Poll: What new civilizations from the Americas would you like to see in the future?

What 5 never before seen civilizations from the Americas would you like to see in the future?

  • Navajo

    Votes: 25 32.9%
  • (Gran) Colombia

    Votes: 28 36.8%
  • Argentina

    Votes: 29 38.2%
  • Mexico

    Votes: 22 28.9%
  • Muisca

    Votes: 19 25.0%
  • Haida

    Votes: 14 18.4%
  • Tlinglit

    Votes: 19 25.0%
  • Choctaw

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Cherokee

    Votes: 23 30.3%
  • Creek

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Chikasaw

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Seminole

    Votes: 5 6.6%
  • Shawnee

    Votes: 5 6.6%
  • Powhatan

    Votes: 7 9.2%
  • Apache

    Votes: 12 15.8%
  • Tupi

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Guarini

    Votes: 3 3.9%
  • Taino

    Votes: 15 19.7%
  • Comanche

    Votes: 10 13.2%
  • Pueblo

    Votes: 17 22.4%
  • Hopi

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Chumash

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Olmec

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Zapotec

    Votes: 6 7.9%
  • Mixtec

    Votes: 5 6.6%
  • Cuba

    Votes: 8 10.5%
  • Wampanoag

    Votes: 3 3.9%
  • Pirate Republic of Nassau

    Votes: 8 10.5%
  • Inuit

    Votes: 23 30.3%
  • Other (Explain in your post)

    Votes: 7 9.2%

  • Total voters
    76
Thats where we get into the issue that civilization is not the same as a nation. The name of the game is civilization, I would argue that to not complicate things post colonial nations should not be part of it, but with the inclusion of America, Canada, Australia and Brazil in the same game as say Egypt and Sumeria, it really makes it messy.

Canada is also a word of native origin, should it be a native civ? heck America is a word derived from an Italian sailor...and yes Mexico is derived from Nahuatl, ethymology really isn't a consideration to weather it makes it in game. the devs have made it clear, they don't care if it's a modern "civ" as long as it fills the map, It's fun to play and, lets get real, if it sells.

I think the one obstacle you could argue Mexico has against It's inclusion in game is the map, as it overlaps a lot of civs, but mesoamerica, like say the middle east, and europe is crammed with interesting cultures that very often overlap geographicaly. If all the post colonials have made it in, Mexico could as well.

The Canadians just take an ameridian word who was never used before with the same meaning, as far I know Canada means village. Also Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Texas, Wyoming, Ohio and many others places in America have an ameridian name, but I don't think is the same.

I guess you are Mexican, because I already saw you in this forum before.
The Mexican have much more from the Mexica heritage than just your name and seal on the flag. First of all, most of mexican have indian heritage, I was working in Mexico recently and was astonished, even the white people has slanted eyes. The Catholic faith in Mexico has many Mexica influency as the "El Día de Los Muertos" y "la virgen de Guadalupe" who is just the countinuos of the Coatlicue, the Aztec god who was praised at the same mountain where is today's Basilica de Guadalupe.

Even if Mexico was united under the New Spain, the capital was the Mexico City who spread the Mexicanish to areas as Yucatán or Oaxaca, making now everyone feel as they are all mexican. And in the Independence moment they need to wirte down their history, Mexico just copy the model made by USA and start to think about they self as a nation just after the independence. But despite the official history of Mexico says it's just ~200 years old, I still thinking you have so many Mexica influency and would re-think about your own history as ~700 years old.

The Frankish Empire is viewed by almost all historians as a separate nation from France, especially as Germany, the Low Countries, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Monaco, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, and Italy, as well as partially Poland and Hungary, and, indirectly, England, can also trace the roots of their post-Fall of Rome nationhoods to the Frankish Empire.
I made a OFF topic somewhere else to discuss when born the nations, a french guy answer me about the kingship of Clóvis I, who was a germanic king.
See it here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/off-how-old-is-your-country.651080/
 
I made a OFF topic somewhere else to discuss when born the nations, a french guy answer me about the kingship of Clóvis I, who was a germanic king.
See it here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/off-how-old-is-your-country.651080/

That's a branch of French Nationalism/Irredentism. It's commonly accepted Clovis I was not the first King of FRANCE - not even by mainstream French academia. Hugh Capet, around 500 years after Clovis, who was the progeniture of the hereditary kingship of West Francia (the westernmost of the three nations of inheritance of the grandsons of Charlemagne), when he was chosen as a compromise candidate to end the back-and-forth electoral kingship between the Carolingians and the Robertians, is, by far, the much more accepted first King of France, even in most of France.
 
