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

[The Kingmaker]

Although I generally dislike bringing in modern nation-states, the recent inclusion of Canada, Brazil and Australia makes the likes of Mexico, Argentina and Colombia at least possible.

I would love to see greater representation of the more well-known indigenous peoples, perhaps one from each region?

NE: bring back the Iroquois
SE: one of the 5 “civilized” tribes: Cherokee, Creek, etc.
SW: Navajo/Apache etc.
Plains: Sioux, etc.
PNW: Haida, etc.

The Mississippians were “Civ-worthy” but are difficult to implement.

As for Mesoamerica and farther south, the Maya of course must return, and I’d love to see at least one other ancient civ... in a perfect world with 100+ civs to choose from.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We have some fairly interesting results at this point. Argentina just edges out above Colombia and the Navajo for the top spot. The Inuit, Mexico, and Cherokee are also a bit higher than I was expecting.

I'm surprised by how popular the Inuit are as well. I've seen several mention they want them so I put them in the poll but I never expected them to be tied for the 5th spot right now.

 

[Patine]

We have some fairly interesting results at this point. Argentina just edges out above Colombia and the Navajo for the top spot. The Inuit, Mexico, and Cherokee are also a bit higher than I was expecting.

I'm surprised by how popular the Inuit are as well. I've seen several mention they want them so I put them in the poll but I never expected them to be tied for the 5th spot right now.

The Inuit could be very interesting, and a few leaders of note - from those dwelling in what are now Alaska, Canada, and Greenland - could be found, certainly. The problem is, a title of leadership and concept of governance. This would be problem shared with a hypothetical Australian Aboriginal civ. Neither had (nor officially have, to this day, except for informal advocacy purposes) the social concept of "leadership" or "governance" beyond a very small nomadic or semi-nomadic band of several families and a few hundred people, who often go long periods (in traditional times) without meeting any other human beings.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

The Inuit could be very interesting, and a few leaders of note - from those dwelling in what are now Alaska, Canada, and Greenland - could be found, certainly. The problem is, a title of leadership and concept of governance. This would be problem shared with a hypothetical Australian Aboriginal civ. Neither had (nor officially have, to this day, except for informal advocacy purposes) the social concept of "leadership" or "governance" beyond a very small nomadic or semi-nomadic band of several families and a few hundred people, who often go long periods (in traditional times) without meeting any other human beings.

I would be fascinated by an Inuit civ too but I do realize how unlikely it is for the reasons you mentioned. Perhaps we could have an Inuit city-state such as Tuktoyaktuk. Even though they didn't have cities before modern times, I'd certainly like to have one in game to have some sort of representation of the Inuit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would be fascinated by an Inuit civ too but I do realize how unlikely it is for the reasons you mentioned. Perhaps we could have an Inuit city-state such as Tuktoyaktuk. Even though they didn't have cities before modern times, I'd certainly like to have one in game to have some sort of representation of the Inuit.

The least they could do is give tribal villages different graphics based on the terrain they are in like some igloos in tundra and snow.

 

[Bechhold]

Mexico, Cherokee(I'm stunned how this civ has yet to be playable), and Columbia.

 

[Uberfrog]

See my profile pic for my reaction when I see the Maya not in the poll.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

See my profile pic for my reaction when I see the Maya not in the poll.

I chose the most popular never before seen Civs, and not just for this game but for Civ VII and beyond. if I included returning Civs the Maya would definitely be the front runner by a long ways.

 

[Zaarin]

Cherokee(I'm stunned how this civ has yet to be playable)

They have household name recognition, but they lacked leadership. Same problem with the Creek. Both suffered from self-serving leadership that ultimately sold out their own people for personal gain. The Choctaw and Chickasaw make much more sense for a Southeastern tribe from a leadership perspective.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Mexico, Cherokee(I'm stunned how this civ has yet to be playable), and Columbia.

Trail of Tears. It might not be the worst tragedy in human history, but it's one nearly every average history nerd is aware of and that alone makes it problematic. As opposed to the Long Walk of the Navajo which I, raised in Arizona, was never taught in American history classes.

I'm not saying I agree with it because the Cherokee have a lot going for them design-wise, but just the likelihood that ten times as many diphorsehockys might make "Trail of Tears" YouTube videos as they would "Long Walk" videos is why we likely won't have the Cherokee in the game. Plus the whole fact that there haven't been many positive U.S.-Cherokee relations to balance it out, while the Navajo have the whole "spy" angle going on as well as holding the largest patch of tribal land in the U.S. comparable to a pseudo-independent state. It's a lot easier to point to resonant things in the public consciousness indicating the Navajo "bounced back."

After we get a sorely needed western US civ, I wouldn't mind a Cherokee civ at all. I think they're the best option for the Mississippi region hands down. But they are about as likely to happen as Armenia, or Israel, or Tibet. Too problematic.

