Unoffical Civ VI poll. Vote for your 3 civs you would most like to see. Part VIII : North America

[Liufeng]

Hello everyone !

I'm sorry for the delay, but I had a sudden huge load of work, and could simply not do the poll in time ... But here it is, the poll on North american civs you most want ! Yay ! But please be aware of two important things :
- this poll is about NATIVE american civs, so please do not ask about Canada or the state of Texas
- I am no expert on Native north american civs, being much more accustomed to Mesoamerica. For the choices, I tried to pick the most famous/successful ones, and also based on the precedent poll, taking out most of the civs that had 0% votes.

That being said, enjoy yourselves, instruct yourselves, and most important, debate and share your ideas !

 

[Ryansinbela]

North American leader ideas
Geronimo of the Apache
Crowfoot of the Blackfoot
John Ross of the Cherokee
Little Wolf of the Cheyenne
Pontiac of the Anishinaabe (Chippewa/Ojibwe)
Pushmataha of the Choctaw
Iron Jacket of the Comanche
Red Eagle of the Creek
Koyah of the Haida
Kondiaronk of the Huron
Ekeuhnick of the Inuit
Hiawatha of the Iroquois
Tuskaloosa of the Mississipians
Joseph of the Nez Perce
Narbona of the Navajo
Petelesharo of the Pawnee
Powhatan of the Powhatan
Po'pay of the Pueblo
Osceola of the Seminole
Tecumseh of the Shawnee
Sacagawea of the Shoshone
Sitting Bull of the Sioux
Sheiyksh I of the Tlingit
Henri Membertou of the Wabanaki
Massasoit of the Wampanoag

 

[TyrannusRex]

1. Iroquois, led by Hiawatha
2. Sioux, led by Sitting Bull
3. Other: Cherokee (unsure of leader)

 

[Liufeng]

3. Other: Cherokee (unsure of leader)

Dang it, I knew I would have forgotten one ! I'll add them into to the poll if possible

 

[Zaarin]

Tlingit: Unique and rich artistic heritage, complex society, and unique among the world's cultures for having an advanced civilization based on hunting and gathering. Lack of well-known leaders is a small problem, but one that I think could be overcome.

Powhatan: Big personality leader, confederacy-building offers unique play style opportunities.

Other: Choctaw: Big personality leader in Pushmataha, closest thing to the Mississippians we're likely to get, less self-destructive than the Creek or Cherokee.

Honorable Mention: Iroquois: The most successful indigenous people at adapting to and thriving amidst European encroachment, successfully managed to play the larger powers off each other for nearly three centuries, and have a potentially cool mechanic in Mourning Wars. On the downside, being led by a council one's options for leaders are individual tribal warchiefs like Joseph Brant of the Mohawk or semi-mythical figures like Hiawatha.

John Ross of the Cherokee

Only if Benedict Arnold leads America, Vidkun Quisling leads Norway, and Mary Tudor leads England. Ross sold out his people for his own profit: that's not exactly a great résumé. In Ross's defense, he was more incompetent and surrounded by crooks than outright malicious like Creek chief Alexander McGillivray, but that's still not exactly an overwhelming recommendation.

 

[Liufeng]

Other: Choctaw: Big personality leader in Pushmataha, closest thing to the Mississippians we're likely to get, less self-destructive than the Creek or Cherokee.

Added them to the list. I really am a disgrace when it comes to Native Americans ... Next time I'll do a poll (maybe after expansion 2), I'll call you to help me make the list

 

[Ryansinbela]

Added them to the list. I really am a disgrace when it comes to Native Americans ... Next time I'll do a poll (maybe after expansion 2), I'll call you to help me make the list

Don't feel bad as there is 562 federally recognized tribes

 

[Guandao]

I voted for the Iroquois (to represent the Northeast, with someone else leading them instead of Hiawatha), Tlingit (I think the Pacific Northwest is worth representing in Civ, despite the lack of info on their leaders), and Choctaw (represents the Southeast, birthplace of the Moundbuilders, with Pushmataha as leader).

Honorable mentions: Pueblo/Hopi (sadly, their leaders object to their depiction in the game), Chumash (I'm interested in Native California for some reason, the Spanish were most impressed by them out of the people they missionized, rock art, and tomol boats), Comanche, Shawnee, Powhatan, Wampanoag,

 

[Zaarin]

Added them to the list. I really am a disgrace when it comes to Native Americans ... Next time I'll do a poll (maybe after expansion 2), I'll call you to help me make the list

Don't worry, there are a lot of tribes, as Ryansinbela said.

Chumash (I'm interested in Native California for some reason, the Spanish were most impressed by them out of the people they missionized, rock art, and tomol boats)

Problem is that California was probably the most primitive region of North America, lacking in agriculture and without the complex societies seen in the PNW. They're essentially in the same boat as the Inuit and Paleosiberians on that front.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would want the Navajo first. Great central location between the Cree and the Aztecs and on the other side of the continent from Teddy on TSL. Not to mention having the Code talkers.
Iroquois- probably the closest we can have that would be like the other civilizations.
Shawnee- a little more interested in this tribe than a SE one withTecumseh as the leader.
Honorable mention to the Apache who I would only want over the Navajo because of Geronimo.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I think I'll skip voting in this one. Not saying that I don't want more Native Americans, but my knowledge and interest in this area is smaller than in other areas

 

[Uberfrog]

The Iroquois have been in before but they're certainly worth featuring again.

