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

[Greywulf]

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.

True point, and I was initially against adding the Huns, but then ended up playing them and loving them. Likewise I am now playing a game as the Scythians, and think they are actually pretty cool to play as...even if their city names sound Russian. I think there is bending room if there is something valid that they could add to the game...Actually I think that we should be focusing more on what mechanics we want in a civ and less on the civs themselves.

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.

It is true that Russia has an ability with tundra tiles, however the ideas people have come up for the Inuit are quite impressive, and make sense at the same time. The way I've seen some of these ideas they would be more niche than any other civ...and I like that.

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.

Yeah, I heard about the Trail of Tears, and the concentration camps too. I was hoping for something before that. At any rate, they didn't have a say in the fact that they were essentially targeted for genocide. Despite all of that, they are still one of the largest tribes today by population, if I'm getting the stats right, so they certainly are survivors ~ which could be looked into for some ability?

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Firstly, thanks for putting Latin America in its own poll. This poll is already hard enough for me without having to keep the Maya in mind as well! Now to pick just 3 choices!

I voted for Tlingit, the Powhatan, and the Choctaw. Sorry for copying your votes @Zaarin

I didn't even know about the Tlingit until I joined these forums and, as mentioned before, they deserve to be included due to their unique artistry and for having such a complex society of hunters and gatherers thanks to the water's bounty. It certainly helps that they have a pretty awesome UU to make use of too! I know that one of the common points against them and the PNW as a whole is the lack of leaders and info about them, but I think we know enough about Gush X'een's (aka Sheiyksh I) life and personality that we can make a good ability and agenda for him. Granted we don't quite know the full details of his reign and he wouldn't be the same kind of entertaining that Mansa Musa or Elizabeth I would be, but what we do know points to him being an intelligent warrior and leader who, even right after a battle, respected and cared for the other side and helped keep the peace afterwards. Plus the killer whale headdress, the killer whale staff, and those robes would be very cool to see!

I voted for the Powhatan because they'd be another fun and new choice for the series. They have a few good leader choices but Powhatan himself should definitely lead. He could sit comfortably along with Cyrus and Genghis Khan as another charismatic and powerful empire builder!

This last one was a tough one between the Choctaw and the Navajo (kinda wish I had 4 votes now) but my 3rd vote ultimately went to the Choctaw. They're probably as close as we'll get to the Mississippians, they could have some science focus, and Pushmataha is a great leader who didn't have to sell out his own people.

Shout-Outs:
The most obvious shout-out has to go to the Iroquois. They definitely should appear again and be a mainstay civ given how complex and powerful they were. They also have several good leader choices including just about the only worthy female leader for an NA civ (Jigonhsasee) and an impressive war chief (Joseph Brant). As greedy as this may sound, I also don't think we should have to choose between the Iroquois and Powhatan for the Northeast. If Western Europe can have the English, French, Dutch, and German capitals close together on the TSL maps, then so can the Northeast with the Iroquois, Powhatan, and America (hopefully the Middle East and West Africa will too).

The Navajo would be my top choice for a Southwest civ, especially considering the chances of a Puebloan civ appearing. They'd be fairly unique with desert farming and religious bonuses. They also have some notable leaders like Manuelito and Narbona or even a more recent option like Henry Chee Dodge.

Of course if a Puebloan group like the Hopi did give permission to be in the game then I'd certainly be for it.

I've really gotten to like the Nuu-Chah-Nulth the more I've learned about them in the Dividing North America thread. They have a few unique distinctions such as being one of the few NA groups that did whaling and for being lead by Macuina (who has a nice hat and is 1 of the 2 PNW leaders with enough info to learn about their life and personality)! They make for an easy 2nd choice in the PNW (sorry Haida).

If we have to have some plains tribes, my preferences would be for the Sioux lead by Sitting Bull and the Comanche lead by Iron Jacket. They're both famous for a reason.

As much as I'd love to see the Chumash, they'd be hard pressed for a spot and the Tlingit and Nuu-Chah-Nulth kinda have more priority for a naval NA civ. Rafael Solares and Yanonali are the only choices with some info.

If we miraculously got all those civs and somehow had room for more, then I'd be content with adding the Shawnee, especially for Tecumseh.

 

[Zaarin]

True point, and I was initially against adding the Huns, but then ended up playing them and loving them. Likewise I am now playing a game as the Scythians, and think they are actually pretty cool to play as...even if their city names sound Russian.

Yeah, but I mean you could more or less rename "Scythia" to "Parthia," give it Parthian city names, and change the leader to Mithridates II without changing any of the actual civ design.

Actually I think that we should be focusing more on what mechanics we want in a civ and less on the civs themselves.

Well, as a history buff, I play Civilization for the historical flavor. I think mechanics should be considered, but only in a manner that is secondary to the civs themselves--without the historical context, there are better 4X games out there than Civ.

