What Native American Civs would you like to see the most in Civ VII?

  • Inuit

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Tlingit

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Haida

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Cree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blackfoot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Haudenosaunee (Iroquois)

    Votes: 13 61.9%
  • Sioux / Lakota

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Comanche

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Powhatan

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • Shawnee

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Cherokee

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Chickasaw

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Muscogee (Creek)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Choctaw

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Natchez

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Chumash

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tongva

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Navajo

    Votes: 4 19.0%
  • Apache

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pueblo

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Taino

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Mixtec

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Zapotec

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Muisca

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • Chimor

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Aymara

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tupi

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Guarani

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Mapuche

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
TBH this is one of the reasons I'd prefer the Nez Perce, Arapaho, or even Lakota over the Comanche because, while Civ5's civ was certainly called the Shoshone and had a Shoshone leader...it seemed like a stealth representation of the Comanche, down to having a Comanche UU. (Or at the very least a hybrid Shoshone/Comanche civ. The Pathfinder was no doubt intended to be a nod to Sacagawea, who was Shoshone, and the extra territory could have been a nod to the sprawling Shoshone or to Comancheria. I always thought that was a neat ability, and I'm glad Russia picked it up in Civ6.)

Just to point out, only the Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) have lived in the same place, according to their own oral tradition, for around 11,000 years. The Hinono'eino (Arapaho) were originally agricultural maize growers living in the modern Great Lakes region and Manitoba, driven west onto the plains in the 18th century by the Ojibwe, while of course the Lakota (Thithunwan) were only one of the Souian "Seven Council Fires" (Ochethi Sakowin) that were living in the upper Mississippi region and around Lake Superior by the 16th century, and may have earlier lived along the lower Mississippi and Ohio river valleys.

So, like the Comanche, the Lakota and Arapaho technically would start the game as entirely different groups in entirely different locations from their 'historical' placement and cultural attributes.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
9,906
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
I'll note that most early eighteenth century accounts (including accounts of Spanish attempts to attack the Comanche homeland in the period, and French accounts as well) still place the core of the Comanche area in Colorado (albeit raiding into northern New Mexico - not very hard!) at that time, as opposed to the Comanche's own later heartland in northern Texas and western New Mexico. They were also mostly associated with other Great Basin cultures (such as the Ute) rather than any southwestern culture (except as an enemy).

Even when they did move their heartland into TX/NM, they were very much based in the Llano Estacado and adjacent parts of the High Plains

The Comanche certainly had southwestern connections, but treating them as Southwestern more than Plains (or more accurately Great Basin-turned-Plains, much as the Dakota/Lakota and Arapaho were Woodlands-turned-plains) just doesn't seem like a very strong position to me. The Comanche also certainly appear to view themselves as a Plains tribe foremost.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,090
Location
Texas
TBH this is one of the reasons I'd prefer the Nez Perce, Arapaho, or even Lakota over the Comanche because, while Civ5's civ was certainly called the Shoshone and had a Shoshone leader...it seemed like a stealth representation of the Comanche, down to having a Comanche UU. (Or at the very least a hybrid Shoshone/Comanche civ. The Pathfinder was no doubt intended to be a nod to Sacagawea, who was Shoshone, and the extra territory could have been a nod to the sprawling Shoshone or to Comancheria. I always thought that was a neat ability, and I'm glad Russia picked it up in Civ6.)
I mean that's not necessarily a problem with me, considering you could also make that argument with Polynesia having a Maori Warrior in Civ 5. :p
Comanche are still at the bottom of my wish list. As I said if we have to have a horse raider nomadic tribe, I'd pick the Comanche. Though I also think the Apache would work better being more semi-nomadic. However there are plenty other (non nomadic) tribes who I would love to see first before these two, like the Apache's close relatives the Navajo.

So, like the Comanche, the Lakota and Arapaho technically would start the game as entirely different groups in entirely different locations from their 'historical' placement and cultural attributes.
Not to mention the Navajo would probably start on a TSL map in eastern Alaska/Northwestern Canada, if that were the case.