The Tlingit or Haida would make a really distinctive civ for all the reasons @Zaarin says.

My third vote is for the Pueblo because, while I know it won't happen, they're again a unique civ that (like the Tlingit) slots perfectly into a vacant spot in North America. I respect the wishes of the Pueblo Council not to be portrayed in the game, but it's a huge shame. Their place can go to a close runner-up, a southeastern descendant of the Mississippi such as the Muscogee or the Choctaw.

 

[Zaarin]

My third vote is for the Pueblo because, while I know it won't happen, they're again a unique civ that (like the Tlingit) slots perfectly into a vacant spot in North America. I respect the wishes of the Pueblo Council not to be portrayed in the game, but it's a huge shame.

The Tewa aren't the only Puebloan people. Firaxis could still approach the Hopi or Zuni or some other pueblo--but I suspect they'd likely aim for a safer bet after the Tewa's reaction.

Shawnee- a little more interested in this tribe than a SE one withTecumseh as the leader.

Too closely related to the Cree in both lifestyle and language, personally. It's a big continent to feature two such closely related peoples. (This is more of an issue in North America than Europe, where we can reasonably expect to have a couple dozen civs and therefore don't need to bat an eyelash that French and Spanish are closely related or Dutch and German are closely related. In a region where we can expect one or two, perhaps three at the very most, I think maximally distinct is a worthwhile goal.)

 

[Greywulf]

I would want the Navajo first. Great central location between the Cree and the Aztecs and on the other side of the continent from Teddy on TSL. Not to mention having the Code talkers.

I agree, I was thinking that the Navajo would be a good choice for this, and they have a large population (I think one of the largest populations of any tribe of Native Americans). I would like there to be good regional representation, and we are not going to get a heap of new civs from North America, but maybe a couple or a few, so with that in mind, Navajo are also a good selection.

On another angle, I want civs that add something completely new into the game...niche civs. If any civ is going to be a niche civ, it would be the Inuit. There is a civ that is guaranteed to bring something fresh to the game, and that's why I am also voting for them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Too closely related to the Cree in both lifestyle and language, personally. It's a big continent to feature two such closely related peoples. (This is more of an issue in North America than Europe, where we can reasonably expect to have a couple dozen civs and therefore don't need to bat an eyelash that French and Spanish are closely related or Dutch and German are closely related. In a region where we can expect one or two, perhaps three at the very most, I think maximally distinct is a worthwhile goal.)

Is it because they are both considered of the Central Algonquian people, unlike say the Powhatan who are Eastern Algonquian?

 

[Plymouth]

Oh boy, have I been waiting for this one. I voted for the Iroquois, the Choctaw, and the Navajo. Here's why.

I chose the Iroquois for a few reasons, bias, perhaps, in that I've spent a good deal of my life in and around the centers of the Iroquois Confederacy; but even this could be overshadowed by the immense impact on the world left by the Iroquois. Being a relatively recent group, their culture was concentrated to a smaller place than many of the others on this list. However, their culture was incredibly unique and their very existence was essential to history as we know it. It also doesn't hurt that Jigonsaseh is a female leader that I think almost all of us can agree deserves inclusion. The Iroquois' republic of sorts was, as far as I know, unique in the Northeast (and most of the Americas) and has been thought to be one of the foundations for the U.S.A.. I could see this as a Production-based civ, a Science-based civ, a Culture-based civ, or any combination of the two.

Though I know less about the Choctaw, I still think they would fit in the game, provided consent is given by a part of the nation. They are interesting due to their cultural diffusion- Mississippian cultures mixing with the general Southeastern culture and the result was the Choctaw. The Choctaw are also famous for their presence as the first codetalkers used by the U.S.A. in WW1. They could have a cool Mound-building UI.

I think the Navajo would fit for a few reasons, namely their location in the Southwest which would be far from the other pre-existing civs, their longevity, and distinct culture as opposed to the Puebloan descendants that occupy most of that region. A religious UA could be neat. I don't know a ton about them, but I think they do warrant inclusion, provided consent is given by part of the nation.

Honorable mention to the Wampanoag. Super cool, but Massachusetts is way too close to both the Iroquois and the U.S.A., the Elizabethan archipelago (the center of their power for thousands of years) is too small to be on any TSL map, and it's simply not as culturally unique as some other contestants. Perhaps it's bias again that makes me even consider them, but I still feel sorry in that regard.

 

[Greywulf]

I'm surprised how few are voting for the Cherokee...I think they make for a decent choice.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree, I was thinking that the Navajo would be a good choice for this, and they have a large population (I think one of the largest populations of any tribe of Native Americans).

I don't remember the exact population numbers, but I think they are indeed the largest in the US. It probably helps that the US didn't consider their land worth fighting over. I do know that Navajo is the most spoken Native American language, but because few children are learning it it is nevertheless endangered--I suspect Cherokee, which has more active learners, will overtake it in the next generation.

