Americas

[Zaarin]

I think they are Nahua isn't a problem at all. By opposite of that, we already know their language and make it easier to do.
I think the problem to do Tlaxcalla is about their leadership, they didn't have a center leader so we should to choice one of the Tlaxcalla caciques.
Or choice some ancient, semi-mythologized leader, what I also don't have problems about, but it isn't a concensus about mythologized leaders here in the forum.

We don't really need two Nahua civs, though, and since civs represent more than governments or commonwealths I think they're best considered part of the Aztec civilization. (Also, incidentally, based on how bad Monty's Nahuatl is in both Civ5 and Civ6, I'm not sure speaking Nahua would make them easier. )

 

[Evie]

Or we can also not add the Aztec-lite to the game.

 

[pineappledan]

Doesn't aztec refer to the language/ethnic group more generally, and not to the Mexica/triple alliance precisely. ie. Aren't Tlaxcallans and the Mexica both technically Aztecs?

In a common language understanding of the term, when people say 'Aztec' they usually know you're talking about the empire of the Aztecs (ie. the Triple Alliance), but you can't use that term anymore if the Tlaxcallans or some other Nahua group are in the game at the same time.

 

[Zaarin]

Doesn't aztec refer to the language/ethnic group more generally, and not to the Mexica/triple alliance precisely. ie. Aren't Tlaxcallans and the Mexica both technically Aztecs?

Correct. "Aztec" refers to the people who believe themselves to come from the mythical land of Aztlan. It is commonly used as shorthand for the Triple Alliance (Ēxcān Tlahtōlōyān), but strictly speaking it refers to all the Nahuan peoples of Central Mexico and their close cousins like the Pipil. So Tlaxcalla is already adequately represented by the Aztec civilization, even if its leader is a Triple Alliance tlatoani.

 

[Henri Christophe]

So Tlaxcalla is already adequately represented by the Aztec civilization

I remember in civ 5 to see Tlaxcala as one city of the Aztecs, what I thought was outrageous.
Tlaxcala have an unique history as an independent state in the middle of the Triple alliance empire.
I know Tlaxcaltecas should come from Aztlán, that make they also "Aztecs". But, I don't think the Aztecs represent they as well, by opposite of that.

Or we can also not add the Aztec-lite to the game.

As Evie said, maybe we can have civ 7 without the Aztecs once and have some other meso america nation instead.
The Aztecs are only famous because was the great empire at the time of Spanish conquest, but the greatest empires of meso america was the Toltecs, so they deserve the spot of meso america in Civ 7.
But I don't will mind if instead of Toltecs it come Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Totonacs, Tlaxcaltecs or Teotihuacans.
I just think should be very fun to don't have Aztecs once, meso america is so rich in civilization and there is no need to still doing the same civs over and over again.
I rly hope civ7 be very, very different from previous games.

 

[Patine]

but the greatest empires of meso america was the Toltecs, so they deserve the spot of meso america in Civ 7.

The Toltecs were no more the, "greatest empire of Mesoamerica," than Atlantis was of the Bronze Age Mediterranean World. They're both myths, with no real, hard evidence they, or their God-like kings, ever existed.

 

[Zaarin]

I remember in civ 5 to see Tlaxcala as one city of the Aztecs, what I thought was outrageous.
Tlaxcala have an unique history as an independent state in the middle of the Triple alliance empire.
I know Tlaxcaltecas should come from Aztlán, that make they also "Aztecs". But, I don't think the Aztecs represent they as well, by opposite of that.

Most civilizations could be portrayed many different ways, and no depiction is going to capture the full nuance of any civ. Civ6's portrayal of England, for instance, does not represent its flourishing culture and commercial exploits of the Early Modern period particularly well. Civ6's France does not represent France as the military superpower it was either during the High Middle Ages or during the early 19th century. Civ6's "Sumeria" straight up doesn't depict anything relevant to the civ at all, being based entirely on a much later Assyrian retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh. At any rate, Tlaxcala may not have had a tlatoani, but it engaged in the same sort of flower warfare as the Triple Alliance and is represented well enough by the Civ6 design. (On which note, I love Civ6's Aztec design. It's versatile and very fun to play, even for a non-warmonger like myself.)

 

[BuchiTaton]

I remember in civ 5 to see Tlaxcala as one city of the Aztecs, what I thought was outrageous.
Tlaxcala have an unique history as an independent state in the middle of the Triple alliance empire.
I know Tlaxcaltecas should come from Aztlán, that make they also "Aztecs". But, I don't think the Aztecs represent they as well, by opposite of that.

As Evie said, maybe we can have civ 7 without the Aztecs once and have some other meso america nation instead.
The Aztecs are only famous because was the great empire at the time of Spanish conquest, but the greatest empires of meso america was the Toltecs, so they deserve the spot of meso america in Civ 7.
But I don't will mind if instead of Toltecs it come Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Totonacs, Tlaxcaltecs or Teotihuacans.
I just think should be very fun to don't have Aztecs once, meso america is so rich in civilization and there is no need to still doing the same civs over and over again.
I rly hope civ7 be very, very different from previous games.

About Toltecs there are more archeological evidence for a directed power projection from Teotihuacan (call it empire its still rushed) than from Tula. Like was already pointed the title of Tollan "Place of Reeds" come from Teotihuacan in first place. The current research show more and more the relevance of Teotihuacan while Tula(Toltec) is evidenced as a mythologized exageration. I mean Toltec were relevant but NOT the biggest empire.

