a consequence of owning more land. And even still, the actual native casino capitals of America are Oklahoma and Connecticut. And beyond that, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, California, Michigan, and Arizona are all roughly on par with Washington. All awkwardness aside, I do not think Casinos are remotely unique enough to the PNW to merit being a point of design.

On the one hand, all societies before the 19th century were religious, which makes religious bonuses at once always a safe bet and yet in most cases a slightly banal one (especially given the dreadful state of religion in Civ6). However, I will say some of the PNW tribes had rather unique religions, especially in regards to how they syncretized and nativized Christianity (particularly see the Tsimshian in that regard).

See, when I think syncretization though, my mind immediately jumps to Mexico. Or Hawaii. Both far more successful localizations of Christianity and euro-culture.

I would agree that they're not really suitable for scientific bonuses or military bonuses (war was highly ritualized in the PNW). I'm of two minds on diplomacy. On the one hand, if you want to give a Native American civ diplomatic bonuses the Iroquois and the Powhatan are far and away the obvious choices here. However, the PNW tribes had some really interesting peacemaking ceremonies involving exchanging hostages (called "white deer") and intangible resources; I could see giving a PNW tribe a unique peacemaking mechanic.

Exactly my thoughts. An Iroquoian civ is what one would typically presume as the "diplomatic" tribe civ. However, whether we get one or not, the Cree's diplomatic bent I think trods quite a bit on a second diplomatic tribe being included.

As for peacekeeping, I guess I could imagine an even more aggressively pacifist version of Canada. Although I'm not sure how other tribes would react to being portrayed as somehow "not peacekeeping." Although we have the Maori being the only environmentalist tribe and no one seems to be complaining about that yet.

 

[Zaarin]

Exactly my thoughts. An Iroquoian civ is what one would typically presume as the "diplomatic" tribe civ. However, whether we get one or not, the Cree's diplomatic bent I think trods quite a bit on a second diplomatic tribe being included.

With the Iroquois, though, I'd expect something like "subversive diplomacy"--like gaining alliance points faster with civs at war with your allies. Since that's pretty much how the Iroquois operated, playing off the other powers in the region (native and European) against each other.

As for peacekeeping, I guess I could imagine an even more aggressively pacifist version of Canada. Although I'm not sure how other tribes would react to being portrayed as somehow "not peacekeeping."

I don't think it would be appropriate to portray the PNW tribes as pacifist. While they didn't really engage much in "warfare" until the Russians and British invaded, they certainly did a great deal of feuding, both between clans and between tribes. I was suggesting a unique mechanic for making peace after a war rather than avoiding war altogether.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It may be a touch gimmicky, but I find the duality aspect of the PWN religions pretty interesting from a mechanics perspective. How the Tlingit & Haida have like... clans of the Raven and the Wolf and ideal partnership requires a member of either clan. It would be beyond cool to have this adapted into a religious or militaristic ability somehow.

 

[Zaarin]

the Raven and the Wolf and ideal partnership requires a member of either clan.

It's not just "ideal"; marrying inside your moiety is considered incestuous.

It may be a touch gimmicky, but I find the duality aspect of the PWN religions pretty interesting from a mechanics perspective.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd describe PNW religion as dualistic--certainly not in the way gnostic religions like Mandaeism or Manichaeism are (or to a lesser extent Zoroastrianism and Taoism, though the characterization of those is highly overstated in the Western mind). I'm most familiar with the religions of the Tlingit and Haida, but their religions were comparable to other North American animist religions, with a shaman whose job was to ward off evil spirits and draw the spirits of animals for the hunt. They believed that the souls of the dead were reincarnated, usually within the same clan, and had a taboo against speaking the name of the dead until it had been given to a new owner--because the soul was contained in the name (which means adding a new name also gives you a new soul--being additive not replacing). On which note, they had a lot of taboos: no speaking the name of the dead, no contact with women before hunting, no hunting equipment may come in contact with a woman's blood, even taboos about what foods can be eaten by whom and when (for example, if I recall correctly bear meat was taboo for women). They believed the trickster god Raven created most of the world's features, including humans (at least according to some versions). He also stole the sun from the underworld. He's also not a very nice person and usually receives comeuppance. Probably the most distinctive feature of PNW religion, though, is the potlatch, which is both a form of conspicuous consumption and redistribution of wealth (well, some versions, for example among the Kwakwaka'wakw, involved destruction of wealth...including slaves) as well as a sort of contract to affirm important events like building a new house or having a child be born or come of age.

