Aztec - Montezuma I Thread

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.

My guess is that anything relating to sacrifices, as in the resources on kill of the Aztec UA of civ5 will probably be given to the Huey Teocalli, tho I want to imagine the builders "rushing" the district are being sacrified to commemorate the ocation.

Given what we know about how the Aztecs extracted and used tribute, the ammenities on luxury boosting the army is spot on.
 
There are many versions of the Civilization game over the years that have the dominate early civilizations portrayed instead of their modern counterpart.
We have had the:
Aztecs, not Mexico.
Khmer, not Laos.
Maya, not Guatemala.
Persia, not Iran.
Rome, not Italy.
Vikings, not Norway.
Zulus, not South Africa.

So, there are plenty of early examples.

Some could even argue Ancient Greece and modern Greece are completely different.
Some could even argue Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt are completely different.

Both older and modern civilizations could be included, though modders will probably have to do it again.
Mexico could be interesting, because America fought Mexico over a century ago and gained about a dozen states worth of land during President Polk's administration. If Mexico is going to be added, I would suggest He appear as America's Leader too.
 
I have to admit, that I find it good, that in Civ 6 the unique boni arent the same as in Civ 5 or 4. So we dont get the floating gardens again, instead that playground, like not having again the cho ko nu instead that tiger canon or not having the man of war/ship of line instead the sea dog etc.

But there are some question regarding the new UU of the aztec. Will be the unique ability carried over to the upgrade, so you have swordsmen who enslave defeated enemies? Or will that "promotion"/"ability" get lost like the ability of the roman legions to construct roads and forts in civ 5 after upgrading them to longswordmen?

I assume, that ability will be lost, because the aztec have already a combat bonus which will get higher during the game depending on how successfully they can expand their empire.

I think the best advantage of the eagle warrior will be to defeat the new barbarians to enslave them to push your infrastructure. Maybe they will be usefull against one or two neighbour civs, but I think mostly they will be used against the barbarians.

The biggest question of the usefullness of that ability is still, how likely will it be in civ 6 that you can capture enemy builders or builders of city state. I think in most cases, the builder will have lost at least one charge, because when they are finished in the early game, you can instantly pop up one improvement at least. So the aztec seem to get a big advantage in early wars even if they dont conquer at that time of the game, they can pillage and buff their own infrastructure.


But there is another question. If I have the aztec as my first neighbour, can I abuse their eagle warriors depending on the AI patterns?
F.e.: Rushing some units, declaring war on them, pillaging their early fast districts and baiting the AI to attack and kill damaged units, so I can capture the new created builders? I see that possibility, but I can only speculate if it will be realistic to achieve that.

Also, fighting the aztec early isnt that scary anymore imo. The Jaguar Warrior were one of the strongest early game units, as a player in civ 5, you wanted to get as many as possible online, maybe even with the heroic epic national wonder buff, and then upgrade and train them throughout the game to elite troops. The forest/jungle bonus was good, especially in most cases the aztec had those tiles around them in the most starting positions. But more importantly the selfheal after defeating an enemy was immense, only the Janissaries were more potent then the Jaguar Warriors.

That said, now the aztec depend on owned and improved luxury ressources. We dont know how exactly the movement system got reworked, but civs with early cavalry might be in a good position to defend themselves, they just have to pillage those improvements to cut off the Aztecs of their advantage.

But I also see the snowball possibility. If you get lucky and find quite a few luxuries around your start and can use them to expand (aggressivly) and continue that path, you will always have a certain advantage over others when you reach a point, where a lot of those ressources are save in your home country and you just can increase that bonus with further conquests.

And regarding that those new amenities are the new limiter for expansion, the Aztec's playstyle and UB will be the solution to counter that and increase further grow.

Even the ability to rush districts can get used to push the aztec further. I think the encampment will be available quite early, so you can rush its building process and train better eagle warriors or other soldiers earlier then your opponents might be able to.


