Which Native american civilization would work best in Civ V?

[Louis XXIV]

^ Yeah, the Roman list has had a typo in it for several games now. The city of Arriminium is Arpiminium in the game. It bugs me because it's the city of Rimini, which is where my ancestors were from before they came to America (and I still have cousins there today).

I'd say they found quite a clever way around the "no cities" with the Huns, I'd be okay if they'd just copy that system (rather than say invent names).

I personally find it an awkward system that would be made more awkward if they have to do it twice. I haven't dug into the files to find out if it's possible to add a Hun city list without making my game a mod, but I still might do it if possible.

I don't see that as big as a problem as say no leader nor language to speak. (But you point out those are less of a problem for Mississippian. Btw. how connected/same are they with Cahokia?)

Tuskaloosa is of the Mound Building culture, but he wasn't from Cahokia. Here's a map of various Kingdoms encountered by DeSoto. He was also from essentially the decline of the Empire. It would be like picking Julius Nepos as opposed to Julius Caesar as leader of Rome. In other words, awkward but technically accurate. Previous civ games had Montezuma II. I'd argue he's technically slightly better since at least the Mississippians drove off the Spanish.

As for language, the Creek and Choctaw are believed to be the direct descendants of Tuskaloosa's people, but the Mississippians were a culture more than a language group, best I can tell. Here's a map of Native American language groups. I can't really say circa when, but it gives an idea of what it was like at the time of European settlement. Also, Here's a map of Mound Builder settlements, which gives an idea of where they overlap with language groups. Certainly many Native American groups claimed to be descendants of the Mississippians (including the Cherokee and Creek, which had no language ties). It's hard to tell if they actually were, though. After all, the mounds were impressive. I'd want to be related to them too.

 

[Tsuchinoko]

Just don't assume Firaxis is going to put a lot of work into research of civ names They have always copied the city lists for France, China, etc. from the last game which mean they are still the bad/very quickly/on a tight budget done lists of Civilization 1 in 1991!

(Or I might be wrong on the city lists, I've changed them quite some time ago, still they won't do a lot of research )

I think that the city lists were updated from Civ 3 to Civ 4 (I'm not sure about what happened with the earlier iterations of the series). However, for Civ 5, all the civs released prior to Korea simply had their city lists copied over from Civ 4 (in some cases with mistakes - e.g. the Mongolian city 'Hsia' should probably be 'Ning-Hsia'). Since then though they have been using new city lists, even for the civs that were in Civ 4 (Ethiopia is quite a good/obvious example of this, if you want to check it out).

 

[Biologist]

If a new Native American civ were going to be added, I would like to see one that capitalizes on either ice/snow or marsh. Currently only two civs, Denmark and Holland/Netherlands respectively, have special utility for those tile types.

Inuits would, I think, be the obvious choice for an ice/snow civ. I imagine a UA where all units gain +1 movement on snow, tundra and ice. Ice and snow tiles would provide, say, +2 food +1 gold. I don't know a lot about Inuit culture or history, but ideas for unique buildings/units/improvements shouldn't be too hard. Lack of a widely recognized leader may be a problem, but could probably be overcome.

The Seminoles might make a good civ for utilizing marshes, lakes, and floodplains. They have well-known leaders (e.g. Osceola) and a relatively well-known culture. One potential problem is that both marshes and lakes are rather rare.

Since there are already 4 Native American/Precolumbian civs (Iroquois, Aztec, Inca, Maya) I'm not certain that Firaxis will want to add another. The possiblities are interesting though.

 

[ixias]

I really like that HeraldtheGreat suggested the Haidas! They've always interested me and I'd love to see them added. I'd think they would function like a cross between Denmark and the Iroquois since they utilized their surrounding very well, including the water.

I think they would definitely work, despite not being well known by name. The Northwest Native Americans were actually pretty advanced and can be represented in a combined fashion (similar to how they did it with the Iroquois). There's a ton you could do with them: no worker maintenance (they used slaves pretty extensively); bonuses towards certain resources (they utilized all the resources very well, allowing them to focus on cultural development); strong ranged naval unit, probably replacing the galleass (they had study canoes and used weights to decimate any ships that came near them); they had giant celebrations when new people came to the villages, so maybe some bonus to Embasies or DOFs; and of course, the Totem Pole, giving extra culture and maybe some faith?

While they're not a giant influence on the world, they did influence a lot of the Northwestern US and Canada. They held their own, to an extent, against the advanced European invaders. The Totem Pole is one of the most recognizable Native American structures, aside from the teepee probably, so people generally have some knowledge of them. Just my 2 cents

 

[Louis XXIV]

I like the Haida too, it's just hard to distinguish them from Denmark. The idea I thought of was a cross between Denmark, the Netherlands, and Polynesia, but I'm not sure the whole is greater than the parts.

 

[seasnake]

Probably the Sioux are the most likely. Easier to find Sioux speakers, well known leaders, enduring culture today, very different from Iroquois (plains vs. forest).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

There are parts of the Haida that set them apart. The Totem Poles could be a super monument. And their unique way of sinking ships speaks to a naval UU. Their tendency to raid coastal settlements and take slaves ultimately leans too close to Denmark, the Songhai, or the Aztec depending on how you spin them.

 

[headcase]

There are parts of the Haida that set them apart. The Totem Poles could be a super monument. And their unique way of sinking ships speaks to a naval UU. Their tendency to raid coastal settlements and take slaves ultimately leans too close to Denmark, the Songhai, or the Aztec depending on how you spin them.

