Vote for your 3 civs you would most like to see (Part VIII : Native North America) ?

[Liufeng]

Hello everyone, and welcome to the new poll of your 3 most wanted civs for Civilization VI. In part 8, we will discuss on Native americans from North America, which globally means continental USA and Canada. Please know that seeing the huge number of cultures, I had to be very selective on the choices, while trying to satisfy most people. So it may be normal if you do not see x culture that you'd like to be seen.

As always, you may vote from 1 to 3 civs on the list, and discuss your opinion on them, why chosing this one and not another, etc.

If you did not vote in one of the former polls, it's not too late to do so ! You can do it in the following links :
Part I (Western Europe) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ost-like-to-see-part-i-western-europe.606097/
Part II (Eastern Europe) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...st-like-to-see-part-ii-eastern-europe.606569/
Part III (Western Asia) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ost-like-to-see-part-iii-western-asia.606991/
Part IV (Central Asia) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...most-like-to-see-part-iv-central-asia.607385/
Part V (Eastern Asia) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-most-like-to-see-part-v-eastern-asia.607762/
Part VI (Maghreb and Western Africa) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...o-see-part-vi-maghreb-and-west-africa.608143/
Part VII (South, East and Central Africa) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...art-vii-south-east-and-central-africa.608904/

I thank you all for your participation, and wish you all the best !

 

[Xandinho]

Iroquois, Inuit and Sioux

But I do not think necessary more than 2 native civs from North America

 

[Zaarin]

I voted Cree, Tlingit, and Other (Creek).

The Cree were the most important participants in the fur trade, building an economic empire in Western and Central Canada and the northern US. The Ojibwe or Anishinaabe are closely related and would be acceptable alternatives.

The Pacific Northwest was one of the richest cultures in the New World, with elaborate social customs and an art tradition second to none. The Tlingit are widely regarded as having the greatest achievement in these arts. The Haida would be an acceptable alternative.

The Creek/Muscogee are a pretty glaring absence in this list, being the dominant power in the post-colonial Southeast. I'd rather see them than the Cherokee.

Now let me tell you who I don't want to see: the Sioux. There are two reasons for this. First, the Sioux are chiefly significant for having opposed the United States; we have enough civilizations (often wrongly) accused of being included for being rivals of Rome, we don't need the same logic applied to the US. Second, the Sioux get a lot of media attention; some people (especially outside but even within America) seem to think all Native Americans are Sioux. I'd prefer to see some other culture get some attention.

 

[Liufeng]

I just added the Creek in the poll you may change your vote : I just forgot them ...

 

[Zaarin]

I just added the Creek in the poll you may change your vote : I just forgot them ...

Changed. But you now have the Cree listed twice.

 

[Tdot1]

Go Sioux. They were so badass, I hope they become a civilisation so badly.

EDIT: Also, there's a double 'Cree'

 

[Amrunril]

I think the Iroquois would be a great choice for a diplomatically oriented civ, both because of their confederation form of government and because of their ability to exploit the balance of power between the British and the French. For my other two choices, I went with the Haida (an interesting and iconic culture not yet represented in any civ game) and the Mississippians (probably the closest pre-Columbian North America came to developing a persistent, urbanized culture). The Lakota probably would have been my 4th choice, but I ultimately left them off as they already have a lot of votes and would likely overlap a lot mechanically with other plains civs, like Scythia and (presumably) Mongolia. Of course, all of these choices are due at least partly to familiarity, and I'm sure many of the other options would be appealing if I knew more about them. I hope we'll see many civs from this region over the course of Civ VI's DLC and expansions.

 

[Japper007]

The Pueblo would give some nice ancient civilization flavor (which I find quite lacking in the current build to be honest, just Sumeria and some fantasy civ).

The Iroquois would be interesting for a Unique Ability related to government. Though we already have quite a few civs that get bonuses to policy cards ofc.

I also voted Sioux, hoping against hope that we finally get a civ that's has actual nomadic mechanics. (Rise of Nations has an interesting Lakota civ, they are the only ones who can build outside of their own territory and their national borders are hidden).

 

[Zaarin]

Mississippians (probably the closest pre-Columbian North America came to developing a persistent, urbanized culture).

The indigenous peoples of the PNW were sedentary and to some degree urbanized, though not centralized like the Mississippians. The problem with Mississippians is that, while we do have languages and leaders to give them, they collapsed shortly after contact, which means A) we don't know much about them and B) what we do know comes from when they were on the verge of collapse. It would be like having Romulus Augustulus lead Rome.

The Pueblo would give some nice ancient civilization flavor (which I find quite lacking in the current build to be honest, just Sumeria and some fantasy civ).

You speak as though "Sumeria" and "some fantasy civ" were two separate things. Also, the Pueblo tribal council already nixed that idea...

The Iroquois would be interesting for a Unique Ability related to government. Though we already have quite a few civs that get bonuses to policy cards ofc.

This is why I wouldn't object to seeing the Iroquois again, even though I'd rather see someone else. For starters, we don't have a civilization that gets a bonus diplomatic card, which would make sense for the Iroquois. But given that they came to power by playing the English, French, Dutch, and Americans against each other, I'd really like to see them get some unique diplomatic options.