A lot of question, cant wait to see how the mechanics actually work out and if those early thoughts can get reality. ;)
 
II think the best advantage of the eagle warrior will be to defeat the new barbarians to enslave them to push your infrastructure. Maybe they will be usefull against one or two neighbour civs, but I think mostly they will be used against the barbarians.

Barbarians, keep in mind, evidently do not count; you can't farm them for builders.
 
Barbarians, keep in mind, evidently do not count; you can't farm them for builders.

Do you think so? In all previous games, the aztec units fought mostly against barbarians, because normally those are the first with early aggression towards the player (and the ai civs). If you dont rush very early with your UU as aztec, you wouldnt get that bonus if only other civ units would be valid targets and so the purpose of that ability would be senseless.

Even so, from the video I dont see a hint that barbarian units would be invalid. Especially, there is the "discipline" civic, which gives a buff for melee units vs barbarians.
So assume, you will get your first "free" workers from barbarians, especially when they are now buffed and more dangerous and aggressive.
 
it was confirmed on twitter that barbs don't count
Really? That could be a shame, forcing aztec player really to early wars against their neighbours or city states. But yeah, I see the balancing problem. But now is there the question, how fast will warriors become obsolete in the game? And is the luxury ressources combat bonus strong enough to hold the eagles longer in the game? The video shows it quite impressive how they beat the spearmen, but yeah, it is not so clear what boni are obtained from what exactly like civics.

Might you post the link the twitter feed? Thank you!
 
There are many versions of the Civilization game over the years that have the dominate early civilizations portrayed instead of their modern counterpart.
We have had the:
Aztecs, not Mexico.
Khmer, not Laos.
Maya, not Guatemala.
Persia, not Iran.
Rome, not Italy.
Vikings, not Norway.
Zulus, not South Africa.

So, there are plenty of early examples.

Some could even argue Ancient Greece and modern Greece are completely different.
Some could even argue Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt are completely different.

Both older and modern civilizations could be included, though modders will probably have to do it again.
Mexico could be interesting, because America fought Mexico over a century ago and gained about a dozen states worth of land during President Polk's administration. If Mexico is going to be added, I would suggest He appear as America's Leader too.

I think it's better to keep the things as they are, to me it doesn't make sense at all having Italy or moder Greece or modern Egypt or Mexico or Iran etc. For this there are the mods.
 
IIRC, there was an early interview with Ed Beach where he mentioned that certain military cards can be unlocked and used for your government. Some will help less advanced units to be as powerful, or almost as powerful as more advanced units. Those may make the Eagle Warrior stay around for longer, if this is true, and if anyone's worried about limited usefulness.
I'm going to bed, but I can look for the source later.
 
IIRC, there was an early interview with Ed Beach where he mentioned that certain military cards can be unlocked and used for your government. Some will help less advanced units to be as powerful, or almost as powerful as more advanced units. Those may make the Eagle Warrior stay around for longer, if this is true, and if anyone's worried about limited usefulness.
I'm going to bed, but I can look for the source later.
Yes, that's what I was referring to. He said that there are a variety of military perks and upgrades in the Civics that could allow a culture-focused civ to compete militarily a little bit more favorably with a science-focused civ. For example (though this comes too late to help the Eagle Warriors), Corps and Armies are unlocked through Civics rather than technologies.
 
Pretty cool video!
I think "can use workers to speed up a district construction" is a pretty bland and boring bonus though.

What I really miss, besides the obvious floating gardens (Tenochtitlan was the or one of the biggest cities in the world right before the Spanish invasion) is something cultural! Aztecs were famous for their artists and poets, lots of their population spent their days working only on cultural pursuits. They had many poetry festivals that drew big crowds.
I guess getting extra amenities has something to do with their artistry but I'd still like to see more :) Ballcourt is fine but doesn't scream Aztec to me like floating gardens or something with culture.
 
There are many versions of the Civilization game over the years that have the dominate early civilizations portrayed instead of their modern counterpart.
We have had the:
Aztecs, not Mexico.
Khmer, not Laos.
Maya, not Guatemala.
Persia, not Iran.
Rome, not Italy.
Vikings, not Norway.
Zulus, not South Africa.