The Comanche certainly had southwestern connections, but treating them as Southwestern more than Plains (or more accurately Great Basin-turned-Plains, much as the Dakota/Lakota and Arapaho were Woodlands-turned-plains) just doesn't seem like a very strong position to me. The Comanche also certainly appear to view themselves as a Plains tribe foremost.
I agree. I think the Apache with Geronimo would be a better representation of a Southwestern tribe that eventually some adopted more of a Plains lifestyle.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,090
Location
Texas
Hopi/Pueblo.
Unfortunately I that's unlikely to happen considering they tried to get the Pueblo in Civ 5, at least the Tewa ones as depictions of using their language would have caused issues. The Hopi might be different regarding these issues, but I don't know?
 

Xandinho

Deity
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,153
Location
Brazil
I voted for:
Haudenosaunee: trade, diplomacy, culture...
Taino: island civ focused on religion.
Muisca: ore trade, culture and war.

Out of curiosity, other day I dreamed that Apache was being included to the game. It was pretty random, I know. :p
 

Queen Theophania

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
28
Unfortunately I that's unlikely to happen considering they tried to get the Pueblo in Civ 5, at least the Tewa ones as depictions of using their language would have caused issues. The Hopi might be different regarding these issues, but I don't know?

It would have been really cool if something could have been done to get the Pueblo in the game. I don't remember where I heard this but maybe the main problem the pueblo had with the proposal was the fact that this civilization representing their ancestors was being sold as a product?
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Just to point out, only the Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) have lived in the same place, according to their own oral tradition, for around 11,000 years. The Hinono'eino (Arapaho) were originally agricultural maize growers living in the modern Great Lakes region and Manitoba, driven west onto the plains in the 18th century by the Ojibwe, while of course the Lakota (Thithunwan) were only one of the Souian "Seven Council Fires" (Ochethi Sakowin) that were living in the upper Mississippi region and around Lake Superior by the 16th century, and may have earlier lived along the lower Mississippi and Ohio river valleys.

So, like the Comanche, the Lakota and Arapaho technically would start the game as entirely different groups in entirely different locations from their 'historical' placement and cultural attributes.
While all of this is true, since Civ aims to capture civs "at a moment in time," so to speak, I don't think it's any more necessary to assume the Arapaho and Lakota start in the Great Lakes than it is for the English to start in southern Russia/Ukraine/Kazakhstan, which is where at least their linguistic forebears were at the game's start date.

I mean that's not necessarily a problem with me, considering you could also make that argument with Polynesia having a Maori Warrior in Civ 5. :p
Kind of a different situation since Polynesia was like a less egregious version of Civ4's "Native Americans." :p

Unfortunately I that's unlikely to happen considering they tried to get the Pueblo in Civ 5, at least the Tewa ones as depictions of using their language would have caused issues. The Hopi might be different regarding these issues, but I don't know?
The Tewa can only speak for the Tewa, and there are many "Puebloan" people who are lumped together because they live nearby and have certain cultural similarities--but they're not all related and all have their own customs, traditions, and beliefs. The Hopi are related to both the Aztec and the Shoshone and might be more willing to appear. The Zuni might also be more approachable. It's equally possible Firaxis will decide that, having been rebuffed once, they won't try again...

Haudenosaunee: trade, diplomacy, culture...
I'd make it war, trade, diplomacy myself. The Haudenosaunee didn't have much to speak of in the way of material culture except for wampum and, later, silversmithing, both of which could adequately be represented by trade bonuses; on the other hand, what really makes the Haudenosaunee stand out, once they acquired gunpowder and firearms from the Dutch, is that they were the absolute terror of every indigenous community from Newfoundland to the Carolinas and from the Atlantic coast to the Great Lakes.

