Slavic Nations/Leaders Civ6

[BuchiTaton]

Navajo were vicious enemies of the Puebloans, and the old word, "Anasazi," for Ancestral Puebloans means something like, "Hated Enemies," in NAVAJO. Why would they represent the Puebloan civilization? You'd have the Puebloan people of today up in arms.

And who is going to call that Navajo civ the Pueblo civ?
Would Pueblo people complain that Navajo people incorporated their agrarian techniques, the cotton (later wool) weaving, the construction of the "Navajo Pueblitos" or even the Kachinas made by Navajos?

Navajo and Pueblo still traded and helped each others time to time despite being "historical enemies". A Navajo civ preserve some of the adaptative elements of the Pueblo culture that could be portrayed as in-game design for a SouthWest NA civ. The same way despite different peoples in the Great Plains (Comanches, Kiowa, Sioux, Cheyenne, etc.) displaced each others they still shared elements from the way of life in that other region.

And the 65 to 1 is current numbers, not numbers estimated at the time of European penetration of the Western part of North America in the early 1800's.

Good luck trying to find any source that would not agree that the pre-contact NA SouthWest was more densely populated than Alaska/Yukon region. Early Navajo-Apache are recorded by Spaniards since early 16th century, the impact between both and others peoples around them provide a more well know, dynanic, longer and popular history to explore in game.

As for the southwest of the US if you can't get the Pueblo people, and I believe they have already declined, then the Comanche are probably the next best choice.

Comanche in their famous historical period were Great Plains nomadic raiders while Navajo settled in proper SouthWest incorporating elements of the Pueblo way of life. So Navajo are closer to Pueblo in-game design than Comanche to the same.

 

[notNamed]

Indeed, one might point out that after LP finishes and not counting personas there will be 33 Indo-European speaking leaders in the game; the only other language families that are represented by more than one civ (not leaders!) are Afroasiatic (at 7, including Mansa Musa of Mali whose native language was not Arabic; six of these are Semitic), Austronesian (at 4), and Bantu (at 2). No other language family is represented by more than one civ.

Austro-asian also has two representatives with the Khmer and Vietnamese.
Likewise, there's only two Austro-nesian speaking civilisations in the game, Maori and Indonesia.
And Thai are certain as the final third representative of the Austro-nesian (IIRC it's undecided whether they're a branch or a sister language so you might prefer Austro-Tai... either way, the familial relationship is there) language family for the very final DLC to give Andrew his due by Firaxis.

I think you may have unintentionally mixed those two families together.


Of course I agree with the main idea, that trying to argue about language families for civ choices is not a great strategy.
"We already have the Maori and Indonesians, Siam would add nothing to the game."
"There's already England and the US, Persia would be by-the-numbers" and so on...

 

[Patine]

And who is going to call that Navajo civ the Pueblo civ?
Would Pueblo people complain that Navajo people incorporated their agrarian techniques, the cotton (later wool) weaving, the construction of the "Navajo Pueblitos" or even the Kachinas made by Navajos?

Navajo and Pueblo still traded and helped each others time to time despite being "historical enemies". A Navajo civ preserve some of the adaptative elements of the Pueblo culture that could be portrayed as in-game design for a SouthWest NA civ. The same way despite different peoples in the Great Plains (Comanches, Kiowa, Sioux, Cheyenne, etc.) displaced each others they still shared elements from the way of life in that other region.


Good luck trying to find any source that would not agree that the pre-contact NA SouthWest was more densely populated than Alaska/Yukon region. Early Navajo-Apache are recorded by Spaniards since early 16th century, the impact between both and others peoples around them provide a more well know, dynanic, longer and popular history to explore in game.

There is no need to pillory me for suggesting a possible other civ who speaks an Athabaskan language who lived 15 000 kilometres aways as though I'm objectively wrong and must be harshly demonstrated as such. I wasn't even suggesting my idea in place of the Navajo, necessarily.

 

[BuchiTaton]

There is no need to pillory me for suggesting a possible other civ who speaks an Athabaskan language who lived 15 000 kilometres aways as though I'm objectively wrong and must be harshly demonstrated as such. I wasn't even suggesting my idea in place of the Navajo, necessarily.

Sorry, I am not againts have a Gwi'chin civ per se. I was poiting that under the premise that we can have a representative of X language family or branch (for the biggest ones) Gwi'chin turn to be unlikely if Navajo is the other alternative.

Formulate the suggestion first under others conditions like way of life or geograhic region could help to avoid the dilemmas to choose just one from X language group.

 

[Zaarin]

As for the southwest of the US if you can't get the Pueblo people

Puebloans are a culture-group, not an ethnicity. One Puebloan tribe declined; others might be willing. Firaxis might be less eager to try again, though.

Of course I agree with the main idea, that trying to argue about language families for civ choices is not a great strategy.

As I've said before about TSL, I think language is a good reason to add a civ but a poor reason to exclude one.

Good luck trying to find any source that would not agree that the pre-contact NA SouthWest was more densely populated than Alaska/Yukon region.

The PNW, which includes the Alaskan Panhandle, was the most densely populated region north of Mesoamerica. Granted, the Gwich'in were not part of that region so that's not really relevant to the discussion. Still, part of Alaska was certainly more densely populated than the Southwest.

 

[Patine]

You determinated the group as Athabaskans, if you want to note the inner differences between them then use an specific supgroup in the first place.

Navajo people surpass 65 to 1 the whole Alaskan Athabaskans, having one of the most successfull hystories of any NA native nation (biggest USA native nation and largest territory) against Pueblos, Hispanics, Comanches and Anglos. Also are the closer option to represent a "Pueblo" like civ (beyond Hopi that are unclear if share the same decision that the Pueblos council) since Navajo incorporated some elements of the Pueblo way of life.

Good luck trying to find any source that would not agree that the pre-contact NA SouthWest was more densely populated than Alaska/Yukon region. Early Navajo-Apache are recorded by Spaniards since early 16th century, the impact between both and others peoples around them provide a more well know, dynanic, longer and popular history to explore in game.

Although, I would like to clarify something here. I actually specifically said this, "and the whole exemption of the Northern Athabaskans, who are the great majority of ethnicities, cultures, languages, and geographical area by just declaring," which if you read it, does not mention or imply POPULATION numbers at all, but different demographic statistics. Thus, it seemed odd that your sharp retort was based solely on population. Or maybe you read my post too fast...