So, there are plenty of early examples.

Some could even argue Ancient Greece and modern Greece are completely different.
Some could even argue Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt are completely different.

Both older and modern civilizations could be included, though modders will probably have to do it again.
Mexico could be interesting, because America fought Mexico over a century ago and gained about a dozen states worth of land during President Polk's administration. If Mexico is going to be added, I would suggest He appear as America's Leader too.

In general I think its more fun to do the older iterition of the civ. Traditionally colonial civs besides the USA have not really appeared. In civ5 though they changed it up a little by adding Brazil, and Vikings/Sweden, Carthage/Morocco, Greece/Byzantinum etc. So maybe we will see more modern post-colonial civs this time.
 
I think the lag of a direct culture bonus isnt that grave. The new UB gives boni to faith instead and to be honest, in most cases in history, where could you seperate culture completly from religion? So I dont see that big problem.

And floating garden would be nice yeah, not sure if they might come with an other leader, but so the aztec would lose their luxury bonus.
But if you think about it, wouldnt be a food growth oriented floating garden make the aztec quite op (at least in regards to civ 5), because you have more amenities to grow your population bigger and with the floating garden you can pump out more citizen quicklier ...
... if science is this time not that hard chained to population you still would have an advantage because your cities will get faster some production monsters etc.
 
Pretty cool video!
What I really miss, besides the obvious floating gardens (Tenochtitlan was the or one of the biggest cities in the world right before the Spanish invasion) is something cultural! Aztecs were famous for their artists and poets, lots of their population spent their days working only on cultural pursuits. They had many poetry festivals that drew big crowds.
I guess getting extra amenities has something to do with their artistry but I'd still like to see more :) Ballcourt is fine but doesn't scream Aztec to me like floating gardens or something with culture.

At least 4, probably 5 out of the 6 revealed civs have some sort of cultural bonus. I'm glad the Aztecs don't.
 
At least 4, probably 5 out of the 6 revealed civs have some sort of cultural bonus. I'm glad the Aztecs don't.

Which others do? I might not remember entirely correctly? Natural parks? lol... Sure any civilization has culture thats important to them. To me it's the thing that sticks out the most out of the Aztec civilization so its a shame its not represented. The Aztec didn't actually do that much but they were damn good poets :goodjob:
 
Which others do? I might not remember entirely correctly? Natural parks? lol... Sure any civilization has culture thats important to them. To me it's the thing that sticks out the most out of the Aztec civilization so its a shame its not represented. The Aztec didn't actually do that much but they were damn good poets :goodjob:

All of the others:

America: Rough Riders (and tourism from Natural parks and Film Studios);
China: Great Wall;
Egypt: Sphinx;
England: British Museum, probably;
Japan: Electronics Factory.

Before the Aztecs, I was actually thinking that every civ would have at least a small cultural bonus.
 
The advantage of the eagle warrior forces them to invade city-states and other weaker civilizations to get free builders.

So although at first many turns are lost in creating a strong army eagle warriors, then with builders they could specialize their cities and improve the land with much flexibility.

In addition, the fact that they are specialized in have large cities could go them for any victory since the average game, not only military victory.
 
The advantage of the eagle warrior forces them to invade city-states and other weaker civilizations to get free builders.

So although at first many turns are lost in creating a strong army eagle warriors, then with builders they could specialize their cities and improve the land with much flexibility.

In addition, the fact that they are specialized in have large cities could go them for any victory since the average game, not only military victory.

Yes, that's true. So far we've seen no civilization targeting a single victory type and Aztecs are no exception. Even though they are geared towards early war, after initial expansion they could do a lot of other things and other than Jaguars, Aztec uniques are quite universal.
 
Am i the only one who haves this opinion so far all the civilizations we know aren't overpowered . it seems like everyone has their own unique units and buildings and abilities but it isnt overwhelming. I like it. In civ 5 launch france and china where overpowered and most people played them on deity to win overpowered geat general + 2 culture per citie for france...
 
Back
Top Bottom