The totem pole and naval UU both sound interesting (though I don't know enough about the Haida to make an informed opinion).

As for the UA, the way they are described suggests it may work to give them workers for conquest. Say, a 50% chance of a free worker when dispersing a camp, and a guaranteed free worker when conquering a city (on top of any worker that may be in the city).

Since they may end up with too many workers under such a UA, one way to let them capitalize on this would be the ability to gift workers to city states, if it makes any sense for the Haida to have such an ability.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Good idea, although 50% for a barb camp is a bit high. Maybe 25%.

 

[awesome]

as much as i think everyone's right that an inuit civilization would be awesome, complete with igloos and maybe even kayaks, the only leader famous enough is alive right now. for this reason, i wouldn't expect the inuits to be included for about another 30-40 years.

 

[Woodszilla]

Me too

Unique Ability :

Travelers : +1 earned from trapping ressources.

Unique building :

Igloo : +2 and +25% growth if city is near a toundra or ice tile. Replace the granary.

Unique unit :

Polar bear killer : +1 move on ice/toundra tiles. +10% flanking bonus. Replace the spearman.

I think this is a great idea. But +1 for trapping resources doesn't seem strong enough for a UA, maybe +1 from trapping and +1 & +1 from whales. Or bonuses for building city next to snow, ice or tundra.

Would only make city spots with a small amount of ice or tundra and a lot of sea resources worth it though. Maybe instead of +25% growth on the UB, something like +1 +1 from snow tiles, to make them actually worth something and +1 from whales.

Or they could give them a unique improvement that can only be built on snow tiles, or even snow coastal tiles (if the game even recognizes such a thing)


Anyway, I really like the idea of a civ that would actually be viable on snow. They could go in a lot of directions with that. Would definitely add some flavor to the game.

 

[ork75]

I just read up on the Haida and I think that they would fit right in as a naval/raiding oriented civ. I think that they should get some sort of bonus to fishing boats or coastal combat. Maybe all naval units have prize ships and double movement in coastal waters?

For a South American civ, the Chachapoyas are certainly interesting. Maybe for a UA they get +10 defense for cities located next to mountains (look up Kuelap)?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

. Maybe all naval units have prize ships

That's the Ottomans' UA already.

 

[ork75]

No, not all the time - only in coast tiles. The point is that they are the kings of coastal naval combat, with double movement and prize ships in those waters only.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

As much as I think we need more american civ's, I can't think of any other major players to include.

The inuit would certainly fill a void both geographically, and gameplay wise, but I'm not so sure they classify as a civiziliation. I feel the same way about the huns. If they could group the inuits in with some other tribes in that area, or do the same with some more of the groups we stereotype as "native americans", like they did with polynesia...

 

[Bechhold]

Cherokee as they almost, almost became a actual self sustaining nation. Reforms and actual government etc.

 

[awesome]

let's hope this doesn't turn into the old what is/isn't a civilization argument.
as for the grouping thing, you can always just group inuits into eskimos, since that's what most people do anyway, but i still think inuits would be better because they actually have a famous leader, even though he's (as i said before) alive right now.
but yeah, whenever the inuit are included in a game (since i already said i wouldn't expect them for another few decades), they'll probably be kind of like polynesia is in this game, in that it'll be a niche civilization.

 

[headcase]

A try at the Inuits:
UA: Dog-sledding - Snow tiles act as roads (regardless of borders), and yield +1 . Snow tiles not on hills yield an additional +2 .
UB: Igloo (replaces granary) - +1 on snow and tundra tiles, +1 on camps and fishing boats. (Don't get +2 in city, and possibly increased maintenance if still OP).
UU: Kayak (replaces trireme) - Unlocked at pottery instead of sailing, cheaper than a trireme, goes through ice.

I think the trick would be to place cities along the tundra near the snow for free roads, while trying to get workable grasslands for early growth, buying the tiles if needed. The intended grand strategy is gold oriented.

Inuits in any form would be good for variety, though I'm pulling for snow as roads. Two native civs would be great but less likely... unless there's a scenario.

 

[mitsho]

So a 1 3 tile with a granary, but that doesn't get better over the game? Sounds very weak. Especially as you give additional yield to camps (tundra forest) and fishing boats (sea) as well. A civ should focus on one environment, not on all Can you build improvements on tundra? If so, better, but still very limiting as a playstyle. And wouldn't it feel wrong to build farms in the snow?

I wouldn't make snow tiles worthwhile, that sounds like an overkill. Tundra itself is a terrain that can get a boost, so buff that for the Inuit and keep the snow movement and roads, as those sound interesting.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Cherokee as they almost, almost became a actual self sustaining nation. Reforms and actual government etc.

let's hope this doesn't turn into the old what is/isn't a civilization argument.
as for the grouping thing, you can always just group inuits into eskimos, since that's what most people do anyway, but i still think inuits would be better because they actually have a famous leader, even though he's (as i said before) alive right now.
but yeah, whenever the inuit are included in a game (since i already said i wouldn't expect them for another few decades), they'll probably be kind of like polynesia is in this game, in that it'll be a niche civilization.

Well, shows how much I know about non meso and southern american cultures: the Mississippian culture as a group could easily work as a civ.

So could the inuit if it were grouped with the first nation and metis. Such a grouping would basically be "Native Canadians".

I'm still generalizing, which I loath to do, so if there is a distinction that should be made that really means they shouldn't be grouped other than the obvious fact that they aren't the same, let me know.