The Canadians just take an ameridian word who was never used before with the same meaning, as far I know Canada means village. Also Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Texas, Wyoming, Ohio and many others places in America have an ameridian name, but I don't think is the same.

I guess you are Mexican, because I already saw you in this forum before.
The Mexican have much more from the Mexica heritage than just your name and seal on the flag. First of all, most of mexican have indian heritage, I was working in Mexico recently and was astonished, even the white people has slanted eyes. The Catholic faith in Mexico has many Mexica influency as the "El Día de Los Muertos" y "la virgen de Guadalupe" who is just the countinuos of the Coatlicue, the Aztec god who was praised at the same mountain where is today's Basilica de Guadalupe.

Even if Mexico was united under the New Spain, the capital was the Mexico City who spread the Mexicanish to areas as Yucatán or Oaxaca, making now everyone feel as they are all mexican. And in the Independence moment they need to wirte down their history, Mexico just copy the model made by USA and start to think about they self as a nation just after the independence. But despite the official history of Mexico says it's just ~200 years old, I still thinking you have so many Mexica influency and would re-think about your own history as ~700 years old.

Yup Mexican, following your examples, I can also say I didn't wake up in the Guadalajara Altepetl, and went to study at the local Calmecac just in time for the noon sacrifices. Yes there is a lot of indigenous influences in Mexican culture, there's also tons of Spanish, Arabic, African and even Chinese, That's because since colonial times New Spain and then Mexico, has been a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities. My point is that Mexico has had a lot of time to develop it's own culture and identity by using all of those influences. example...Juarez, Huerta, Diaz, and Zapata, all of indigenous origin, yet they were all distinctively Mexican.

Now again, when I say Mexican I'm talking about modern, not Mexica, Spanish culture is what homogenized new Spain they didn't export "Mexicanish culture" to the rest of the country. Mexican culture arose from complex origins, yes one of those is indegenous and european roots, but it developed It's own American identity that ended up culminating in independence. The Mexican identity came first (American), independence later, they key here being that "Mexico" is the label at at the end was adopted to enshrine that American identity.

And this all comes from Mexico developing on a culture pot, yes Mexican culture has roots on many indigenous cultures, also, Spanish, and therefor Roman, so I could consider my culture to root on both Greco Roman and indigenous? yes, am I Roman and Olmec? pfft not at all. Is Mexican culture It's own thing that has roots on a culture pot? yeah pretty much.

would Mexico make a cool civ in game with cool looking leaders, music and units? I think it would.

Now don't get the idea that I think Mexico is the only candidate, the thing I want to see is a latin American post colonial in civ, even more when we already have 3 english speaking ones, and still not a French or Spanish one, I think the game is sorely lacking there. I would love to see Toussaint Liberteur or Simon Bolivar just as well. I guess It's up to Firaxis, I just imagine Mexico would sell a lot better in the North American market and is overall very recognizable.
 
Last edited:
Yup Mexican, following your examples, I can also say I didn't wake up in the Guadalajara Altepetl, and went to study at the local Calmecac just in time for the noon sacrifices. Yes there is a lot of indigenous influences in Mexican culture, there's also tons of Spanish, Arabic, African and even Chinese, That's because since colonial times New Spain and then Mexico, has been a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities. My point is that Mexico has had a lot of time to develop it's own culture and identity by using all of those influences. example...Juarez, Huerta, Diaz, and Zapata, all of indigenous origin, yet they were all distinctively Mexican.
Because of that I give the French example, I think the culture can change a lot and still being the same nation.
Actually it's totally impossible to have a right answer to a complex question as that, that depends how the mexican want to undertand they self, and I guess the idea mexican just born after the independence is way more popular (I know that because I asked to many mexican this simple question, how old is Mexico? and ~80% answer ~200 years old). Despite that, I still enjoying the idea as Mexico are ~700 years old, but in truth your argues don't be better or worst than my, they just reflect your understanding of the world

Now again, when I say Mexican I'm talking about modern, not Mexica, Spanish culture is what homogenized new Spain they didn't export "Mexicanish culture" to the rest of the country. Mexican culture arose from complex origins, yes one of those is indegenous and european roots, but it developed It's own American identity that ended up culminating in independence. The Mexican identity came first (American), independence later, they key here being that "Mexico" is the label at at the end was adopted to enshrine that American identity.

