Aztec - Montezuma I Thread

[Amrunril]

Returning to the subject of the video's actual content, I like the synergy between the Eagle Warrior and the civ UA (whether the UA does much on its own will depend on how the costs of districts and workers compare and on whether districts are primarily limited by production or population). On the other hand, I'm not happy with the expansionist direction of the leader UA. An empire with lots of territory will have more amenities for the combat boost (it doesn't sound like amenities obtained through trade count), and while we don't know exactly what applying amenities to additional cities means, it's clearly a boost to civs with lots of cities. The Aztecs would be a great choice for a non-expansionistic warmonger civ, fighting wars not for territory but for tribute and slave labor, but Montezuma's UA runs directly contrary to this possibility.

 

[zwei833]

Why is it that the Aztec unique unit is still an early unit? Shouldn't it be a mid-game unit? Because the Aztec Empire lasted from 1325 to 1521, they were not Mayans or Olmecs to have anything before medieval times.

Not every civilization get into medieval era in the same time. In 14-16 century, while the european countries are in medieval era, the technology of Aztec is still remain in Ancient era.

 

[Talcove]

Glad to see the return of Montezuma's feathers LOL

 

[darkace77450]

I was actually expecting a unique Aquaduct-district building or something after the opening sentence. Aw, well...

I was too. I thought for sure they'd get Floating Gardens as a UB to place in the Water District.

 

[AriochIV]

Because of their powerful early unit and their combat bonuses from luxuries, the Aztecs might be a good candidate for a culture-focused offensive civilization, in which you can rely for a time on civics unlocks and policy bonuses to boost your Eagle Warriors while you go on an early rampage, rather than relying on techs to give you classical and even medieval units.

 

[Nick31]

As we know from BNW, Unique advantages that help "developing" in the early phases are universally good. Certainly some work better than others, an some work better in certain situations, but if the Aztecs get tough warriors (in a new system that makes melee stronger vs. range than previously) and the ability to crash build a few districts in the capital, that is already a very nice advantage.

This amenities bonus to combat + the unique building also seems to allow for all kinds of warfare timing, provided that on the hardest difficulties you aren't shoehorned into when you can attack by techs/timing, et al.

The builder rush district seems extremely strong, as does their unique district. Whether you can enslave seriously, or just a few things here and there, probably depends on other variables.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Also I'd suggest it's just as likely that european depictions of Natives actually darkened their skin tones as much as it's possible they lightened them.

This is colonial-to-imperial era Europe we're talking about - fostering an "us vs them" outlook was practically the ideology of the age. Dark skinned tribal peoples were regularly depicted as and believed to be inferior. It's entirely possible the imagination of the "american" in the minds of the average european manifested itself as Dark skinned, regardless of how dark they actually were.

Agreed! Colourism goes both ways.

That would be terrible and we would end up with an India in civ situation. Lazaro Cardenas leading Eagle warriors to defend Tijuana? please no.

The Aztecs are the most recognizable of the mesoamerican civilizations along with the Mayans, they are not interchangeable with the rest of Mexican history just because we happen to inhabit the same territory.

If anything we could have more mesoamerican civs represented in game as CS, pre-hispanic Mexico is filled with City States after all.

PS: I'd love to see Mexico as its own civ tho, but that would probably be a job for modders.

But tbh the Aztec civilization would be more properly called the Mexican civilization.

Mexico hasn't really done a whole lot, and it isn't particularly unique in any way.

Mexican culture isn't just "unique in any way", It is unique in every way! One of the richest and most fascinanting cultures of the world!

 

[ehecatzin]

It exists. JFD made it, I think.

Yup, there's a couple of Mexico mods out there.

That is precisely the point I am trying to make. The Aztecs are being used to represent Mexico when they absolutely do not.
They were also not even a significant part of the history. They were an alliance that was around maybe 100 year?

