Speculation on Native North American civs in Civ6 vanilla

[Amrunril]

Two *native* American are max because already there is going to be a much bigger problem with representing Middle East civs.
It has been said there are 18 civs in release non dlc version of civ6.
America, Aztecs, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, India, Japan, England, Germany, France and Russia are 12 civs that have appeared in release 1.0 version of every civ game ever and are either confirmed or almost mandatory. On top of that Spain is essentially confirmed by gamestar article. If you add one black African civ (another series standard), one south east asian civ (standard since civ4) and mongolia (present in almost every initial civ release), you are still left with the entire middle east empty - and civ5 had initially persia, arabia and ottomans from here, plus release dlc of babylon. In this mess there is simply no room for more than two native americans civs on release, with aztecs being series mandatory civ and Ed saying about "south american civ (...) release version" stuff so...

I don't think its a foregone conclusion that every European civ that's consistently been included in the past will be in vanilla Civ VI. A promise to increase geographical diversity without increasing the number of civs or reducing the number of slots taken by European civs essentially has to be an empty one.

Even accepting that framework though, I'd prioritize both the Inca and a native North American civ over the Aztecs- I think they get a bit too much credit for happening to be the dominant regional civ at the exact point in time when Cortez landed. That might be a lost cause in terms of game tradition, though (like India always being led by nuke-mongering Ghandi).

 

[Bast]

I don't think its a foregone conclusion that every European civ that's consistently been included in the past will be in vanilla Civ VI. A promise to increase geographical diversity without increasing the number of civs or reducing the number of slots taken by European civs essentially has to be an empty one.

Even accepting that framework though, I'd prioritize both the Inca and a native North American civ over the Aztecs- I think they get a bit too much credit for happening to be the dominant regional civ at the exact point in time when Cortez landed. That might be a lost cause in terms of game tradition, though (like India always being led by nuke-mongering Ghandi).

Who has a better claim to be in it than Aztecs in that region?

 

[Zaarin]

Who has a better claim to be in it than Aztecs in that region?

The Maya. The Olmec. The Zapotec. The Olmec would be problematic because we know less about them, but the Maya have been included many times and there should be no problem including the Zapotec.

The only way I'll be okay with a Native American civ missing on release is if we get an absolutely fascinating Haida, Tlingit, or Tsimshian civ as the first DLC. Otherwise I think it would be preferable to see the Inca or the inevitable Aztec come later.

 

[Amrunril]

Who has a better claim to be in it than Aztecs in that region?

I don't have a specific alternative in mind for that region. I was just pointing if the Americas only get 2 civs besides the US, as some are assuming, I'd prefer it to be the Inca and a North American group. I don't like the idea of leaving Mesoamerica entirely for DLC/expansions, but I think its preferable to leaving out the Inca or skipping the entirety to pre-European North America.

 

[Guandao]

I think Shawnee would be a good choice for its leader would likely be Tecumseh, who has a decently documented personality. Other good leaders include Black Hawk of the Sauk, Osceola of the Seminole, Sitting Bull/Crazy Horse for the Sioux, Metacomet/King Philip for the Wampanoag, Powhatan of the Powhatan. I just hope we won't see the Iroquois in the Civ6 vanilla, I'm sick of seeing Hiawatha (who is just standing in front of a rock instead of inside a longhouse).

 

[Zaarin]

I think Shawnee would be a good choice for its leader would likely be Tecumseh, who has a decently documented personality. Other good leaders include Black Hawk of the Sauk, Osceola of the Seminole, Sitting Bull/Crazy Horse for the Sioux, Metacomet/King Philip for the Wampanoag, Powhatan of the Powhatan. I just hope we won't see the Iroquois in the Civ6 vanilla, I'm sick of seeing Hiawatha (who is just standing in front of a rock instead of inside a longhouse).

If we get the Wampanoag, I think it's inevitable that their great leader would be Pocahontas.

 

[Guandao]

If we get the Wampanoag, I think it's inevitable that their great leader would be Pocahontas.

That would be the Powhatan, Pocahontas was the daughter of Powhatan, the ruler of the Powhatan confederacy.

Wampanoag is known for Massasoit, King Philip/Metacomet, and Squanto/Thanksgiving

 

[Zaarin]

That would be the Powhatan, Pocahontas was the daughter of Powhatan, the ruler of the Powhatan confederacy.

Wampanoag is known for Massasoit, King Philip/Metacomet, and Squanto/Thanksgiving

Mistyped. I actually did a term paper in college on the economic relationship between the Powhatan and Jamestown, including how Pocahontas fits into the mix. Sad story of mutual cultural misunderstanding, and Pocahontas was just another pawn in the tragedy.

 

[Civciv5]

Well, technically the Aztec civilization was located in North America.