It would have been really cool if something could have been done to get the Pueblo in the game. I don't remember where I heard this but maybe the main problem the pueblo had with the proposal was the fact that this civilization representing their ancestors was being sold as a product?
They objected to the use of their language, which they considered sacred.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,090
Location
Texas
Kind of a different situation since Polynesia was like a less egregious version of Civ4's "Native Americans." :p
To be fair isn't every blob civ a less egregious version of the Native Americans from Civ 4? :p

The Tewa can only speak for the Tewa, and there are many "Puebloan" people who are lumped together because they live nearby and have certain cultural similarities--but they're not all related and all have their own customs, traditions, and beliefs. The Hopi are related to both the Aztec and the Shoshone and might be more willing to appear. The Zuni might also be more approachable. It's equally possible Firaxis will decide that, having been rebuffed once, they won't try again...
True, though I believe that Tewa is the most widespread of the Pueblo people, and they are the primary ones that people think of when they hear of the Pueblo.
But after what happened with Civ 5, I'd be surprised if Firaxis decided to even pursue the Hopi or Zuni like you said.

I'd make it war, trade, diplomacy myself. The Haudenosaunee didn't have much to speak of in the way of material culture except for wampum and, later, silversmithing, both of which could adequately be represented by trade bonuses; on the other hand, what really makes the Haudenosaunee stand out, once they acquired gunpowder and firearms from the Dutch, is that they were the absolute terror of every indigenous community from Newfoundland to the Carolinas and from the Atlantic coast to the Great Lakes.
Yes. I've proposed before having an ability where they end up getting copies of all the strategic resources from their friends/allies, while they give each of their allies a copy of each of their luxury resources.
And of course a Musketman UU replacement to show how gunpowder and firearms changed their warfare.
Though I'd give one of the models a tomahawk, as well, to give the finishing blow considering it be considered a melee unit. :mischief:
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
o be fair isn't every blob civ a less egregious version of the Native Americans from Civ 4? :p
Yes. :p

True, though I believe that Tewa is the most widespread of the Pueblo people, and they are the primary ones that people think of when they hear of the Pueblo.
But after what happened with Civ 5, I'd be surprised if Firaxis decided to even pursue the Hopi or Zuni like you said.
TBH thanks to their pop culture presence and their distinctive hairstyles, I'd expect the Hopi would be most people's first thought with the Pueblo. Or the Navajo because no one said Americans' general knowledge about Native Americans is accurate. :p

Though I'd give one of the models a tomahawk, as well, to give the finishing blow considering it be considered a melee unit. :mischief:
That works, too, since Haudenosaunee warriors would have still carried tomahawks as sidearms in the same way their European counterparts used bayonets.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,090
Location
Texas
I also considered Civ 5 Celts to be on par, but at least Scotland, Wales, and Ireland were all united at one time thanks to England, which is what they were trying to go for in that game. :lol:

TBH thanks to their pop culture presence and their distinctive hairstyles, I'd expect the Hopi would be most people's first thought with the Pueblo. Or the Navajo because no one said Americans' general knowledge about Native Americans is accurate. :p
To be honest I was unaware for the longest time that the Hopi were considered a Pueblo people. I feel like they are generally distinct enough that the general public, or even people with at least a little knowledge of Native Americans, considers them different enough from the other Pueblo people. Maybe it's because of their language being in the Uto-Aztecan group?
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
I also considered Civ 5 Celts to be on par, but at least Scotland, Wales, and Ireland were all united at one time thanks to England, which is what they were trying to go for in that game. :lol:
...I think that makes it worse. Serious "Victoria leads India" vibes. :shifty: :p