In my understanding the Mexican culture start to be formed when Teotihucan was settle, because even Mayas, Zapotecs, Olmecs and Toltecs are togethers in this city. That means, almost all pre-hispanic civilization of Mexico was together in a same place at same time and anyone know well how that happens.
But history never has one true, we always choice one version of the history we like the most, and the oficial mexican history focus in the independence as the birth-moment of Mexico, and also your oficial history like to focus and how a mix-race nation was born after the Spaniards, it's just one interpretation that the mexicans choice to follow, that don't means it's right or wrong, it's just one way to understand your own life.
Of all American neighbors who don't have another option than think about their own history as starting in the independence, the Mexican actually would can think about the foundation of Mexico-city as the beginning of their civilization, but for some reason they choice be as everybody else.

And this all comes from Mexico developing on a culture pot, yes Mexican culture has roots on many indigenous cultures, also, Spanish, and therefor Roman, so I could consider my culture to root on both Greco Roman and indigenous? yes, am I Roman and Olmec? pfft not at all. Is Mexican culture It's own thing that has roots on a culture pot? yeah pretty much.
As the emperor who conquer Mexico, Carlos V and his son Filipe II, was the West-Roman Emperor, actually the Mexico also could think in they self as a continuation of Rome, but I guess be the continuantion of the Aztec have more appeal.

would Mexico make a cool civ in game with cool looking leaders, music and units? I think it would.

Now don't get the idea that I think Mexico is the only candidate, the thing I want to see is a latin American post colonial in civ, even more when we already have 3 english speaking ones, and still not a French or Spanish one, I think the game is sorely lacking there. I would love to see Toussaint Liberteur or Simon Bolivar just as well. I guess It's up to Firaxis, I just imagine Mexico would sell a lot better in the North American market and is overall very recognizable.

As I said to the Texan friend, I guess have many other civilization who are better to come before a Mexican civilization, acctually I would like to see more native-mexican civilization in this game as the Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Olmecs, Mayas, Terascos and Tlaxcaltecas. But the Mexico it self I don't want to see that much, speaking about modern states of Latin America, Colombia and Argentina are the best options.

For example, I would like to see a Scenario in this game about The Latin America War of Independence, to set this scenario the Aztecs can be the Mexican, Incas the Peruans, and the Mapuche the Chileans. But who can be the Colombians or the Argentinians?
 
Because of that I give the French example, I think the culture can change a lot and still being the same nation.
Actually it's totally impossible to have a right answer to a complex question as that, that depends how the mexican want to undertand they self, and I guess the idea mexican just born after the independence is way more popular (I know that because I asked to many mexican this simple question, how old is Mexico? and ~80% answer ~200 years old). Despite that, I still enjoying the idea as Mexico are ~700 years old, but in truth your argues don't be better or worst than my, they just reflect your understanding of the world.

The modern nation of France is NOT the same nation as the Dark Ages Frankish Empire, and the modern nation of Mexico is NOT the same nation as the tributary empire under the Nahua Triple Alliance centred on Tenochtitlan. These two viewpoints are REALLY stretching credibility, and your arguments are getting more and more contrived, incoherent, and desperate-sounding.
 
As I said to the Texan friend, I guess have many other civilization who are better to come before a Mexican civilization, acctually I would like to see more native-mexican civilization in this game as the Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Olmecs, Mayas, Terascos and Tlaxcaltecas. But the Mexico it self I don't want to see that much, speaking about modern states of Latin America, Colombia and Argentina are the best options.

For example, I would like to see a Scenario in this game about The Latin America War of Independence, to set this scenario the Aztecs can be the Mexican, Incas the Peruans, and the Mapuche the Chileans. But who can be the Colombians or the Argentinians?

Yeah don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a Purepechan or Mixtec civ make it, but I think It's really difficult for Firaxis to go beyond Aztecs and Mayans as mesoamerican representation, if anything I'm more annoyed more meso civs aren't represented as CS...no Teotihuacan at this point is shameful.