 

[Patine]

The farm/fishing boats/coastal stuff feels a lot like the Maori. I would think the harvesting mechanic would be a nice counterpart to the Maori, but practically speaking I think any tribe would not want to be depicted as resource-greedy.

I would probably go with harvesting coastal resources and river tiles providing +1 food. That feels like it captures the PNW the best, at least as far as resources go. The biggest complication I see is that it's hard coming up with other dimensions to develop. I don't see PNW tribes as having a major religious, scientific, military, or diplomatic legacy. I could see maybe a religious bent, if only to fill design space. The only thing they really stand out in is coastal trade systems, and if the Swahili or Chola or Champa are added they might as well be dead in the water. (And I think those civs are more likely, given that they would synergize conceptually better with an economic overhaul if we got corporations and fleshed out luxury resources).

The PNW is filed in "problem areas" for me, along with the Caribbean, the Arctic Circle, Western Australia. They indisputably have interesting cultures to work with; the problem is those cultures fall just short of the sort of exceptional achievements which facilitate easy, intuitive game design--particularly in a game where 42 civs are already taking up mechanical design space. I think they stand a long-shot, but only if concessions and self-limitations are made to the gameplay, because otherwise they are just too hard to bring up to the same standards as the rest of the cast. Make them tailored to specific scenarios or single era challenges, sell them as handicapped or hard mode civs, something to give them representation but not force them into "high civilization" roles that just don't feel very authentic to them.

It absolutely must be called "The Salmon Bonus" though. Whatever it is.

Neither of these seem to uniquely characterize the PNW, however, not to mention seem problematic in that they either conform to or are defined by colonialism.

I have no idea whether the PNW tribes were any more or less adaptive than other tribes, although I am aware of Washington and British Columbia containing quite a bit of tribal territory. Still, one could make similar observations about the Navajo, or the Hawaiians. Or, if you want to take modern phenomena into effect, everyone and their mother claims to be part Cherokee these days. Even if the PNW were especially integrative, it would be difficult to separate conscious cultural integration on the part of the tribes with the geographical fact that they were generally the last tribes contacted by "White Man," affording quite more opportunity for circumstances to develop which minimized conflict.

I definitely know for a fact that there is nothing unique about PNW casinos, other than, again a consequence of owning more land. And even still, the actual native casino capitals of America are Oklahoma and Connecticut. And beyond that, Colorado, Florida, Mississippi, California, Michigan, and Arizona are all roughly on par with Washington. All awkwardness aside, I do not think Casinos are remotely unique enough to the PNW to merit being a point of design.



See, when I think syncretization though, my mind immediately jumps to Mexico. Or Hawaii. Both far more successful localizations of Christianity and euro-culture.



Exactly my thoughts. An Iroquoian civ is what one would typically presume as the "diplomatic" tribe civ. However, whether we get one or not, the Cree's diplomatic bent I think trods quite a bit on a second diplomatic tribe being included.

As for peacekeeping, I guess I could imagine an even more aggressively pacifist version of Canada. Although I'm not sure how other tribes would react to being portrayed as somehow "not peacekeeping." Although we have the Maori being the only environmentalist tribe and no one seems to be complaining about that yet.

To be pedantic, regardless of which political (post-colonial) governments they're under now, Hawaiians, Inuit, and Aleutians are not really culturally, historically, ethnically, or linguistically - or even racially, in a purely anthropological reckoning - the same as Native Americans/Canadian First Nations, and they don't regard themselves as such, despite outsiders often lumping them into said meta-ethnic groupings.