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

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

Very much, but was long as Civ is wedded to Big Leaders they will never be Civs - no leaders at all.

On the other hand, keep an eye on how Humankind handles things. So far, at least, it appears that they aren't going to bother with 'named' leaders at all, which opens up a lot of possibilities. Another chance would be if Civ Upgrades the Cty States to have more Uniques attached to them, and more Diplomatic possibilities and interactions. That would allow them to be more like 'minor Civs' (one city, to be sure) than the ciphers and victims they largely are now.

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.

The Choctaw for sure. Of all the southeastern tribal groups, they have the most attraction for me. If anyone wants more reason to be interested, read R. A. Lafferty's great novel Okla Hannali - a fictional 'biography' of a Choctaw living through the 19th century. His dead-on description of the Choctaw mindset is incredibly good, and his depiction of a Choctaw version of a fox hunt is one of the funniest things ever written in English.

 

[Zaarin]

The Choctaw for sure. Of all the southeastern tribal groups, they have the most attraction for me.

Likewise.

If anyone wants more reason to be interested, read R. A. Lafferty's great novel Okla Hannali - a fictional 'biography' of a Choctaw living through the 19th century.

I'll have to add that to my reading list.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Looking into the Choctaw some more, they actually have things going for them that put them closer to the Navajo than I thought. They hold the largest tribal territory in Oklahoma (and I believe the second largest to the Navajo), and they have somewhere around the fifth highest population by tribal association. While I still would prefer the western US be filled out, they could stand up against the Cree and Mapuche.

In fact, adding the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek together as "Muskogean," they come in around third highest population. Which makes me kind of wish for the map to be filled out by culturally related blobs of tribes rather than specific tribes in much the same way the Shoshone and Comanche were grouped together. If we had:

* Iroquoian (includes Cherokee)
* Muskogean (includes Choctaw and Chickasaw)
* Anishinaabe (includes Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Algonquin)
* Siouxan (includes Lakota and Dakota)
* Apachean (includes Navajo)
* Shoshone (includes Comanche)
* Salish/Tlingit (options)

I would say that would about fairly cover the map. Possibly the Blackfoot too as a nod to CBR. I would also argue that "Cree," although technically Plains Cree, could already been seen as fulfilling this sort of "cultural blob" function by vicariously representing Woods, Swamp, East and Moose Cree, as well as the Naskapi, Montagnais, and Atikamekw. But players hate blobs and the native tribes hate commercially selling out, and generally we are lucky to even have two North American native tribes. And then this brings up issues of fairness as to whether we should also include the Inuit, the Taino, the Tupi-Guarani, etc. So I just don't see this happening. But the idea of cleanly filling out America with half a dozen large cultural blobs is very attractive. I'd almost hope for a DLC pack but it would be far too controversial.

 

[SirMediocrity]

My votes

Gran Colombia: Simon Bolivar is a very important historical figure... to such a degree that having him in the game would be absolutely joyous! Honestly, I don't think we need any more south american civs, but I if I had to choose one, I'd definitely go with Colombia.

Mexico: Mexico would be absolutely amazing. I mean, we got Canada, so why can't we have Mexico? The main thing going against this is that we already have 4 post-colonial civs (America, Canada, Brazil, Australia). Still, Mexico would be amazing, and its not entirely impossible. Here's to hoping!

(Other) Salish: I would love to see the Salish peoples in civ 6. It could be a Salish blob civ, or maybe a more specific part of the tribe. To completely honest, I just see Chief Seattle. We've never had a northwest coast civ either.

Apache: Having Chief Geronimo in a civ game would be absolutely enthralling. Nuff said.

Inuit: The fact that we got the Shoshone in civ 5 and the Mapuche in civ 6 over the Inuit is kinda silly to me... The Inuits are super cool and unique. Sorry Pocatello, sorry Lautaro, but the Inuit are superior to you guys in every way

The only issue with the Inuit would maybe be no obvious leader choice, but other than that, we... need... them...