Concerning Tlaxcaltec if we use the proper and historical meaning of Aztec the Tlaxcaltecas were Aztecs since they come from Aztlán like the Mexicas, Tepanecas, Acolhuas, etc. The aztec Altépetl were city states like the greek Polis, so as it would be redundant to have each greek state as their own civ it would be also redundant to have each aztec state as a different civ.

Have both the bellicose emperor Ahuízotl of the Mexicas and the diplomatic senator Xicohténcatl of the Tlaxcaltecas in the same game as alternate leader for the Aztecs is the proper way to represent a culture that never was unified.

 

[Evie]

I could get along with dual aztec leadership representing the triple alliance and Tlaxcalla.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I love Civ6's Aztec design. It's versatile and very fun to play, even for a non-warmonger like myself.)

I also love Aztecs design in every game I played (just 5 and 6). In civ 6 they make me mind about the luxury resources just to have more Combat Bonus. (I never understand why is the usage of luxury resources in civ 6, just Aztecs have a meaningful usage for luxury resources).

And in civ 5 had my favorite ability of all, wins culture per kill, what is very useful for me who are a warmonger.

The aztec Altépetl were city states like the greek Polis, so as it would be redundant to have each greek state as their own civ it would be also redundant to have each aztec state as a different civ.

But we had a lot of Greeks leaders already. Just Greece have Athens and Sparta. We have a separate civ for Macedonia. Byzantine and Egyptian Cleopatra are also kind of Greeks.
I would like to see an overrepresentation of nahualt people as well. Mainly Toltecs and Tlaxcaltecs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

(On which note, I love Civ6's Aztec design. It's versatile and very fun to play, even for a non-warmonger like myself.)

The only thing that falls flat for me is the Tlatchli. Not the concept of it just the implementation, which is not much better than a normal arena it replaces.

 

[pineappledan]

Correct. "Aztec" refers to the people who believe themselves to come from the mythical land of Aztlan. […] strictly speaking it refers to all the Nahuan peoples of Central Mexico and their close cousins like the Pipil. So Tlaxcalla is already adequately represented by the Aztec civilization, even if its leader is a Triple Alliance tlatoani.

I wish more civs followed this kind of grouping, where the civilization was a broader ethnic/cultural identity while the leader descends into the specific of time and place…

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'd say Mexico should be in. as a different entity to Aztecs, generally led by Hispanic people (Except when Napoleon III sent Hapsburg monarch to rule over them as puppet to French Empire, too bad that puppet's regime fell apart otherwise Mexico might be part of Austrian Empire and people might be educated to speak Austrian Germans instead of ol Mexican Spanish, and his puppet is just like all of his allies... they lost their respective 'civil wars'. The Confederate States of America, and Tokugawa Shogunate and its successor Republic), and strongly catholic, at one point even created Catholic Despotism similiar to Old Spanish Empire
Speaking of Catholic Despot. Santa Ana comes to mind.
his special ability will be akin to Phillip II of Spain. though his UU is Californio (Lancers, heavy shock cavalry that caused headaches to American counterparts (which solely modelled after British Light Dragoons and very shooty) some even said that even Colt Revolvers American cavalrymen have didn't work much against them).
On the other spectrum, the liberator 'Benito Juarez'
His UU would be light skirmisher unit.
Basic civ UA would be associated with banditry maybe? but Mexicans didn't have such reputations before 1840s.

 

[Zaarin]

The only thing that falls flat for me is the Tlatchli. Not the concept of it just the implementation, which is not much better than a normal arena it replaces.

I agree. The concept is fine, but the implementation is lacking.

I wish more civs followed this kind of grouping, where the civilization was a broader ethnic/cultural identity while the leader descends into the specific of time and place…

100% this.

 

[Evie]

Macedon is also just about the only European civ that nearly everyone on this forum agrees shouldn't be there, Henri.

And Byzantium is 1000-1500 years apart from Classical Greece so yes, it's really quite different than Tlaxcala and the Triple Alliance who weren't even 100 kilometers apart (and 0 years)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree. The concept is fine, but the implementation is lacking.

I'd like it a lot better if the culture and faith yields you get stack based off of units you kill within a certain range of a tlachtli. It would make it more interesting.

Macedon is also just about the only European civ that nearly everyone on this forum agrees shouldn't be there, Henri.

Glad you clarified "nearly" everyone, because some of us like it.

 

[Zaarin]

Glad you clarified "nearly" everyone, because some of us like it.

I do appreciate that Macedon lets us have a Greekier Greece, but the civ itself is completely unnecessary. I think I would have been happier with Alexander taking Gorgo's spot.

 

[pineappledan]

Have both the bellicose emperor Ahuízotl of the Mexicas and the diplomatic senator Xicohténcatl of the Tlaxcaltecas in the same game as alternate leader for the Aztecs is the proper way to represent a culture that never was unified.

Or as city-states

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do appreciate that Macedon lets us have a Greekier Greece, but the civ itself is completely unnecessary. I think I would have been happier with Alexander taking Gorgo's spot.

I enjoyed the one-off appearance, but I do agree with the rest of what you say. I hope they do have Alexander for Civ 7 as the less Greekier Greece leader, as you said.

 

[Patine]

Macedon is also just about the only European civ that nearly everyone on this forum agrees shouldn't be there, Henri.

And Byzantium is 1000-1500 years apart from Classical Greece so yes, it's really quite different than Tlaxcala and the Triple Alliance who weren't even 100 kilometers apart (and 0 years)

And, of course, Egypt should probably not be led by led by Greco-Macedonian descendent of one of Alexander's generals and Diadochi, but an actual Egyptian Pharaoh.