Considering:
North America
Central America
South America
Which one would you pick for a 5 civs DLC?
IMO:
How to know which ones deserve to be added more than others, outside of a map filling desire perspective?
Wari for something. Bit more closer to the dark and feudal era. Maybe Toltecs or a Toltec adjacent preSpanish
I’d prefer if the devs focused on smaller regions instead of trying to cover two continents in a single DLC. Otherwise we’ll either get biiig umbrellas, or civs so spread out from each other that they’re basically isolated and making campaigns for them is impossible without mirror fiesta because people they fought wars with are not in the game.
I’ll make a list anyways (not of 5 because I’m not a masochist)
Mesoamerica
American Southwest (Pueblo architecture)
Plains and Woodlands (Mound Builder architecture)
Potential campaigns here: (POLL) North American Civs - #25 by WindwardHail620
Tropics (ideally new architecture for them and the TupĂ, but the SouthAm set would suffice)
An article about Carib warfare: https://biblat.unam.mx/hevila/AntropologicaCaracas/2003/no99-100/4.pdf
I’m going with one you didn’t mention: the Anasazi. They can represent all the Puebloan peoples. Would be strange to have them and not their arch-enemy the Navajo, but whatever. They’d have their own Northwestern American architecture set. Yes, they’d have a campaign, centered around Xauian, a man who fought the Spanish in the Tiguex War.
The other ones I’d go with are the Mississippians for another unique set (they can generally represent all mound builders like the Anasazi represent all Puebloans), the Tlaxcalans and Purepechas for the Mesoamerican set, and the Chimu for the South American set.
Thanks for mentioning this, I completely forgot when mentioning potential campaign ideas.
Can we have one civ that don’t need to focus on Spanish? I’m so tired of Spanish enemies it’s becoming so trite!
Pre-colonial American history is extremely sparse. There isn’t much campaign potential without European contact.
Even still can’t we mix it up? Like Columbus was Italian even if he sailed for Spain
We got the Franks and Teutons in the DLC that just came out. I don’t know what more you want.
Of course there are couple of good candidates.
The Mixtec with Lord Eight Deer, his reign was from 18 of June 1097 till 10 November 1115.
Purépecha, Tariácuri (1350–1390), he is the founder of the Tzintzuntzan empire, I would recommend to listen to this podcast.
Other option is Tzitzipandáquare (1454–1479) the leader who fought two wars against the Aztecs (the Aztec emperor was Axayacatl.)
Iroquois with Hiawatha and the Great Law of Peace (pre 1451)
Chimor, Minchançaman (1450–1470) brought the empire to its maximum extent until the Inca invaded.
And there is my old Mississippian campaign idea about Cahokia from 1050 till 1190s. (control + f and search for What about the campaign!)
Also the Maya campaign would very likely not have any Europeans (but it could if you want!).
Pakal the Great would have probably the largest name recognition. Hunac Ceel is also a good option. If we want to have about Tikal and Calakmul rivalry then Jasaw Chan KĘĽawiil I could be a good option. Or YikĘĽin Chan KĘĽawiil.
And then there are a lot of Historic Battle potential, if someone want I can also post those suggestions as well.
One issue with this name is that modern Puebloans really don’t like it as it’s a Navajo term meaning “ancient enemies” (and in contrast to other common exonyms that cause controversies like Eskimo or Iroquois, the dislike seems to be quite vivid). “Puebloans” itself is also a sketchy term as they don’t really like to be lumped together (they wanted to appear in Civ5 as separate nations instead of a single Puebloan civ). @SoullyLizzer mentioned “Chacoans” as a potential name in another thread and I’d go with it, the Chaco Canyon was the cultural center of Ancestral Puebloans so the name is least likely to piss people off.
See also my earlier post in another thread where I mentioned two additional civs there (without gameplay ideas however): New North American Civilisations concept - #19 by smiki5five
Not sure which of the three core Mississippian civs (Siouans, Muskogeans, Caddoans) I’d pick to appear in the game NGL. Combining them into Mississippians is tempting, though we might miss on some civ diversity with their different warfare traditions.
First off, we’re not quite sure what it means. It could mean that, but it could also just mean “ancient others.” Either way, scholars continue to use the term, and I think it’s far more appropriate for a medieval game than the alternatives. Plus, it’s recognizable.
I’m not sure, as there seems to be no consensus online. Some have suggested that most don’t mind the term, kind of like how many natives prefer to be called American Indians, while others suggest that it is truly offensive. I think if the majority were truly vehemently opposed to it, an internet search would be rendered more conclusive. It might just be like the majority of cases, where an extremely vocal minority is opposed to a certain mostly-innocuous term, while the vast majority simply don’t care. But the devs probably would play it safe regardless.
like who?
there is no way to separate fact and fiction in a hiawatha campaign.
Chimu, Toltecs if they are actually real… maybe the North American Thule vs Viking incursions?
It kills me to say it, every time, but I’d just leave out Northern North America entirely if we only get five. The issue isn’t that they aren’t empires- they surely are. The issue is, they’d not be connected to anyone else. Uh- in other terms, right, they would have no contact if we put in, say, Iroquois, and then… something like Purepechas. And then Chimu to?
Valid though they are, I’d still rather have more meat on the bone, more connection. The “Mississippian” civ doesn’t exist, it could easily be like… six Mississippian civs (Oneota, Muscogeans, Natchez, Caddoans, Hoga (Cahokians), Shawano (Not Shawnee, but the Fort Ancient culture that reigned before them)… and you’d even have space for the southeastern non-Muscogee groups like Cherokee, Peedee (Carolina Sioux et al), or Timucua/Calusa)
It’s Too much to represent. Add an umbrella, and we just add in a new Slavs or Indians or Dravidians, you see?
So, if I had to add five civs.. meat on the bone? It’d be Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Purepechas, Chimu, and Aymara. Major Civiliations from Mesoamerica and the Andes who give us a more or less firm line of contact from Mexico to Peru,
If I were choosing from this list, I’d be gunning for meso and south American civs, and I’d be doing so in a manner that allows all the American civs to have reasonable contact, history, and conflict with one another to justify inclusion. Out of the list you presented, I would choose:
Although, I will say, I would like to see the Arawak vs Caribs.
Not sure why the Sioux (not their native name by the way) always get mentioned here. Most people will be thinking of their amazing horsemanship and what not, and that is really during the AOEIII timeline - before the introduction to the horse, they’re not particularly exciting as a civ.
I’d like to see the Anasazi (Pueblos) - they’d have amazing archiecture with their city states and apartment block-style buildings.
I’m not exactly sure why the Oceti Sakowin show up either. They’re literally essentially one tiny tribal group that’s part of a much larger cultural association, and it’s debatable whether they’re even split from other Northwestern Siouans at that point (The other members of the Oneota Culture, the Ho-chunk and Iowa). They numbered maybe like… 1,000 people. I could see them maybe getting a ““Historical Battle”” with a much larger Oneota civ, but if Oneota gets in then its campaign has to be about Red Horn (Who lived some time around 900) and his adventures almost necessarily.