 

[Japper007]

You speak as though "Sumeria" and "some fantasy civ" were two separate things.

Fair, but Sumeria is at least regularly used in academia, more as a geographic/cultural indication than as a "civilization", but still.
Skythia is just ridiculous, especially with those Russian (?) city names, it's a name that was given to several very distinct tribes by outsiders. It's like having a "Eskimo" civ with modern day Canadian city names!

 

[Tdot1]

Guys, Sumeria was definitely a legitimate civilisation, if at least to denote not a unified territory but a series of city-state like kingdoms.
I mean, it took a long while for most 'civs' to become unified in the way we know them now today. Also, given the premise of Civ, let's not go too nuts on historical accuracy.

 

[Liufeng]

Guys, Sumeria was definitely a legitimate civilisation, if at least to denote not a unified territory but a series of city-state like kingdoms.
I mean, it took a long while for most 'civs' to become unified in the way we know them now today. Also, given the premise of Civ, let's not go too nuts on historical accuracy.

It's not the fact that Sumeria is present in the game that we do not like. Actually, it's quite the opposite : we love the sumerian civilization (at least, I do love it). What we do not like is the fact that despite we have tons of information about them, 1 they picked Gilgamesh as the leader, even though they had leaders to pick that we actually know true historical information on them, 2/ they designed Gilgamesh after babylonian depictions of him, 3/ the Civ and leader's ability are both inspired by a babylonian epic, 4/ Gilgamesh speaks akkadian rather than sumerian, even though we know the language. Those are the problem we have (at least I do have).

 

[Tdot1]

+Liufeng. Right. That makes a lot of sense, I didn't even realise Giglamesh was a maybe fantasy leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Fair, but Sumeria is at least regularly used in academia, more as a geographic/cultural indication than as a "civilization", but still.
Skythia is just ridiculous, especially with those Russian (?) city names, it's a name that was given to several very distinct tribes by outsiders. It's like having a "Eskimo" civ with modern day Canadian city names!

(See Liufeng's 100% accurate post about Sumeria.) Scythia was definitely a legitimate civ, but the Russian city names are certainly problematic. They probably should have gone with the Parthians: same flavor, more information available. I wouldn't cry over losing Tomyris, either--in theory I like her, but she has to be one of the most annoying leaders in the game...

+Liufeng. Right. That makes a lot of sense, I didn't even realise Giglamesh was a maybe fantasy leader.

Gilgamesh (or Bilgamesh, in Sumerian) was almost certainly real: his seals have been found in Uruk. In fact, he's the first king on the Sumerian king list that we can say with certainty was real. Unfortunately, we don't really know much about the historical Bilgamesh, whereas there are other Sumerian kings we do know about because the Sumerians were meticulous record keepers (Shulgi or Ur-Nammu, for example). *sigh* We probably know more about Sumer than any other ancient civilization with the possible exception of Egypt, and Firaxis designs the civ based on another civilization's myth*. Maybe Greece should be led by Hercules and Rome by the Harlot of Babylon.

*A handful of Sumerian poems about Bilgamesh have been found, but to date there is no evidence of a Sumerian original of The Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[mandamin]

This is a really interesting discussion. Hope they add a more historically meaningful alternate leader to Sumeria in an expansion or DLC (I'm assuming we're going to see more alternate leaders than brand new civs, since they bothered separating the leader and civ abilities and already gave us the two Greeks).

 

[Zaarin]

This is a really interesting discussion. Hope they add a more historically meaningful alternate leader to Sumeria in an expansion or DLC (I'm assuming we're going to see more alternate leaders than brand new civs, since they bothered separating the leader and civ abilities and already gave us the two Greeks).

Unfortunately, the fundamental problem with Sumeria isn't even Gilgamesh: the entire civ was designed around The Epic of Gilgamesh. Sumeria as presented is essentially geared towards being an aggressive civ constantly engaged in joint wars. While warfare is certainly part of Sumerian history (as it is part of the history of any civilization), I wouldn't say that it characterizes Sumerian civilization (unlike, say, the extremely militaristic Assyrians). Instead, I would have focused on making Sumeria get bonuses to science and culture (reflecting their meticulous record-keeping) and faith (being, after all, essentially a theocracy, ruled by a priest caste and a king [lugal or ensi, depending on the era] who rules by divine right). All that being the case, a new leader might make Sumeria better, but the entire civ really needs an overhaul.

(But this is all drifting rather off-topic...)

 

[Guandao]

Voted for the Tlingit, Shawnee, and Pueblo. I took into account which cultural areas I would like to see represented in Civ6, Pacific Northwest, Eastern Woodlands, and Southwest. I know the Pueblo were rejected by the tribal council for BNW, perhaps it can be changed into a Hopi civ instead of a general Pueblo civ. Popay is off-limits. Another option would be to put a Hohokam civ instead, representing both the Tohono O'odham and Akimel O'odham.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Too many to choose from, though I really like to see some native americans from the southwest.

 

[CivLuvah]

Pueblo, Sioux & Iroquois

 

[Ribannah]

Iroquois
Apache
Seminole