To be honest I was unaware for the longest time that the Hopi were considered a Pueblo people. I feel like they are generally distinct enough that the general public, or even people with at least a little knowledge of Native Americans, considers them different enough from the other Pueblo people. Maybe it's because of their language being in the Uto-Aztecan group?
Zuni is an isolate. Hopi is Uto-Aztecan. Most Puebloans speak one of a handful of Keresan or Kiowa-Tanoan languages--with the amusing aside that the most famous Kiowa-Tanoan language, Kiowa, is not spoken by a Puebloan people. General point being, the Puebloans are not a single people or even a single related group of people, though the Hopi and Zuni are certainly the outliers in not being Keresan or Kiowa-Tanoan--which is also why I suggested they might be more approachable. (Also, "the general public" and "people with at least a little knowledge of Native Americans" are two very different groups. The general public probably isn't familiar with the Puebloans at all, though they might be familiar with things like kachina dolls and Hopi squash blossom hairstyles, by image if not by name.)
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
9,906
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Frankly, I consider "Natvie American" to be on a level none of the otjer blobs ever reached. The equivalent to the Celts would have been something like "Great Plain Natives" or maybe "Algonquians" - large cultural or linguistic groupings covering huge chunk of North America. Not "every single indigenous population north of Mexico lumped together despite the complete absence of links.

Native American is on its own level, comparable to having an "Europeans" civilization led by Charlemagne, with a Colosseum unique building and a Hoplite unique unit.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Frankly, I consider "Natvie American" to be on a level none of the otjer blobs ever reached. The equivalent to the Celts would have been something like "Great Plain Natives" or maybe "Algonquians" - large cultural or linguistic groupings covering huge chunk of North America. Not "every single indigenous population north of Mexico lumped together despite the complete absence of links.

Native American is on its own level, comparable to having an "Europeans" civilization led by Charlemagne, with a Colosseum unique building and a Hoplite unique unit.
I think he meant that the Celts were on par with the Polynesians, which is a fair comparison (a widely distributed group of separate but related cultures speaking related languages--albeit the temporal displacement of Civ5's Celts was quite...interesting); there's no question that "Native Americans" was a low point for the franchise.
 

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
General point being, the Puebloans are not a single people or even a single related group of people
Agree, "Pueblo Civ" would be also an umbrella anyway, maybe one of the worse ones.
The modern Pueblo peoples kind of accepted themselves this term since they have the APCG, but is kind of ironic that the main reason for that are the spanish occupation and the american administration. Even the more obvious Pueblo leaders would be related to revolts against the spaniards.

Anyway the historical Pueblo were a shadow of the archeological ones, on a deteriorated environment and harassed by the early Navajo-Apache. They also seem to be less expansive and stratified than the Mississippian Chieftains.

I think even with the permission of the counciels "Pueblo" are better material for a City State just pick one of their Ancient Sites, it could be a nice one with a related wonder/infrastructure.

By the way many more native cultures can make it on the game as "non playable civs" if in CIV7 they have more flavor like unique techs/civics, units, visuals, etc.
 

Queen Theophania

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
28
Agree, "Pueblo Civ" would be also an umbrella anyway, maybe one of the worse ones.
The modern Pueblo peoples kind of accepted themselves this term since they have the APCG, but is kind of ironic that the main reason for that are the spanish occupation and the american administration. Even the more obvious Pueblo leaders would be related to revolts against the spaniards.

Anyway the historical Pueblo were a shadow of the archeological ones, on a deteriorated environment and harassed by the early Navajo-Apache. They also seem to be less expansive and stratified than the Mississippian Chieftains.

I think even with the permission of the counciels "Pueblo" are better material for a City State just pick one of their Ancient Sites, it could be a nice one with a related wonder/infrastructure.

By the way many more native cultures can make it on the game as "non playable civs" if in CIV7 they have more flavor like unique techs/civics, units, visuals, etc.