 

[Xandinho]

Again, I'm really surprised by these polls. I never expected that Argentina and Colombia would be the most popular American civs never seen before, they fall very fast in the elimination games, and in the other poll about modern nations, Mexico is more popular than them. Maybe it's because we have few votes here until now?

Navajo is the most popular nativa american civ, I voted for this, but I don't have much knowledge about North American native civs. Is there a particular reason why Navajo is the most popular?

Other surprise is Inuit's popularity, more than Muisca...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Navajo is the most popular nativa american civ, I voted for this, but I don't have much knowledge about North American native civs. Is there a particular reason why Navajo is the most popular?

The Navajo have a recognizable name due to their current population (second largest tribe) and currently has the largest reservation which constitutes most of their original homeland.
They also do not carry a lot of baggage like the Cherokee (the largest tribe by population) whose leaders agreed to move from their homeland.
The southwest U.S. was almost filled by the Pueblo last time, but the Navajo can easily take that spot. They are less nomadic than there Apache cousins adopting farming techniques and animal domestication from contact with the Pueblo and Spanish and can easily have a lot city names. They are also known for their blanket weaving and silver working.
Also they can use hogans and Code Talkers for recognizable unique infrastructure and units.

 

[Zaarin]

Salish/Tlingit (options)

You could at least lump related peoples with Tlingit/Eyak/Athabaskan (exclude Navajo and Apache?). But I'd rather not see blobs, and in particular I think a Native American blob civ--even divided into related regions--could be a sensitive topic, especially since "related" hardly means "on good terms historically" (see how the Haudenosaunee ravaged the other Iroquoian leagues of the region like the Huron-Wyandot, Neutral, and Erie, for example). To even use the example I used, the Tlingit had a term for both the Eyak and the Athabaskans that roughly translated to "those backwards unsophisticated hicks"--which was meant more endearingly than their terms for their traditional enemies the Aleut but still wasn't exactly a compliment.

Siouxan (includes Lakota and Dakota)

If we're not including the Crow and Mandan and Catawba, it's just the Sioux; Siouan implies the whole language family.

The only issue with the Inuit would maybe be no obvious leader choice

No leader choices, no city names on account of having no cities, no obvious uniques that would be relevant past the first 10 turns or ridiculously stereotyped, and no unique ability that wouldn't be offensively game-y, but other than that no problems.

Navajo is the most popular nativa american civ, I voted for this, but I don't have much knowledge about North American native civs. Is there a particular reason why Navajo is the most popular?

As @Alexander's Hetaroi said, they have name recognition because of their size, their pre-reservation wealth, and the fame of the Navajo code talkers (btw, there were also Choctaw code talkers ).

Other surprise is Inuit's popularity, more than Muisca...

I'm afraid a lot of people have probably never heard of the Muisca.

 

[Krajzen]

No leader choices, no city names on account of having no cities, no obvious uniques that would be relevant past the first 10 turns or ridiculously stereotyped, and no unique ability that wouldn't be offensively game-y, but other than that no problems.

Also no design idea besides "tundra more yield" which is already taken by Canada and needed like 50 buffs to be less bad than garbage tier

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As @Alexander's Hetaroi said, they have name recognition because of their size, their pre-reservation wealth, and the fame of the Navajo code talkers (btw, there were also Choctaw code talkers ).

Yes, but has there been movies made out of them?

Also no design idea besides "tundra more yield" which is already taken by Canada and needed like 50 buffs to be less bad than garbage tier

Workable ice cap niche hasn't been taken.

 

[Zaarin]

Also no design idea besides "tundra more yield" which is already taken by Canada and needed like 50 buffs to be less bad than garbage tier

That's what I meant by no "unique ability that isn't game-y." There's a reason there are no great civilizations in the tundra in real life: tundra's carrying capacity is simply too low to support any civilization more complex than hunter-gatherers or nomadic pastoralists. Russia's tundra bonuses are game-y enough and probably the closest one can expect to get to a "tundra" civilization.

Yes, but has there been movies made out of them?

No, because as far as Hollywood is considered all Native Americans are Sioux. Less snarkily, I imagine the Navajo at least show up in a couple Westerns, and there's probably a World War II movie or two that features code talkers.