And since all native peoples of America (NOT A COUNTRY), can be called Native Americans, the Aztecs, as well as Incas, Mayas, Olmecs, Incas etcetera...

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Well, technically the Aztec civilization was located in North America.

And since all native peoples of America (NOT A COUNTRY), can be called Native Americans, the Aztecs, as well as Incas, Mayas, Olmecs, Incas etcetera...

For whatever reason the area that had Aztecs and Maya is usually classified as Central America or Mesoamerica as a subpart of North America. When speaking of North American native cultures, you typically imply omission of the Mesoamericans.

 

[Zaarin]

For whatever reason the area that had Aztecs and Maya is usually classified as Central America or Mesoamerica as a subpart of North America. When speaking of North American native cultures, you typically imply omission of the Mesoamericans.

Correct. Typically "Native American," as the term is used anthropologically, refers to the indigenous people of North America north of the Rio Grande, except the Eskimo-Aleut people (Inuit, Yu'pik, Aleut) who are a genetically distinct people. (So are the Na-Dené, but they're generally included in the term.)

 

[Civciv5]

There are three major definitions of "Native Americans" as far as I know.
1.The original inhabitants of the United States of America (most commonly used)
2.The original inhabitants of Northern America
3.The original inhabitants of America

While all native peoples south of the USA-Mexico border would not be classified as Native Americans by the first two definitions, they definitely would by the third one.

 

[j51]

I don't have a specific alternative in mind for that region. I was just pointing if the Americas only get 2 civs besides the US, as some are assuming, I'd prefer it to be the Inca and a North American group. I don't like the idea of leaving Mesoamerica entirely for DLC/expansions, but I think its preferable to leaving out the Inca or skipping the entirety to pre-European North America.

It makes more sense to wait till DLC/Expansions for a native North American civ and have a Mesoamerican and a central Andean civ on release. Those were THE major population and cultural centers of pre-Columbian America after all. They were the twin cradles of civilization in the new world. Skipping either region in favour of a NA civ at launch smacks of North American-centrism.

 

[Zaarin]

It makes more sense to wait till DLC/Expansions for a native North American civ and have a Mesoamerican and a central Andean civ on release. Those were THE major population and cultural centers of pre-Columbian America after all. They were the twin cradles of civilization in the new world. Skipping either region in favour of a NA civ at launch smacks of North American-centrism.

Incorrect. The Pacific Northwest was the most densely populated region in the Americas, and despite being a hunter-gatherer culture had many elements of advanced society more typical of agriculturalists. They may not have built empires like the Inca or large cities like the Aztecs, but their cultural and social achievements are not so easily dismissed. This statement also disregards the Mississippian/Mound Builder/Southeastern Ceremonial Complex cultures, which were quite equivalent to the Aztecs (minus metallurgy). Granted, I wouldn't expect to see them in game--we know too little about them--but they were as culturally if not technologically advanced as the Aztecs. If the Aztecs are worthy of inclusion, then there are a good number of North American native cultures that are equally worthy.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Incorrect. The Pacific Northwest was the most densely populated region in the Americas, and despite being a hunter-gatherer culture had many elements of advanced society more typical of agriculturalists. They may not have built empires like the Inca or large cities like the Aztecs, but their cultural and social achievements are not so easily dismissed. This statement also disregards the Mississippian/Mound Builder/Southeastern Ceremonial Complex cultures, which were quite equivalent to the Aztecs (minus metallurgy). Granted, I wouldn't expect to see them in game--we know too little about them--but they were as culturally if not technologically advanced as the Aztecs. If the Aztecs are worthy of inclusion, then there are a good number of North American native cultures that are equally worthy.

The Mississippians actually did know how to cold-work copper.

 

[j51]

Incorrect. The Pacific Northwest was the most densely populated region in the Americas, and despite being a hunter-gatherer culture had many elements of advanced society more typical of agriculturalists. They may not have built empires like the Inca or large cities like the Aztecs, but their cultural and social achievements are not so easily dismissed. This statement also disregards the Mississippian/Mound Builder/Southeastern Ceremonial Complex cultures, which were quite equivalent to the Aztecs (minus metallurgy). Granted, I wouldn't expect to see them in game--we know too little about them--but they were as culturally if not technologically advanced as the Aztecs. If the Aztecs are worthy of inclusion, then there are a good number of North American native cultures that are equally worthy.

I'm not dismissing either culture, and I do hope a Pacific NW culture does make it in the game, but I'm fairly certain the whole of pre-Columbian America north of the Rio Grande had a total population well less than Meso-America. (I could be wrong though.) Also, Meso-America and the central Andes are to the New World what Mesopotamia, the Indus, the Yellow River, and maybe the Nile are to the Old. The first places where advanced societies emerged.