My vote is for Mexico as latin american civ, but If I'm completely honest, Colombia under Bolivar probably got a better shot than Mexico or Argentina, just out of geographical clutter, which the devs have mentioned is a concern for them. And the South American caribbean right now is pretty empty. (but who knows maybe tey'll surprise us and add the Muisca)
 
Yeah don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a Purepechan or Mixtec civ make it, but I think It's really difficult for Firaxis to go beyond Aztecs and Mayans as mesoamerican representation, if anything I'm more annoyed more meso civs aren't represented as CS...no Teotihuacan at this point is shameful.

My vote is for Mexico as latin american civ, but If I'm completely honest, Colombia under Bolivar probably got a better shot than Mexico or Argentina, just out of geographical clutter, which the devs have mentioned is a concern for them. And the South American caribbean right now is pretty empty. (but who knows maybe tey'll surprise us and add the Muisca)

Teotihuacan would be a city-state, that isn't hard to implement. Despite the Fireaxis is an American company, they don't care that much about American history, because even other Americans civilizations they made, as Brazil, has an awful Unique Unit as the Minas Gerais ship who just show how they don't know almost nothing about South American history and also don't care about... How can a boat sold by British, who never was used in war, just in State coups, can be an Unique Unit?
I guess the problem the US-American think they are the oldest country in America because they are the first to become independent, as in Civ 5 the Brazilian Unique Unit also was a troop who fought in the WWII. But in Brazilian mythology we are way older than that, we choice understand our history as ~500 years old, that way a XVII century unit as the Bandeirantes replacing Musketman would fit way better our heritage.

I guess everybody agree, as modern Latin-America states, the Colombia is, by far, the best choice. Just because a charismatic leader who acctually conquer more land than Napoleon.
As you, I also agree the Simon Bolivar deserve to be in this game, unlike Mexican or Argentinian Libertadors, Bolivar not just fight and achieve the independence, but he also become a President (also a Dictator). The Argentinian Libertador was also a great man, San Martin, but after the Independence War he decided to retire and Mexican Independence is the most messy, guys as Morelos and Hidalgo who had a great importance in the independence movement died before achieve it and never was a Mexican leader.

About the Caribean I already said in this forum how I would like to see the Haiti Empire, they are very unique in many ways in American history and fill the Caribean gap. Many people also saying about Tainos, I guess they so similar to Muiscas or Guaranis and if we want to pick an another native-american civilization we had cooler options (as the Iroquois or the Toltecs).
 
I think It's not so futile to discuss dark horse civs, remember when Mapuche where dismissed almost every time they where suggested?

The one problem I see with the Toltecs is that the figure of Ce Acatl Topiltzin (Quetzalcoatl in the hood) is patched with a lot religious myths, we don't know even if the Toltec Quetzalcoatl was just one dude or a title (tho that hasn't stopped Firaxis before), besides I would argue the Toltecs do overlap quite a lot with both Mayans and Aztecs Geographically, I mean...the Aztecs were trying to recreate the Toltec empire so.

If we go by interesting leaders I'd love to see 8 Deer Jaguar Claw for a Mixtec civ, luckily we have the Nutall codex, so we actually know quite a bit about him, if they got something related to their codex makers it would be awesome. Fun fact, most of the time what people think are "aztec codex" where actualy either Mixtec ones, or had it made by Mixtec scriptmakers.

The Purepechan (or Tarascan) is the one meso civ I've been dying forever to see make it to the game, they occupied western Mexico and locked horns with the Aztecs many times, dealing them one of their worst military defeats. They've got enough going for the to differentiate them from both Mayans and Aztecs, central imperialilstic government, unique architecture (Yacatas), advanced metal working, alive language for the leader (quite a large diaspora of Purepecha lives in the US) and...a possible female leader in Erendira (again semi mythic figures dont seem to bother Firaxis).

EDIT: oh yes and what day it is I'll add...the look you know from Day of the Dead is pretty much of Purepecha origin, from the state of Michoacan.
 
