Aztec Leaders

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Of course. But lets see the whole picture if we talk about recognition...
- If we talk about units for civs like Mapuche, Sioux and lets add the Comanche is because they have notorious mounted units from seminomadic to nomadic cultures from the Americas. The Sioux and Lakota in the popular imaginary are traditional users of lance, axe and bow as much as guns, just remember the image of the Lakota lance decorated with feathers and leather.
These native civs with raider units could overlap between them, but would not overlap with modern native infantry.
- Mapuche is likely to cede their slot, not only to a nomadic NA native civ, but also to exchange between Southern and Northern SA the Colonial and Native roles. So we can have Muisca+Argentina instead of Mapuche+Colombia.
These take us to the situation were we have at least Aztec, Maya, Muisca and Inca all with infantry using stone to bronze weapons. Could not a modern native infantry add variety to the region? Mainly when Aztec and Inca units are actually iconic.

If we must pick a more modern native infantry, I would go with the Iroquois. When the Europeans brought over guns they adapted to them quicker than any others.

It's not Civ without Gandhi.
I mean you might say it is, some people might agree, but you know the developers wouldn't get rid of what is basically their mascot

I honestly don't mind Gandhi either, as long as we have a multitude of other leaders for India too.
I do think he's the most expendable out of all the "mascots".

 

[Evie]

I like to conceptualize units less as a single unit made entirely of only one type of troop and more as a combat force that is distinguished by the use of a particular weapon or elite troop. Because yeah, otherwise the single-arm unit - even one as simple as the archer - make very little sense at civ scales.

A Navy Seal unit might then be understood not as a full large unit made up only of special forces, but as a more regular large combat unit that is trained to coordinate and collaborate with special forces.

In that sense, a hornet thrower could be conceptualized as a unit of skirmishers that includes hornet throwers and is trained to fight alongside them, rather than as a full large unit consisting of nothing but hornet throwers.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I like to conceptualize units less as a single unit made entirely of only one type of troop and more as a combat force that is distinguished by the use of a particular weapon or elite troop. Because yeah, otherwise the single-arm unit - even one as simple as the archer - make very little sense at civ scales.

A Navy Seal unit might then be understood not as a full large unit made up only of special forces, but as a more regular large combat unit that is trained to coordinate and collaborate with special forces.

In that sense, a hornet thrower could be conceptualized as a unit of skirmishers that includes hornet throwers and is trained to fight alongside them, rather than as a full large unit consisting of nothing but hornet throwers.

Thank you. This is what I was getting at, much more precisely stated.

Most of the Unique and some of the standard units make no sense unless they are conceptualized this way. The effect of the Old Guard Grenadiers a Pied on the battlefield was all out of proportion to their numbers, even when they never fired a shot or even came within range of an enemy. The Immortals, even at the end at Gaugamela, were the personal bodyguard of the King of Kings, and when they were struck by both the Hypaspists and the Hetairoi of Alexander in the front and flank and crumbled, the entire army crumbled with them.

For 'regular' units, note that Rangers were never more than battalion-sized units even if we extend the term to include other 'elite light' units like Morgan's Riflemen or Berdan's Sharpshooters, so they have to be assumed to include some other folks with them or they are grossly out of scale with other regular units in the game at their time. Similar arguments could be made for many of the comparisons of Industrial and later Era units: armies deployed divisions and corps of infantry and cavalry, they never deployed artillery in units larger than battalion or (rarely) brigade*. Machineguns were never fielded by anyone in separate units larger than a battalion, but were part of every infantry unit larger than a company after 1914.

The game encourages the gamer to think of the 'units' as both individuals with their individual weapons and armor and as units of purposely-left-indeterminate size. Otherwise, comparing armies between the Ancient Era, when the largest permanently- organized unit known was about 600 men (Egyptian New Kingdom) and the mid-Renaissance and later, when the standard smallest separate infantry unit was a battalion of 800 - 1000 men, would be practically impossible.

* Except in the Soviet Army in World War Two, but even there the difference in numbers is striking: 31 artillery divisions compared to 550 rifle divisions fielded by 1944, and the bulk of the over 1000 artillery regiments formed were part of larger rifle, tank or mechanized units.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If we must pick a more modern native infantry, I would go with the Iroquois. When the Europeans brought over guns they adapted to them quicker than any others.

Going for recognition and unique elements then the Haudenosaunee would have Tomahawk armed infantry, and we can be sure more of CIVs market expect tomahawk warriors for any Eastern Coast NA native civ. Also in case of have guns the Beaver Wars put them in the "Renaissance" Era as Musketmen while Cruzob are Industrial Era Riflemen.

Also about "similar" units, England Redcoat and French Garde Imperiale (for medieval and renaissance leaders) are both Line Infantry from west Europe, I mean french heavy cavalry could fit better. Or what about scotish Higlander, another industrial infantry unit that like a big part of their design was something from their period under English domination. So dont tell me people would be confused, angry and will play less a Maya civ just because the element that people care less from a science civ is not what expected.