I agree with what you're saying but I think that when most people say "pueblo" they are referring to the Ancient Puebloans or "Anasazi", who could be included as a civ quite easily with what we know of them. The problem comes with what to name them, as Ancient Pueblo would be accurate but unwieldy, Anasazi would be offensive and just Pueblo would be too blobby and imprecise.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
I agree with what you're saying but I think that when most people say "pueblo" they are referring to the Ancient Puebloans or "Anasazi", who could be included as a civ quite easily with what we know of them. The problem comes with what to name them, as Ancient Pueblo would be accurate but unwieldy, Anasazi would be offensive and just Pueblo would be too blobby and imprecise.
No leaders. No language. No city names. An Ancestral Puebloan/Anasazi/Mogollon/Hohokam civ would not be in any way viable. As @BuchiTaton suggests, they'd make an excellent "Chaco Canyon" or "Mesa Verde" city-state, comparable to La Venta. The Mississippians are in a slightly different boat. We have both leaders and languages (the Mississippian heartland was Muskogean), but the leaders we have names for are from the period when the Mississippians were on sharp decline (probably independent from the arrival of the Spanish, though de Soto certainly didn't help). The glory days of the Mississippians was long since past.

I think the handling of Cahokia in Civ6 was really well done, and I think a Mesa Verde/Chaco Canyon city-state that granted a Cliff Dwelling unique improvement would also work well. The Mississippians could also be represented by one of their successor confederacies, ideally (IMO) the Choctaw, but obviously such a successor would be lacking the characteristic mound sites (unless we went with Natchez, which...could work but would be less than ideal). Choctaw could coexist with a Cahokia city-state TBH.
 

Queen Theophania

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
28
No leaders. No language. No city names. An Ancestral Puebloan/Anasazi/Mogollon/Hohokam civ would not be in any way viable. As @BuchiTaton suggests, they'd make an excellent "Chaco Canyon" or "Mesa Verde" city-state, comparable to La Venta. The Mississippians are in a slightly different boat. We have both leaders and languages (the Mississippian heartland was Muskogean), but the leaders we have names for are from the period when the Mississippians were on sharp decline (probably independent from the arrival of the Spanish, though de Soto certainly didn't help). The glory days of the Mississippians was long since past.

I think the handling of Cahokia in Civ6 was really well done, and I think a Mesa Verde/Chaco Canyon city-state that granted a Cliff Dwelling unique improvement would also work well. The Mississippians could also be represented by one of their successor confederacies, ideally (IMO) the Choctaw, but obviously such a successor would be lacking the characteristic mound sites (unless we went with Natchez, which...could work but would be less than ideal). Choctaw could coexist with a Cahokia city-state TBH.

Just remembered Po'pay wasn't an Ancient Puebloan ._. (though the city names thing shouldn't be a problem since some civs like the Mayans have city names taken from the spanish names given to their ruins, which could work for the Pueblo too), also the language thing would be a total mess like how it was for civ 5 IF we knew what language they spoke.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
though the city names thing shouldn't be a problem since some civs like the Mayans have city names taken from the spanish names given to their ruins, which could work for the Pueblo too
TBH that was disappointing as in most cases Mayan names are known for the sites, albeit not always contemporary with Lady Six Sky. I spent a considerable portion of my only Maya game hunting down the appropriate names for my cities. :crazyeye:
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,090
Location
Texas
I think he meant that the Celts were on par with the Polynesians, which is a fair comparison (a widely distributed group of separate but related cultures speaking related languages--albeit the temporal displacement of Civ5's Celts was quite...interesting); there's no question that "Native Americans" was a low point for the franchise.
Well no I did mean probably on par with the Civ 4 Native Americans. But I said specifically only the Civ 5 Celts as the other iterations are less egregious being mostly based around Gaul. That being said I find Polynesia to be the least offensive of the blobs considering it appears to be ony a one time thing, and it at least introduced us to a different culture in the game.
Unlike the Native Americans who we got after we already had both the Sioux and the Iroquois introduced in the franchise as playable civs. :nono:


I think even with the permission of the counciels "Pueblo" are better material for a City State just pick one of their Ancient Sites, it could be a nice one with a related wonder/infrastructure.
I think that would be the best way to implement them into the game, as either a city-state with a unique improvement, or a world wonder.
 
Top Bottom