Last edited:
I think It's not so futile to discuss dark horse civs, remember when Mapuche where dismissed almost every time they where suggested?
hahahaha I was in the team who always defend the Mapuche, acctualy about Americans the 3 nations I would like the most to be in this game was the Mapuche, Haiti and Guarani. At least one is already in XD

The one problem I see with the Toltecs is that the figure of Ce Acatl Topiltzin (Quetzalcoatl in the hood) is patched with a lot religious myths, we don't know even if the Toltec Quetzalcoatl was just one dude or a title (tho that hasn't stopped Firaxis before), besides I would argue the Toltecs do overlap quite a lot with both Mayans and Aztecs Geographically, I mean...the Aztecs were trying to recreate the Toltec empire so.
I kind of like leaders who the persons isn't know if they are mythical or not. But another Toltec leader who will be also very good is Xochitl, it's one of the few womans who can be a leader of as American civilization, and, as far I know, will be the first American-Woman to become a Civ.

If we go by interesting leaders I'd love to see 8 Deer Jaguar Claw for a Mixtec civ, luckily we have the Nutall codex, so we actually know quite a bit about him, if they got something related to their codex makers it would be awesome. Fun fact, most of the time what people think are "aztec codex" where actualy either Mixtec ones, or had it made by Mixtec scriptmakers.
I don't spoke about the 8 Deer Jaguar Claw because I forgot, but just because of this awsome name he deserve to be in this game :lol:
I reallly like this fun fact, for facts as that I still coming in this forum XD

The Purepechan (or Tarascan) is the one meso civ I've been dying forever to see make it to the game, they occupied western Mexico and locked horns with the Aztecs many times, dealing them one of their worst military defeats. They've got enough going for the to differentiate them from both Mayans and Aztecs, central imperialilstic government, unique architecture (Yacatas), advanced metal working, alive language for the leader (quite a large diaspora of Purepecha lives in the US) and...a possible female leader in Erendira (again semi mythic figures dont seem to bother Firaxis).

EDIT: oh yes and what day it is I'll add...the look you know from Day of the Dead is pretty much of Purepecha origin, from the state of Michoacan.
Another cool information, I just saw about this civilization, when was reading about the Aztec Empire, but acctually I don't know that much about they :goodjob:
 
I'm in the team who thought the Mexican and the Aztecs are the same civilization, I know have a lot of person who will also disagree, but don't will change my mind.
My strongest argue is the ethimology. The Aztecs called himself as Mexica and their capital city was called Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Untill today the people ther still call him self Mexican and the city still called Mexico City.

By the way, Andrew Jackson is a great leader to US-Civilization, because he was what the American are. I would also enjoy some anti-indigenous hability to make us never forget how the US-Nation was forged.
Mexico might derive it's name form the Mexica but the land that is now Mexico covers way more land than the Mexica controlled. By ethimology do you mean etymology? That's a weak argument... and ethnologically the Mexica are PART of Mexico but not the same country AT ALL. Saying that is like saying Haiti is the same as the Arawak or modern France is the same as the Gauls because they live in the same area. That's a weak argument.
 
By the way, Andrew Jackson is a great leader to US-Civilization, because he was what the American are. I would also enjoy some anti-indigenous hability to make us never forget how the US-Nation was forged.

Andrew Jackson is one of my least favourite U.S. Presidents, and his anti-indigenous policies were a travesty and something modern SHOULD be ashamed of. I would staunchly oppose him as an alternate U.S. leader.
 
Mexico might derive it's name form the Mexica but the land that is now Mexico covers way more land than the Mexica controlled. By ethimology do you mean etymology? That's a weak argument... and ethnologically the Mexica are PART of Mexico but not the same country AT ALL. Saying that is like saying Haiti is the same as the Arawak or modern France is the same as the Gauls because they live in the same area. That's a weak argument.
If you think is the same as Arawak be Haiti or the Gaul be the same of France, you just don't understand my arguee and that is the why you think it is weak.

It is the same the Qin become China, The Qin dynasty was smaller than nowadays China, but ethymological speaking is the Qin who become China.

Acctually I was thinking about this matter today, the Aztecs tried to rebuild a Toltec Empire, the Toltec emerge from the fall of Teotihuacan. I like to understand the history as a continuous process (as the Chinese do), and maybe the born of the actual Mexico is rooted in the foundation of Teotihuacan.

But the most important thing is, it's always impossible to have a true when we are speaking about history, just interpretations and point of view.


PS. The native habitants of the Haiti was the Tainos.
The distribuition of the Arawks:

and the Tainos:


But of course, they are very similar in their culture.
 