Talking about resist the colonial powers, Nojpeten was conquered by the spaniards until 1697, the Cruzob revolt lasted all the second half of 19th century and even now the Zapatistas have defacto authority in parts of Chiapas. If there is a native american culture that represent resistance are the Maya and the Mapuche.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I like to conceptualize units less as a single unit made entirely of only one type of troop and more as a combat force that is distinguished by the use of a particular weapon or elite troop. Because yeah, otherwise the single-arm unit - even one as simple as the archer - make very little sense at civ scales.

A Navy Seal unit might then be understood not as a full large unit made up only of special forces, but as a more regular large combat unit that is trained to coordinate and collaborate with special forces.

In that sense, a hornet thrower could be conceptualized as a unit of skirmishers that includes hornet throwers and is trained to fight alongside them, rather than as a full large unit consisting of nothing but hornet throwers.

Sure. Honestly to me it doesn't matter how many people would make up the unit considering we have a single scout and ranger running around with one dog in the game.

Of course, I'm not even that attached to the idea of a hornet thrower. I think the Hul'che is just fine. I was merely pointing out that I'd rather something like that than a Cruzob rifle infantry for the Maya, personally.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Going for recognition and unique elements then the Haudenosaunee would have Tomahawk armed infantry, and we can be sure more of CIVs market expect tomahawk warriors for any Eastern Coast NA native civ.

I'd see a mix of them wielding both tomahawks and muskets in their unique unit. One with a tomahawk could be used for the finishing blow, like how the Redcoats use the bayonet.

Or what about scotish Higlander, another industrial infantry unit that like a big part of their design was something from their period under English domination. So dont tell me people would be confused, angry and will play less a Maya civ just because the element that people care less from a science civ is not what expected.

Well, I don't like the implementation of the Scottish Highlander either.
I never said people would be angry and confused if they changed it up though?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Well, I don't like the implementation of the Scottish Highlander either.
I never said people would be angry and confused if they changed it up though?

Here I was talking in general and in part from other's posts behind. My bad I didnt make it more clear.

The point (in general) is that I seriously think Maya is some of those civs that is just popular enough to always be welcomed, at the same time that their UU was never really relevant enough to be a "traditional" wanted by players. So claims that one change to this would damage the reception of the whole civ is an exageration to me, especially when at the end of the day most players care about the in-game bonus and gameplay of the unit even if those units have really popular names like Hoplites.

 

[reddishrecue]

Here I was talking in general and in part from other's posts behind. My bad I didnt make it more clear.

The point (in general) is that I seriously think Maya is some of those civs that is just popular enough to always be welcomed, at the same time that their UU was never really relevant enough to be a "traditional" wanted by players. So claims that one change to this would damage the reception of the whole civ is an exageration to me, especially when at the end of the day most players care about the in-game bonus and gameplay of the unit even if those units have really popular names like Hoplites.

Some of the originally posted last names for the Aztec suggested are familiar to me. I wonder what the Mayan suggested names would look like if there was such a post.

 

[AffineConstant]

Literally every leader is a caricature, that's the point of the series?
I do understand your point, but at the end of the day, if he's not in the game, who's going to be the goofy peaceful faith loving AI who harbours a nuclear hatred inside his heart?
You can call it corny (I do) but it's part of the series at this point, and I would be surprised if they ever got rid of it

I mean, who else really famous for pacifism is going to nuke you? Martin Luther King Jr. nuking everyone would be funny, "I have a dream... of your cities turning into craters-" But you can't put him in as a "leader" leader.

 

[Patine]

I mean, who else really famous for pacifism is going to nuke you? Martin Luther King Jr. nuking everyone would be funny, "I have a dream... of your cities turning into craters-" But you can't put him in as a "leader" leader.

There's a word they use in criticism and peer review of comedy - hackneyed.

 

[AffineConstant]

There's a word they use in criticism and peer review of comedy - hackneyed.

I am ashamed and will figure out how to make MLK nuking people funnier in the future.

 

[Patine]

I am ashamed and will figure out how to make MLK nuking people funnier in the future.

What I'm saying i, the joke or gag of a peacemonger throwing nukes, I think, has run it's course - or become hackneyed - as humour and needs to be retired from Civ.

 

[AffineConstant]

What I'm saying i, the joke or gag of a peacemonger throwing nukes, I think, has run it's course - or become hackneyed - as humour and needs to be retired from Civ.

Ah, in that case I make no apologies as good jokes are timeless.

 

[Patine]

Ah, in that case I make no apologies as good jokes are timeless.

"Good," is the key word that the subject of discussion is lacking here. It was not REALLY that funny to begin with, and certainly not timeless.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

What I'm saying i, the joke or gag of a peacemonger throwing nukes, I think, has run it's course - or become hackneyed - as humour and needs to be retired from Civ.

Wait we could do the alternative of someone like Alexander or Temujin deciding to be friends with everybody

 

[pokiehl]

Wait we could do the alternative of someone like Alexander or Temujin deciding to be friends with everybody

I think that would be even less funny.

At least the Gandhi thing has a fake origin story that can be referenced and shakes up the game (in Civ 5 at least…agendas don’t really affect behavior in Civ 6).

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I think that would be even less funny.

At least the Gandhi thing has a fake origin story that can be referenced and shakes up the game (in Civ 5 at least…agendas don’t really affect behavior in Civ 6).

oh ok