OH and to address criticisms about my Mexico/Mexica hybrid civ, the cultural legacy is there. Roughly as much as India's connection to Ashoka, despite India having plenty of ethnic conflict as well. But I'd rather discard the Aztecs altogether and just have a "Mexico" civ with some vague Aztec flavor. My reasoning for this is that the happy medium VI seems to be striking is to have a modern imperial power (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil), juxtaposed against an aggressively expansionist and influential native people filling out the rest of the map (Cree, Mapuche, and in the past civs like the Sioux and Shoshone). It seems a more elegant and balanced representation to have the Maya, vicariously representing the distinct and aggressively independent Yucatan region, juxtaposed against Mexico as opposed to the Aztecs which they have no real relationship with. That way we could have:

* America and the Navajo/Apache/Shoshone/Whatever
* Canada and the Cree
* Mexico and the Maya

with additional options like

* Brazil and the Guarani (vicariously representing the Tupi)
* Australia and the Noongar

In a game with such limited options, and particularly a game like VI which is really trying to increase native representation of peoples outside the United States, this seems a very fair way of spreading the love around. So I'm quite disappointed they didn't go this direction with Mexico.

 

[Metecury]

Argentina: Civ 6 has quite a few colonial civs, Argentina surely deserves to pop in. To keep up the theme of big personalities someone like Rosas would be quite perfect.

Cuba: it would be interesting to have them in although it might be too close to our current time for Castro to be its leader.

Gran Colombia: short lived but relevant to this day, Bolivar ought to be included in civ!

 

[Zaarin]

I think they're the best option for the Mississippi region hands down.

They weren't as influential or powerful as the Creek/Muskogee; they weren't as stable or independent as the Choctaw or Chickasaw. In my opinion, the Cherokee are the worst option of the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes," short of the Seminole who were a splinter of the Creek.

It seems a more elegant and balanced representation to have the Maya, vicariously representing the distinct and aggressively independent Yucatan region

I'd point out that the heartland of Classical Mayan civilization was not Mexico but Central America...

But they are about as likely to happen as Armenia, or Israel, or Tibet. Too problematic.

I don't think Armenia is problematic at all. Turkish and Armenian relations are tense, but 1) I don't think Turkey is a major market for Civ and 2) Turkey doesn't deny Armenia's existence (as opposed to most Islamic nations which don't recognize the modern state of Israel or China which throws a fit if anyone even mentions Tibet). I don't think Classical or Medieval Armenia would ruffle any feathers even in Turkey. I honestly don't think a Kingdom of Judah or Kingdom of Samaria would really create that big of a problem, either, but I can understand Firaxis' hesitation. Tibet, sadly, is definitely off the table because China is a huge market.

Cuba: it would be interesting to have them in although it might be too close to our current time for Castro to be its leader.

Happily Firaxis seems to have decided 20th century megalomaniacs are off the table. I'd personally prefer to keep it that way.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd point out that the heartland of Classical Mayan civilization was not Mexico but Central America...

Still I believe if we get the Maya, Mexico won't be in the same expansion. Instead I think they would decide to focus on another modern South American Civ if we were also to get another NA tribe.

I don't think Armenia is problematic at all. Turkish and Armenian relations are tense, but 1) I don't think Turkey is a major market for Civ

There seemed to be a lot of Turkish players on YouTube/Reddit.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'd point out that the heartland of Classical Mayan civilization was not Mexico but Central America...

True, particularly Guatemala. However, they also occupied much of the Yucatan peninsula, most of which is Mexican territory. Not to mention Yucatan is still home to a large Mayan population today. Given that my point was to juxtapose a native population like the Maya against a more modern imperial power like Mexico, I think the exact territorial boundary doesn't quite matter. They are both in and adjacent to Mexico, and thus have some historical relationship with the country in a similar vein to the Cree and Canada.

I don't think Armenia is problematic at all. Turkish and Armenian relations are tense, but 1) I don't think Turkey is a major market for Civ and 2) Turkey doesn't deny Armenia's existence (as opposed to most Islamic nations which don't recognize the modern state of Israel or China which throws a fit if anyone even mentions Tibet). I don't think Classical or Medieval Armenia would ruffle any feathers even in Turkey. I honestly don't think a Kingdom of Judah or Kingdom of Samaria would really create that big of a problem, either, but I can understand Firaxis' hesitation. Tibet, sadly, is definitely off the table because China is a huge market.

Classical Armenia probably wouldn't since it is so far removed culturally from Christian Armenia. And I guess I may have just been buying into other members' concerns, because I am reminded that there was also a Greek genocide and yet we have the Greeks. So I don't think fears of "Armenian Genocide" recreations hold as much water here where it is pretty indisputable that the Ottomans were problematic independent of Armenia.

So I retract that statement. I still don't think Armenia is likely given that its role in the game is more as a vassal state to Georgia, Persia, and Macedon and there are other regions on the map that need more attention (although, as a matter of drawing from different eras and language trees, it's more compelling than Assyria or Akkadia). But as for historical propriety it would be fine, at least inasmuch as we have Poundmaker and Kristina which are generally more controversial. It's fine.

Still I believe if we get the Maya, Mexico won't be in the same expansion. Instead I think they would decide to focus on another modern South American Civ if we were also to get another NA tribe.