That said, I'm all for a load of additional native American civs from both continents. I would be totally jazzed if their was a Pacific NW culture on release. There are so many great game play possibilities for them: from totem poles and war canoes to abilities related to growth without farms. As for the Mississippians, they are awesome, but I agree, we know so little about them. Even after reading Timothy R. Pauketat's work, I still know barely anything about them!

Honestly, I'm just sick of the Inca only being in one vanilla release of the game. They were the largest pre-Columbian state for Pete's sake!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I agree that too much of Mississippian history is lost for it to be a legit civ. Much like Great Zimbabwe. Sad, really.

 

[SMcM]

You missed one option which I believe to be highly probable

Inca in release version instead of NA tribe.

Why I believe it:
1) Spain is basically confirmed (that article with "Spanish unique unit - Conquistador") and both in civ4 and civ5 Spain came simultaneously with Inca (civ4-vanilla, civ5-shared dlc)
2) Ed Beach said in separate interviews how "this time we will look more at TSL geographic balance" and "this time we will care more about South American civs" (iirc he even said "in release version" regarding the latter statement).
3) Inca fitting both "age of exploration" theme (together with Aztecs and Spain) and "terrain development" theme (famous Incan terrace farms)

I'd be really fine with Aztecs and Inca being the only Precolombian civs in release version of civ6, as I find them more "essential" than NA tribes (which would be perfect material for DLCs)

You are actually right. USA already has North America covered, so Aztecs for Central America and Inca for South America would make more sense than Civ 5 which started with two civs in North America, and none in South America.

 

[SMcM]

In terms of North American native civs, I think that Sioux under Sitting Bull is very likely at some point, whether in DLC or Vannila; he is a very iconic character, and so is in line with the 'big personalities' idea. He has appeared already in Civ 4 and Civ Col, which could either make him more likely to be in the game (as he is an established leader) or less likely (for leader variety).

 

[Zaarin]

The Mississippians actually did know how to cold-work copper.

Cold-working of copper was done throughout North America, and shield-shaped sheets of copper were actually one of the symbols of chieftains in the PNW and were a common potlatch gift. Virtually all tribes rolled native copper into tubes for use as beads or earrings. The Tlingit and Haida even used iron that washed ashore from Asian shipwrecks to make tools long before contact (and bamboo for hair ornaments was considered a treasure as well). But no North American tribe actually possessed metallurgy; gold, silver, and bronze were worked by the Mesoamerican paramountcies and by the Inca--why none of them ever crafted metal weapons we may never know, but the political climate was certainly different in the New World than in the Old.

I'm not dismissing either culture, and I do hope a Pacific NW culture does make it in the game, but I'm fairly certain the whole of pre-Columbian America north of the Rio Grande had a total population well less than Meso-America. (I could be wrong though.) Also, Meso-America and the central Andes are to the New World what Mesopotamia, the Indus, the Yellow River, and maybe the Nile are to the Old. The first places where advanced societies emerged.

That said, I'm all for a load of additional native American civs from both continents. I would be totally jazzed if their was a Pacific NW culture on release. There are so many great game play possibilities for them: from totem poles and war canoes to abilities related to growth without farms. As for the Mississippians, they are awesome, but I agree, we know so little about them. Even after reading Timothy R. Pauketat's work, I still know barely anything about them!

Honestly, I'm just sick of the Inca only being in one vanilla release of the game. They were the largest pre-Columbian state for Pete's sake!

I'm reasonably certain that the PNW region was the most densely populated in the New World. I've done quite a bit of research on the region, but it's been a little while. I know 100% they were the most densely populated in North America. At any rate, I'd prefer to see the Tlingit or Haida over the Aztec, who, as stated earlier in the thread, are not necessarily the best representatives of Mesoamerica in the first place--and the Maya will inevitably be added in an expansion or DLC (and I wouldn't mind seeing the Zapotec either). The Olmec are in the same category as the Mississippians, sadly.

You are actually right. USA already has North America covered, so Aztecs for Central America and Inca for South America would make more sense than Civ 5 which started with two civs in North America, and none in South America.

I don't need another reason to resent America's inclusion in the game. But America has a long history of overriding the Native Americans; why stop now?

In terms of North American native civs, I think that Sioux under Sitting Bull is very likely at some point, whether in DLC or Vannila; he is a very iconic character, and so is in line with the 'big personalities' idea. He has appeared already in Civ 4 and Civ Col, which could either make him more likely to be in the game (as he is an established leader) or less likely (for leader variety).

I'd rather not. The Sioux, like the Aztecs, are chiefly significant for having opposed Western expansion and lost--after being driven out of their home territory in the Great Lakes by the Iroquois. Not to mention that the Sioux are already overrepresented in popular culture at the expense of other tribes as it is--to the point that to many, all Native Americans are Sioux. If we're going for significance, then the obvious choices are the Iroquois for their advanced society and political cunning, one of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Comanche for their Southwestern empire, or a PNW tribe for their advanced culture and high population density.