Yeah, I heard about the Trail of Tears, and the concentration camps too. I was hoping for something before that. At any rate, they didn't have a say in the fact that they were essentially targeted for genocide. Despite all of that, they are still one of the largest tribes today by population, if I'm getting the stats right, so they certainly are survivors ~ which could be looked into for some ability?

Yes, they are the second largest tribe in the US (if you count the Oklahoma Cherokee and North Carolina Cherokee together) and the second most spoken Native American language in the US (and look likely to overtake Navajo as they have more young learners than Navajo does). I think to some degree that's a worthwhile consideration, but again their pre-Columbian situation is uncertain (they were almost certainly Mississippian, but what mound we don't know--we can't connect the Choctaw to a specific mound, either, but their language is nearly identical to Chickasaw, who we can explicitly connect to Chicaza) and their pre-reservation history was essentially a sad story of attempting assimilation and still ending up on the wrong side of the American military. (For the record, I don't think assimilation is inherently the wrong response to cultural and political pressure; it just makes them a less interesting choice as a civ, especially in light of the other marks against them: better choices in their neighbors, no outstanding leader choices, and speaking a language that's related to that of a civ whose inclusion is likely.)

Pushmataha is a great leader who didn't have to sell out his own people.

What I particularly like about Pushmataha is that he recognized that Euro-Americans weren't going anywhere and that Native Americans were going to have to deal with that reality, but he managed to find a route that involved accommodation without capitulation.

If we have to have some plains tribes, my preferences would be for the Sioux lead by Sitting Bull and the Comanche lead by Iron Jacket. They're both famous for a reason.

Personally, if we must have another horse raider civ, my vote goes to Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce. Has he been romanticized? Certainly, but so have most leaders with a lasting persona.

 

[Phrozen]

Personally, if we must have another horse raider civ, my vote goes to Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce. Has he been romanticized? Certainly, but so have most leaders with a lasting persona.

They would turn Joseph into a pacifist. At least with the Comanche you would get a subversion of the popular perception of the Native tribes. Poundmaker is a nice guy, any Comanche leader would not even the 'peace' leaders like Old Owl or Amorous Man.

 

[Zaarin]

They would turn Joseph into a pacifist. At least with the Comanche you would get a subversion of the popular perception of the Native tribes. Poundmaker is a nice guy, any Comanche leader would not even the 'peace' leaders like Old Owl or Amorous Man.

Poundmaker is a nice guy because the Cree threw a fit (though ironically I have yet to see him not make an enemy of the entire world as an AI leader--in my current game I literally just dragged the entire world into war with him after centuries of his having denounced every civ on the map--only France declined to join the war, but she's hardly on friendly terms with Poundmaker). Chief Joseph is kind of remembered for leading an uprising against his own people to resist US takeover. I'd be more favorable towards the Comanche had they not been stealth-included in Civ5 as a weird Shoshone/Comanche combo (why they didn't just go straight Comanche, the far more interesting of the two with their Southwestern empire, is anyone's guess).

 

[Phrozen]

Probably because they didn't want the negative press by including a tribe with mechanics that would play up the savage native tribesman stereotype even though historical fact is that the Comanche very much lived up to their ruthless horse raider reputation against well everybody: White settlers, Mexicans, and non-allied tribes included.

 

[Zaarin]

Probably because they didn't want the negative press by including a tribe with mechanics that would play up the savage native tribesman stereotype even though historical fact is that the Comanche very much lived up to their ruthless horse raider reputation against well everybody: White settlers, Mexicans, and non-allied tribes included.

And yet it's okay to depict the Aztec's state of perpetual warfare and mass human sacrifice. I really hate whitewashing. Yes, the brutal warfare and subsequent cultural genocide carried out by the US was horrible, but that doesn't change the fact that the Iroquois terrorized the entire Great Lakes and Eastern Woodlands region, that the Mississippians and Mesoamericans practiced brutal human sacrifice (and in some cases, like the Maya, self-mutilation), that the Iroquois and others may have been ritual cannibals (there's some scholarly debate on that subject), that the PNW natives measured their wealth in slaves (and sacrificed them at potlatches in the case of the Kwakwaka'wakw), that the Comanche and Navajo terrorized the Southwest, that scalping was an actual practice among some tribes, and so forth. Atrocities were committed on both sides and didn't start with the arrival of Columbus: humans have a way of being horrible to each other that doesn't know racial, ethnic, national, religious, continental, or any other kind of boundaries.