But you seem to argue that Aztecs=Mexico, they aren't. The Aztecs in civ represent...The Aztecs, they are not standing in for modern mexico in any way just because they inhabited part of the same territory, in the same way the Mayans don't represent modern Mexico, if they were being used to represent Mexico as you say then we'd already have them being led by Benito Juarez, or the capital would be Mexico city as oposed to Tenochtitlan, and we'd already have a mess like India in civ.

The Aztecs were a significant part of mesoamerican history (I can't believe I have to spell this out), the Triple Alliance represented the latest in a series of Empires centered on the Mexican pleateu, the seconds largest was the Toltecs and the Aztecs did everything they could to model themselves after them (and suprassed them in a whole lot of areas). The Aztecs as a civilization were hardly isolated from all the mesoamerican dynamics and culture before them.

So should you add the Toltecs? hardly a superior choice to the Aztecs, or Teotihuacan? we don't know enough about them to fill the blanks (don't even mention Olmecs we know even less). The Aztecs are the better candidate for central mesoamerican civilization, the most succesful, the most recognizable in popular culture and the one we know more about.

and they don't represent modern Mexico.

Why is it that the Aztec unique unit is still an early unit? Shouldn't it be a mid-game unit? Because the Aztec Empire lasted from 1325 to 1521, they were not Mayans or Olmecs to have anything before medieval times.

This is probably due to its technological level rather than hard dates, tho I would argue they would fit more as a swordsman replacement due to their military organization. However I get why they are this gameplay wise, they fill the early rusher role.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

Wonder: Huey Teocalli

Otherwise known as the Greater Temple of the Aztecs, the Huey Teocalli is a giant terraced pyramid leading up to a temple where some of the most important Aztec rituals were performed. Unfortunately, there is very little left of the Huey Teocalli today, save for some scattered ruins in the Zocalo main square of Mexico City’s downtown district.

Actually, the Greater Temple's ruins are not in the Zocalo, but around a couple of squares away from it.

They are on the left side of the Cathedral, that faces the Zocalo.

As the Aztecs and Mayans being there (Mayans not confirmed yet but they will be in a future expansion at least), I don't feel represented as a Mexican. A post 1810 Mexican civilization would do it even if the region gets overrepresented but who cares, as Europe has always been overrepresented in Civ games, Brazil is already in and humor has it that Colombia will be in Civ6 as well.

Spoiler :

I'm putting this as a spoiler because I know how irrelevant this is but here is a list in chonological order I have for Mexican leaders if that ever happens:
-Miguel Hidalgo, started the War of Independence in 1810, was executed the next year.
-José María Morelos, successor of Miguel Hidalgo.
-Agustín de Iturbide (1822 - 1823), signed Mexico's proclamation of Independence and was independent Mexico's first ruler and emperor but lasted just for a few months.
-Vicente Guerrero (1829) (second Mexican president and first black president centuries before Obama.
-Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (several times between 1833 and 1855), fought French and American armies but lost California, Texas, and a leg, but not popular here because of his personality and the common misconception that he sold those territories.
-Benito Juarez (1858 - 1872), the Mexican equivalent of Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle, a Freemason and an American puppet but he modernized Mexico and had an Italian dictator named after him.
-Maximiliano de Habsburgo (1864 - 1867), one of our best rulers but he was an European-born monarch unlike most of our rulers that have been presidents and both Benito Juarez and Porfirio Díaz fought against him.
-Porfirio Díaz (1876 - 1911), modernized and caused Mexico's economy, culture and technology to grow but he ruled with an iron fist and rigged elections for over 30 years, was overthrown in the 1910 revolution.
-Álvaro Obregón (1920 - 1924), first stable presidency since the 1910 revolution.
-Lázaro Cárdenas (1934 - 1940), probably the best priist president. (NOTE: In 1929, the National Revolutionary Party, or PNR, was founded. Cárdenas changed its name to Mexican Revolution Party (PRM) only to have its name changed some years later in 1946 to Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), the worst political party ever except for extremist parties).
-If they ever put a modern president or a priist other than Álvaro Obregón or Lázaro Cárdenas, especially if he is Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, Carlos Salinas de Gortari or Enrique Peña Nieto, Mexicans will know that feeling Portuguese people had when Maria was the leader in Civ5.