Workable ice cap niche hasn't been taken.

Well, I'm sure Kupe would like someone else to keep his drowning cities company.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, because as far as Hollywood is considered all Native Americans are Sioux. Less snarkily, I imagine the Navajo at least show up in a couple Westerns, and there's probably a World War II movie or two that features code talkers.

There is one: Windtalkers
It only mentions the Navajo though which is what I was implying.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . No, because as far as Hollywood is considered all Native Americans are Sioux. Less snarkily, I imagine the Navajo at least show up in a couple Westerns, and there's probably a World War II movie or two that features code talkers.

I know you're not serious, but just a reminder or two:
Ulzana's Raid and Major Dundee, both great westerns, had no Sioux, but the other Great Enemy Natives, the Apaches.
Cheyenne Autumn, or "Cheyenne Awful", had no Sioux, but it treated the Cheyenne as if they were interchangeable with the Sioux, so it probably doesn't count.
Last of the Mohicans had no Sioux, but the last version made did have Alastair Fraser's fiddle for background music, which makes up for almost anything . . .

 

[Zaarin]

I know you're not serious, but just a reminder or two:
Ulzana's Raid and Major Dundee, both great westerns, had no Sioux, but the other Great Enemy Natives, the Apaches.
Cheyenne Autumn, or "Cheyenne Awful", had no Sioux, but it treated the Cheyenne as if they were interchangeable with the Sioux, so it probably doesn't count.
Last of the Mohicans had no Sioux, but the last version made did have Alastair Fraser's fiddle for background music, which makes up for almost anything . . .

Alasdair Fraser... But yes, one can also add the Powhatan in Disney's Pocahontas and the much better if not terribly more accurate The New World, the Wampanoag in various films about the Pilgrims, the Iroquois perhaps in some War for Independence films, and a single Haida in the Free Willy films (played by August Schellenberg, the same Mohawk actor who gave a marvelous performance as Chief Powhatan in The New World).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You could at least lump related peoples with Tlingit/Eyak/Athabaskan (exclude Navajo and Apache?). But I'd rather not see blobs, and in particular I think a Native American blob civ--even divided into related regions--could be a sensitive topic, especially since "related" hardly means "on good terms historically" (see how the Haudenosaunee ravaged the other Iroquoian leagues of the region like the Huron-Wyandot, Neutral, and Erie, for example). To even use the example I used, the Tlingit had a term for both the Eyak and the Athabaskans that roughly translated to "those backwards unsophisticated hicks"--which was meant more endearingly than their terms for their traditional enemies the Aleut but still wasn't exactly a compliment.

Oh yes, it is extremely problematic, although technically the Maori had their share of intertribal warfare so I do think there is room to maneuver. Also there is a lot more intertribal camaraderie in the modern era, for obvious reasons.

If we're not including the Crow and Mandan and Catawba, it's just the Sioux; Siouan implies the whole language family.

Even if we are calling it the "Siouan Empire?"

VERY LATE EDIT:

Another thing I find somewhat elegant about the "tribal blob" solution is that those tribal groups have quite clearly affected the local culture in their respective regions, making different parts of America have a different "flavor." Where this becomes interesting is if you've ever heard of American balkanization theories and how there are culturally "nine nations of North America" (or alternatively eleven). These groups pretty conveniently align with many of these cultural subdivisions of the United States:

* Ecotopia - Salish/Tlingit
* Mexamerica - Apachean
* Empty Quarter - Shoshone/Cree
* Breadbasket - Siouan (yes, Zaarin, I am intentionally using it for lack of a better word)
* Dixie - Muskogean
* Foundry - Anishinaabe/Iroquoian

The Islands don't really need to be included but the Taino comfortably fill that region out.

Quebec overlaps with a lot of things but Nunavik does give it a foothold for the Inuit. But we also have "Canada" so that's not really necessary.

Leaving only "New England" without regional influence from a major tribal group. Which I don't think really needs any reprentation given that we have civs like "America" and "Scotland" and "Netherlands" which really fill out a lot of the region's cultural roots.