All that being said, I do understand Firaxis wants to keep their E10+ rating. On the other hand, again, the Aztec. Sure, in-game they don't graphically depict the builders you use to rush districts being sacrificed...but it's all in the Civilopedia entry, and anyone familiar with the Aztec understands that's what the ability is meant to represent. (Similarly with Qin's wonder-rushing ability and the infamous Great Wall work gangs.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

All that being said, I do understand Firaxis wants to keep their E10+ rating. On the other hand, again, the Aztec. Sure, in-game they don't graphically depict the builders you use to rush districts being sacrificed...but it's all in the Civilopedia entry, and anyone familiar with the Aztec understands that's what the ability is meant to represent. (Similarly with Qin's wonder-rushing ability and the infamous Great Wall work gangs.)

I picture the Aztec builders all decided to play a game of tlachtli when they were done.
Btw I would like the Mayans to eventually get some sort of faith for kills as part of their ability.

 

[Zaarin]

I picture the Aztec builders all decided to play a game of tlachtli when they were done.
Btw I would like the Mayans to eventually get some sort of faith for kills as part of their ability.

Like Korea, I expect the Maya will be an eternal science civ, even if there was a lot more to their culture than astronomy and calendars. While warfare was part of Mayan society (like any society), I'd prefer not to see them made super aggressive just to provide a contrast with the Aztec, but I would definitely like to see them given some religious bonuses. Where Arabia is an evangelical science/religion civ, make the Maya an insular science/religion civ.

 

[Morningcalm]

Maya should be warlike--they were every bit as ferocious as the Aztecs, and frequently, defeated tribal leaders were sacrificed, and in some records, eaten alive. Sure, they had amazing astronomy advances and were known for a religious bent, but they were also all about citystate warfare! In fact Barbarossa kind of stole the most appropriate Mayan leader agenda and leader bonus, alas.

It's true that in the past the Maya have mostly been portrayed as religious and scientific.

 

[Zaarin]

Maya should be warlike--they were every bit as ferocious as the Aztecs, and frequently, defeated tribal leaders were sacrificed, and in some records, eaten alive. Sure, they had amazing astronomy advances and were known for a religious bent, but they were also all about citystate warfare! In fact Barbarossa kind of stole the most appropriate Mayan leader agenda and leader bonus, alas.

It's true that in the past the Maya have mostly been portrayed as religious and scientific.

Yes, the Maya were warlike, but I'd prefer to see other elements of their society focused on just to make them maximally distinct from the Aztec. Honestly, as I've said before, I wouldn't mind seeing the Aztec skip a game at some point in favor of the Mixtec, but pop culture makes that unlikely...

 

[Morningcalm]

Yes, the Maya were warlike, but I'd prefer to see other elements of their society focused on just to make them maximally distinct from the Aztec. Honestly, as I've said before, I wouldn't mind seeing the Aztec skip a game at some point in favor of the Mixtec, but pop culture makes that unlikely...

Having them portrayed more as science and religious Civ would make them quite a bit like Arabia though...I think gameplay wise some mix of citystate diplomacy, science and war would make sense. Aztecs focus less on citystates and science as such and more on war and luxuries...

 

[TyrannusRex]

Anyone have any ideas for a Lenape (Delaware) civilization?
Kind of curious about them, because they lived in/around my hometown for some time.

 

[Zaarin]

Anyone have any ideas for a Lenape (Delaware) civilization?
Kind of curious about them, because they lived in/around my hometown for some time.

They seem less likely than some other Northeastern Algonquian peoples, particularly the Massachusett (who have one of the better-attested Eastern Algonquian languages and have obvious leader choices in Massasoit and Metacomet as well as pop culture points for being the people that the Pilgrims interacted with and invited to the first Thanksgiving).

 

[TyrannusRex]

They seem less likely than some other Northeastern Algonquian peoples, particularly the Massachusett (who have one of the better-attested Eastern Algonquian languages and have obvious leader choices in Massasoit and Metacomet as well as pop culture points for being the people that the Pilgrims interacted with and invited to the first Thanksgiving).

Yeah, true.
Just felt like experimenting a bit; the town I live in takes its name, partly, from a Lenape chief, Buckongahelas. Admittedly, he was a war leader, and according to Wikipedia, "did not have the position to do political negotiations" (kind of necessary to be a civ leader), but I was naturally interested in him anyway. Sadly, I can't find much information online beyond Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckongahelas

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, true.
Just felt like experimenting a bit; the town I live in takes its name, partly, from a Lenape chief, Buckongahelas. Admittedly, he was a war leader, and according to Wikipedia, "did not have the position to do political negotiations" (kind of necessary to be a civ leader), but I was naturally interested in him anyway. Sadly, I can't find much information online beyond Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckongahelas

The Eastern Algonquian peoples in general aren't as well documented as one might like because a lot of them got exterminated or marginalized really early, long before anthropological documentation started to become a thing in the 19th century. Most of what we know comes from accounts by the original settlers, who tended to be hostile narrators who weren't very interested in their indigenous neighbors' customs and languages. Missionary accounts are a little more useful, but since converts tended to be alienated from their non-Christian compatriots they often ended up semi-assimilating into the English colonies as "praying Indians."