Thats more because the US has a certain reputation for the way that it sees itself
…I’m not so sure about them. Yeah, we have late medieval civs, but the start of the Iroquois Confederation (or Haudenosaunee for those who dislike the colloquial term) only happens around either 1100 or 1400, and we barely have (reliable) records of the time before that. To me, it’s kind of shaky for a foundation, but either start is valid. Like I’ve said before though, I’m a bit leery on semi-mythological basing for civs. All that said, I’ve seen civ concepts on them before on here, and I will submit that either start is safe, which imo makes the civ safe.
But… I do kind if feel similar to how I feel the Dutch are in relation to the games; their better representation imo happens during the scope of AoE3, not 2. Not that I’m perfectly fine with how they’re depicted there, but that their civ actually influenced things regionally there. IMO if they were to depict any NA tribes, I’d rather go with the Inuits (Prominent in the North Canadian region, interacted with the Vikings during game scope), the Pueblo/Hisatsinom (Prominent in the Southwest region) , and Mississippians (Based on Cahokia, most prominent NA Pre-Columbian culture, stretched from Illinois to the Deep South).