Anyway, thoughts.

 

[Zaarin]

Oh yes, it is extremely problematic, although technically the Maori had their share of intertribal warfare so I do think there is room to maneuver. Also there is a lot more intertribal camaraderie in the modern era, for obvious reasons.

I don't think internecine warfare is inherently problematic--the Greek city-states fought each other a lot more than they fought any outsiders. It becomes a problem when the combatants don't think of themselves as the same or even related.

Even if we are calling it the "Siouan Empire?"

Well, linguistically and pragmatically, Sioux refers to the collective Lakota, Dakota, and Assiniboine, and it's used as both the noun and the adjective (so "Sioux Empire"). "Siouan" refers to the broader language family that also includes Crow, Mandan, Winnebago, etc. as well as a couple extinct languages in the Southeast like Catawba. Some linguists believe Siouan may be related to Caddoan and Iroquoian, a theory Marianne Mithun calls "promising."

Leaving only "New England" without regional influence from a major tribal group.

Northeast Algonquian? Massachusetts, Narragansett, Algonquin, Abenaki, Pequot, Mahican, etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Northeast Algonquian? Massachusetts, Narragansett, Algonquin, Abenaki, Pequot, Mahican, etc.

Not to mention that the Natives of New England had a potentially intriguing Unique: they were largely Transhumant, in that they maintained both an inland settlement and a coastal settlement and moved back and forth between them with the seasons, exploiting the sea and coastal resources (especially shellfish, in which they parallel both the Chesapeake Bay to Florida tribes and the Pacific Northwest peoples) in the summer and the upland resources (hunting, gathering) in the winter and fall. That could be translated into 'extra' tiles of city radius stretching inland from a coastal start or towards the coast from an 'inland' start, or 'built-in' roads/trade routes between coastal and inland cities. Something slightly different even from the Russian wide city radius, Roman auto-roads or the Cree 'extra' tiles on trade routes.
Could also make a case for Maple Syrup as a Unique Luxury or Bonus Resource, or a 'syrup farm' Unique Improvement on a forest tile that provides a Unique Resource.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Could also make a case for Maple Syrup as a Unique Luxury or Bonus Resource, or a 'syrup farm' Unique Improvement on a forest tile that provides a Unique Resource.

I can only imagine the outcry of people when a New England tribe gets a maple syrup farm and unique luxury while Canada ended up with a hockey rink.

 

[AsH2]

I can only imagine the outcry of people when a New England tribe gets a maple syrup farm and unique luxury while Canada ended up with a hockey rink.

But if Canada get a Curling Rink instead and USA get an American Football Stadium, would that even things out?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But if Canada get a Curling Rink instead and USA get an American Football Stadium, would that even things out?

No. I'm fine with the Hockey Rink and Film Studio as is. My point is it would be crazy, and hilarious at the same time, if the Civ known for it's maple syrup doesn't get a syrup farm improvement but another does.

A football stadium I imagine would even later than the Film studio already does (Professional Sports and replace the Stadium) and I don't know how you could differentiate it from the building it would replace, graphically (other than just adding some goal posts and yard lines) and gameplay wise.

Besides curling was a Scottish invention and would make just as much sense for there unique as a Golf Course at this point.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I can only imagine the outcry of people when a New England tribe gets a maple syrup farm and unique luxury while Canada ended up with a hockey rink.

What I as aiming at was less controversy over a specific Resource than the idea of a Civ with a "Unique Resource" which I don't believe has been tried yet.
Off the top of my head, the Americas produced Potato, Maize, Beaver, Bison, Tobacco, and Cacao "unique Resources" which translated into major Food, Production (Bison leather was extensively used in belts to transmit power from steam engines to machine tools in the late 19th century - cattle leather just wasn't strong enough to stand up to the stresses) and Luxury Bonuses. Trouble is, none of those are particularly unique to New England area.
On the other hand, while the modern Syrup Industry may be centered in eastern Canada, my enduring memory of winter in northern Massachusetts in the mid-1950s is forests festooned with syrup taps on every fifth tree, so the Syrup is by no means unique to north of the border, eh?