 

[ehecatzin]

But tbh the Aztec civilization would be more properly called the Mexican civilization.

Close, but the correct would be "Mexica" .

Mexico could very well have ended up being the Anahuac republic if Morelos wasn't defeated. And as an interesting fact the independentist movement was way more focused on the American identity of New Spain rather than anything related to mesoamerican identity. The oficial name of "Mexico" was choosen because it was a contrast to Spanish culture (and the anti-European sentiment was stronk), rather than it being a continuation of Aztec civilization.

(Thankfully we've had a couple of centuries to carve our own identity)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Aztecs were a significant part of mesoamerican history (I can't believe I have to spell this out), the Triple Alliance represented the latest in a series of Empires centered on the Mexican pleateu, the seconds largest was the Toltecs and the Aztecs did everything they could to model themselves after them (and suprassed them in a whole lot of areas). The Aztecs as a civilization were hardly isolated from all the mesoamerican dynamics and culture before them.

So should you add the Toltecs? hardly a superior choice to the Aztecs, or Teotihuacan? we don't know enough about them to fill the blanks (don't even mention Olmecs we know even less). The Aztecs are the better candidate for central mesoamerican civilization, the most succesful, the most recognizable in popular culture and the one we know more about.

Spot on. In fact, the Native American cultures in both North and South America were very, very different from Europe, Africa OR Asia in their approach to so many things that we really need several different civilizations from each to begin to represent them. The acknowledging of just the ability of the Original Americans to modify the landscape is just now being appreciated (if you haven't read Charles Mann's book 1491 do so immediately: it should be required for any Civ Game Designer!) .

Sadly, we know 'way too little about most of the earlier mesoamerican civilizations to be sure of doing a good job of modeling them. Just for starters, we don't even know ANY of the Olmec names for their cities. We can just about cobble together a representation of the Triple Alliance (Aztec), Mayan and Inkan civilizations for gaming purposes, while (hopefully) acknowledging that they are only the 'tip of the iceberg' when it comes to all the variety that came before...

This is probably due to its technological level rather than hard dates, tho I would argue they would fit more as a swordsman replacement due to their military organization. However I get why they are this gameplay wise, they fill the early rusher role.

I agree that the Aztec 'Knights' are closer to the Swordsmen of Europe than the pre-Bronze Age 'warrior' - read the Spanish accounts of how effective the native quilted cotton armor was, or the nasty effects obtained with obsidian-blasted 'swords'.

While we certainly don't have all the number yet, though, it looks like the Eagle Knights can get enough Bonuses to almost hold their own with Swordsmen - potentially. This may make the 'Aztec Strategy' discussed in this thread viable for much later in the game than at first would appear...

 

[ehecatzin]

As the Aztecs and Mayans being there (Mayans not confirmed yet but they will be in a future expansion at least), I don't feel represented as a Mexican. A post 1810 Mexican civilization would do it even if the region gets overrepresented but who cares, as Europe has always been overrepresented in Civ games, Brazil is already in and humor has it that Colombia will be in Civ6 as well.

Glad I'm not the only one. I love mesoamerican culture (can you tell?) but it never crosses my mind that somehow I'm Aztec or I'm being represented by the Aztecs in Civ just because I'm Mexican.

I'd hate it if the Aztecs or Mayans were all messed up by adding anachronistic elements just to "represent" someone else.

 

[Thormodr]

Spot on. In fact, the Native American cultures in both North and South America were very, very different from Europe, Africa OR Asia in their approach to so many things that we really need several different civilizations from each to begin to represent them. The acknowledging of just the ability of the Original Americans to modify the landscape is just now being appreciated (if you haven't read Charles Mann's book 1491 do so immediately: it should be required for any Civ Game Designer!) .