On another angle, I want civs that add something completely new into the game...niche civs. If any civ is going to be a niche civ, it would be the Inuit. There is a civ that is guaranteed to bring something fresh to the game, and that's why I am also voting for them.

The problem is that once again they have no cities, no agriculture; they were wandering hunter-gatherer bands. They are literally what all those barbarians on the north and south of the map are supposed to represent. There are just too few resources in the polar regions to build a viable civilization; that's why we don't have civilizations from those regions. We already have Russia with its somewhat dubious Tundra bonuses; I think that's enough.

Is it because they are both considered of the Central Algonquian people, unlike say the Powhatan who are Eastern Algonquian?

Yes. In both language and lifestyle the Cree and Shawnee are very closely related. For that reason I'm even a little hesitant to back the Powhatan except that Civ6 seems like such a great opportunity for such a larger-than-life leader as Chief Powhatan, who also has the advantage of coming from a different cultural zone, which would at least give the civilization a different aesthetic.

It also doesn't hurt that Jigonsaseh is a female leader that I think almost all of us can agree deserves inclusion.

I have very mixed feelings on that. I think it would be great to have a Native American female leader, but do we need another Dido/Tomyris/person of dubious historicity?

I'm surprised how few are voting for the Cherokee...I think they make for a decent choice.

The problem with both the Cherokee and the Creek is they basically self-destructed. It's hard to find a good leader for either group because their leadership basically sold both civilizations out to the US, which leaves you with rebel leaders like Menawa or else corrupt sellouts like Ross, McGillivray, or McIntosh.

 

[Greywulf]

I don't remember the exact population numbers, but I think they are indeed the largest in the US. It probably helps that the US didn't consider their land worth fighting over. I do know that Navajo is the most spoken Native American language, but because few children are learning it it is nevertheless endangered--I suspect Cherokee, which has more active learners, will overtake it in the next generation.

Actually I heard that the introduction of lots of new literature (much of which is religious content ~ they seem to be very spiritually minded people) into Navajo is helping significantly with keeping the language alive, and getting the new generation to learn it. Anyway, good for them that they can preserve their language! Should make it much easier to get a voice actor as well...

The problem is that once again they have no cities, no agriculture; they were wandering hunter-gatherer bands. They are literally what all those barbarians on the north and south of the map are supposed to represent. There are just too few resources in the polar regions to build a viable civilization; that's why we don't have civilizations from those regions. We already have Russia with its somewhat dubious Tundra bonuses; I think that's enough.

I don't know where the thread is now, but we were able to conjure up an extensively long list of Inuit towns and settled communities, all with very Inuktitut sounding names. Granted, they are probably mostly fairly modern settlements, but it's more than we could ever say about the Scythians, or the Huns for that matter. So yeah, I don't think that part is an issue at least.
The very fact that the tundra areas are difficult to settle make the Inuit idea so niche. If we can have a civ that would even thrive in tundra then that would stand out as something different, and I think many players would really appreciate that...I know I would. Perhaps it might brake a rule or two, but it's not like they haven't done so many times before already.

The problem with both the Cherokee and the Creek is they basically self-destructed. It's hard to find a good leader for either group because their leadership basically sold both civilizations out to the US, which leaves you with rebel leaders like Menawa or else corrupt sellouts like Ross, McGillivray, or McIntosh.

Ah, that's a shame. Still, the Cherokee have a rather large population today as well...Surely they would have a leader who is a reasonable choice?

 

[Zaarin]

I don't know where the thread is now, but we were able to conjure up an extensively long list of Inuit towns and settled communities, all with very Inuktitut sounding names. Granted, they are probably mostly fairly modern settlements, but it's more than we could ever say about the Scythians, or the Huns for that matter. So yeah, I don't think that part is an issue at least.

Yes, and I'd argue that we should never have had the Scythians or the Huns, either. If Firaxis wanted horse-riding Iranians, they should have gone with the Parthians who had cities and historically attested leaders who weren't probably made up by Herodotus.

The very fact that the tundra areas are difficult to settle make the Inuit idea so niche. If we can have a civ that would even thrive in tundra then that would stand out as something different, and I think many players would really appreciate that...I know I would. Perhaps it might brake a rule or two, but it's not like they haven't done so many times before already.

But we already have Russia with Tundra bonuses (and believe me, Russia as it stands can already make a very viable empire out of Tundra), so it wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table.

Ah, that's a shame. Still, the Cherokee have a rather large population today as well...Surely they would have a leader who is a reasonable choice?

Maybe, but they would either be post-reservation (which I think we'd all agree is undesirable) or we wouldn't know much about them (which would work fine in a Civ5-style approach but less so for Civ6's leader-centric approach). Plus despite their high degree of name recognition (in part due to their close association with their Euro-American neighbors, in part due to the infamous Trail of Tears, in part due to their prominent participation in the Civil War [though the Chickasaw and Choctaw also fought for the Confederacy], and in part due to their high degree of financial success post-reservation), in their own time the Cherokee were definitely less powerful in the Southeast than their Muskogean counterparts.