Oh no, it is too late for Mexico. I don't see Mexico happening at all. But as a matter of overall design elegance, I just want them to delete the Aztecs and make a Mexico civ with some Aztec sprinkles on top.

 

[Krajzen]

Gran Colombia because Bolivar, also GC is only way to include this part of Americas

Mexico because very culturally rich

Muisca are great, basically El Dorado civ

Creek/Muscogee (I think they'd get more votes this way because not everybody recognizes them otherwise) because I vaguely recall they were nicely developed and related to Missisipians which are too obscure

Pueblo because of their architecture, deserts, art and all

@The Kingmaker I still think Missisipians/Cahokia should be added to the poll, yes they are obscure but no more than Olmecs and we already have semi mythical characters in game anyway

I would also add Nazca

 

[The Kingmaker]

If there is any way to add the Olmecs, Cahokia and the Nazca beyond mere city-states, I would be all for it.

These were all important civilizations.

 

[Zaarin]

Still I believe if we get the Maya, Mexico won't be in the same expansion.

Hopefully Mexico will never be in any expansion, but my feelings on that subject are well known.

True, particularly Guatemala. However, they also occupied much of the Yucatan peninsula, most of which is Mexican territory. Not to mention Yucatan is still home to a large Mayan population today.

Indeed, and I'm certainly not downplaying the importance of Postclassical Mayan civilization. Also as an amusing modern coincidence, what do both Armenia and the Maya have in common? They both have large populations of non-Chalcedonian Christians! Yes, in a strange twist of events, a significant number of modern Maya are Syriac Orthodox, apparently due to a dispute between a local religious leader and Rome.

I still don't think Armenia is likely given that its role in the game is more as a vassal state to Georgia, Persia, and Macedon

I agree. Hopefully next game, but it's unlikely in Civ6.

Creek/Muscogee (I think they'd get more votes this way because not everybody recognizes them otherwise) because I vaguely recall they were nicely developed and related to Missisipians which are too obscure

Since I preach on this regularly ( ) the Choctaw have great leaders, and the Chickasaw are the only post-Missisippian people other than the Natchez that can be traced to a specific mound site. Since the Choctaw and Chickasaw speak the same language, the Choctaw may well come from Chicaza as well or at least nearby.

 

[Haig]

Paraguay

UA: Ysyry Paraguai
Gold from improved resources along rivers. During a war, enemy units heal slower on Paraguayan territory and have -2 strenght.

UU: Conscripts
Musketman replacement that gets strenght when next to another

UI: Yerba mate plantatiom

Leader: Francisco Solano Lopez
UA: War of triple alliance
Can use a Drafting city project that makes a city lose population but creates instantly new units when completed.

I have read about the horrible Paraguyan war and this civ is inspired of it. Books in english are hard to find.

 

[Meshakhad]

My top choice would be the Haida, Tlingit, Salish, or another Pacific Northwest people, for the obvious reason that that's my homeland. The Salish (who dominated what is now Western Washington) come with a clear choice of leader (Chief Seattle) and a plethora of city names (the various tribes). They are noteworthy in that they were a sedentary hunter-gatherer society thanks to the incredibly rich salmon runs around here. Their obvious unique building would be the totem pole (probably replacing the monument), with some bonuses to fishing. Perhaps they get fisheries instead of farms, and can build fisheries along rivers as well.

The Pueblo are probably not an option, but I'd also like to see the Navajo represented.

The Inuit would offer another snow-and-tundra focused civ. There was a decent mod for them in Civ 5.

Finally, I'd like to see the Iroquois and Maya make a return.

 

[Zaarin]

The Salish (who dominated what is now Western Washington) come with a clear choice of leader (Chief Seattle)

Seattle comes with some of the same baggage as Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, though, which is to say a great deal of romanticism by white Americans. But yeah, leaders are probably one of the bigger obstacles for a PNW civ, since PNW peoples were very decentralized. The Haida and Tlingit (and to a lesser extent the Tsimshian) had the most sophisticated societies; the Nuu-Chah-Nulth and Makah had whaling; and the Kwakwaka'wakw just have an amazing name.

a plethora of city names (the various tribes).

Since the peoples of the PNW were mostly sedentary, they wouldn't lack for city names regardless of tribe chosen (unlike the Inuit or Scythians).

Their obvious unique building would be the totem pole (probably replacing the monument), with some bonuses to fishing. Perhaps they get fisheries instead of farms, and can build fisheries along rivers as well.

Personally I'd give them a ḵwaan (to use the Tlingit term) or clan hall for a UI and have the crest pole as simply a graphic replacer. As part of the UA I'd have them get lots of bonus food, faith, and culture from undeveloped resources (similar to the Maori). For a northern tribe (Haida, Tlingit, Tsimshian) I'd go with a war canoe UU, but a more southern tribe should probably get a Warrior-replacer with a carved war club (which would also work for a northern tribe). The Makah or Nuu-Chah-Nulth should definitely get a whaling canoe.

The Pueblo are probably not an option

The Tewa are not the only Puebloans; I wouldn't be surprised the Hopi would be more amenable.