Last edited:
Now don't get the idea that I think Mexico is the only candidate, the thing I want to see is a latin American post colonial in civ, even more when we already have 3 english speaking ones, and still not a French or Spanish one, I think the game is sorely lacking there. I would love to see Toussaint Liberteur or Simon Bolivar just as well. I guess It's up to Firaxis, I just imagine Mexico would sell a lot better in the North American market and is overall very recognizable.
I agree with you on needing a Spanish speaking leader but does Wilfred Laurier being a francophone speaking leader for Canada not count?
I still think geographically wise Colombia would be the best bet considering Mexico would be competing with both the Aztecs and most probably the incoming Maya. I don't see the Musica coming especially if we get the Maya and another NA indigenous people probably from the U.S.

On the notion of whether Aztec=Mexico, there definitely are some similarities but I don't agree that they should be treated outright as the same. Modern Mexican identity today came about as a blend of many different Mesoamerican cultures with the Spanish influence.

But I can understand a point to where the Aztecs, in the game, are the best civilization to act as a Mexican Civ replacement, at least geographically wise. Kind of like how I think the Mapuche are a good way to represent Argentina/Patagonia region if we don't get them and how I thought the Cree would be a good way to get in indigenous Canadian civ without Canada. The last one didn't happen though, not that I hate Canada's inclusion.
 
I agree with you on needing a Spanish speaking leader but does Wilfred Laurier being a francophone speaking leader for Canada not count?
I still think geographically wise Colombia would be the best bet considering Mexico would be competing with both the Aztecs and most probably the incoming Maya. I don't see the Musica coming especially if we get the Maya and another NA indigenous people probably from the U.S.

On the notion of whether Aztec=Mexico, there definitely are some similarities but I don't agree that they should be treated outright as the same. Modern Mexican identity today came about as a blend of many different Mesoamerican cultures with the Spanish influence.

But I can understand a point to where the Aztecs, in the game, are the best civilization to act as a Mexican Civ replacement, at least geographically wise. Kind of like how I think the Mapuche are a good way to represent Argentina/Patagonia region if we don't get them and how I thought the Cree would be a good way to get in indigenous Canadian civ without Canada. The last one didn't happen though, not that I hate Canada's inclusion.

You know what? I absolutely forgot about Wilfred Laurier my bad.
 
You know what? I absolutely forgot about Wilfred Laurier my bad.
I mean he does speak better French than the actual French leaders.
 
Yeah French is in a weird place in civ in that from 2 leaders only 1 speaks it half the time.

Which is my De Gaulle is needed as an alternative French leader. He only DIDN'T speak French when speaking to foreign leaders and press - seemingly under protest.
 
Which is my De Gaulle is needed as an alternative French leader. He only DIDN'T speak French when speaking to foreign leaders and press - seemingly under protest.

BUT if you realistically modeled almost any European (well, Western European) Leader from the late 17th to the early 19th century, they would all be speaking French in diplomatic meetings (ie, to the other Civs and the gamer). Friederich the Great of Prussia famously said that he only spoke German to his dogs and both spoke and wrote in French in virtually all of his diplomatic communications. At the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, an Austrian diplomat complained that one problem in communicating was that the British delegates spoke such bad French. (The Duke of Wellington, in attendance, replied that that was because the Emperor Napoleon had not occupied London twice during the war as he had Vienna, so they had no opportunity to learn the language from native speakers!)
 
as much as a I would like to see a new civilization form the Americas I worry we will get a cliched or stereotyped version just look how Canada and Scotland came out.



 
Shame Nazca's not in the poll, they'd probably be one of my favourites. I suppose they'd be a tricky civ to build as we don't know as much about them as other pre-Columbian civilizations, but I think their culture's very interesting and more to the point I just love their art - both the huge geoglyphs and the incredibly colourful ceramics they left. I think they'd be perfect as a culture-focused civ.

Of the ones in the poll I'd love to see the Muisca and Haida most of all. For Haida I've just got a soft spot for LastSword's Civ V mod, to be honest. And I think the Muisca have been justified by many others in the thread.

I think what's great about the Americas is that beyond the Aztecs and Inca there are really no rules as to which non-European civs we'll get each time. The Shoshone were unpredictable, as were the Mapuche. I hope that trend continues, I love seeing different cultures get a spotlight each instalment.
 
Top Bottom