Sadly, we know 'way too little about most of the earlier mesoamerican civilizations to be sure of doing a good job of modeling them. Just for starters, we don't even know ANY of the Olmec names for their cities. We can just about cobble together a representation of the Triple Alliance (Aztec), Mayan and Inkan civilizations for gaming purposes, while (hopefully) acknowledging that they are only the 'tip of the iceberg' when it comes to all the variety that came before...



I agree that the Aztec 'Knights' are closer to the Swordsmen of Europe than the pre-Bronze Age 'warrior' - read the Spanish accounts of how effective the native quilted cotton armor was, or the nasty effects obtained with obsidian-blasted 'swords'.

While we certainly don't have all the number yet, though, it looks like the Eagle Knights can get enough Bonuses to almost hold their own with Swordsmen - potentially. This may make the 'Aztec Strategy' discussed in this thread viable for much later in the game than at first would appear...

I have read 1491. Excellent book.

Hopefully, the Eagle Knights will be viable for a long time in the game. Could make the Aztecs very powerful and hopefully the AI will be able to leverage it well when playing as Monty.

 

[Zaarin]

I am getting very sick of Aztecs as a civ. Why not have a civ that encompasses all of Mexico's history? Instead we get a small civilization which only represents a tiny fraction of Mexico's culture and history.

Well, if Mexico represents the Aztecs, then I suppose that America should represent the Native Americans. Because that's not culturally insensitive. I agree that the Aztecs may not be the best representatives of Mesoamerica--the Mayans and Zapotec were probably, on the whole, more significant--but the Aztecs certainly have name-recognition value. And when it comes to civ mascots, I prefer Monty to Gandhi.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I am getting very sick of Aztecs as a civ. Why not have a civ that encompasses all of Mexico's history? Instead we get a small civilization which only represents a tiny fraction of Mexico's culture and history.

thats how it is for everyone except america.

 

[nokmirt]

I feel the Aztecs should be a lot more scary. This video shows them as being quite the opposite. They should have done something to do with sacrifices. They needed sacrifices to appease their gods. Like some other people, I do think Mexico would have been a better choice this time.

One comment from youtube..."So we turn from imposing and awe-inspiring Montezuma to a wimpy, slumped shaman?" Yep thanks Firaxis.

 

[AriochIV]

I feel the Aztecs should be a lot more scary. This video shows them as being quite the opposite. They should have done something to do with sacrifices. They needed sacrifices to appease their gods.

If Firaxis had done this, the politically correct goons here would be calling them racists for demonizing non-white cultures as barbaric monsters.

For myself, I'd find the Aztecs less fun to play if it meant engaging in ritual sacrifice as a game mechanic. These builder-related boons look really strong.

Moderator Action: Please find a better way to make your point than insulting other forum members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Onemorecivfan]

If Firaxis had done this, the politically correct goons here would be calling them racists for demonizing non-white cultures as barbaric monsters.

For myself, I'd find the Aztecs less fun to play if it meant engaging in ritual sacrifice as a game mechanic. These builder-related boons look really strong.

Aztecs basically don't have to build workers if you do your build order right.

 

[footslogger]

Some posts have suggested that the eagle warriors will benefit from combat bonuses due to the acquisition of luxuries, but the video clearly states that this ability is part of Montezuma's leader ability, not the Aztec special ability, and will therefore presumably not kick in till later (medieval?) than the ancient period when eagle warriors are active.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Why is it that the Aztec unique unit is still an early unit? Shouldn't it be a mid-game unit? Because the Aztec Empire lasted from 1325 to 1521, they were not Mayans or Olmecs to have anything before medieval times.

Technologically, it's early unit as Aztecs didn't know metals and their weapons and armor were very basic.

Gameplay-wise, what we've seen so far, Eagle Warriors are much stronger than regular Warriors and with some amenities are equal to Swordsmen, which makes them pretty good.