Aztecs

[Mad Madigan]

Yes, the Aztec only need to win wars to make use of their UA, not actually take cities and go for a Domination victory. You could potentially "farm" your neighbors all game and go for a Cultural victory just as easily as Domination (Authority > Artistry > Rationalism to take advantage of the Golden Ages). The AI Monty may be a thirsty warmonger, but in human hands the Civ isn't pigeonholed into Domination, IMO. It's another reason why I'd like to see the Floating Gardens get a "+% Yields in city during Golden Age" ability rather than just static .

 

[Txurce]

Yes, the Aztec only need to win wars to make use of their UA, not actually take cities and go for a Domination victory. You could potentially "farm" your neighbors all game and go for a Cultural victory just as easily as Domination (Authority > Artistry > Rationalism to take advantage of the Golden Ages). The AI Monty may be a thirsty warmonger, but in human hands the Civ isn't pigeonholed into Domination, IMO. It's another reason why I'd like to see the Floating Gardens get a "+% Yields in city during Golden Age" ability rather than just static .

Agreed. I went through a spell of successfully playing them for SV's. Depending on what Gazebo does with the UB, multiple options are strengthened.

But... if all you care about is buffing the lower-echelon warmonger civs in a never-ending escalation, then this isn't going to satisfy you.

 

[grmagne]

How about buffing the Aztec UA for winning a war? In addition to a Golden Age, they could receive other benefits like bonus production, extra science, extra units, etc.

Realistically, you can only farm your neighbours for so long before they become somebody's vassal or gets eradicated by another AI.

 

[pineappledan]

You realise "finding the low hanging fruit" can be also done by France, Japan, Songhai, Rome while also receiving a better reward, passive bonus or both? Why play Aztecs to find weaklings, when those same weaklings would be falling apart easier and giving you more if you were Napoleon? There's guys who get better rewards, have better passive benefits and also stack up better against fellow warmongerers which is the problem.

Domination civs conquer, kill and capitulate other civs. If Aztecs kill/capitulate a civ, they can’t be used for GA triggers anymore. Aztecs don’t go to war to destroy, only to “win”. If the benefits of killing off a civ outweigh the benefits of constant winning for Aztec, or if eliminating a civ is only marginally more difficult than merely beating them, then the bonus for winning wars needs to be increased.

How about buffing the Aztec UA for winning a war? In addition to a Golden Age, they could receive other benefits like bonus production, extra science, extra units, etc.

Realistically, you can only farm your neighbours for so long before they become somebody's vassal or gets eradicated by another AI.

this is why we have been discussing a / boost during GAs on the floating garden.

 

[ElliotS]

stacking against other warmongers isn’t aztec’s playstyle anyways. Aztecs should be finding the low hanging fruit and bullying them per and over. They aren’t, strictly speaking, a domination civ because they get no rewards for taking cities. In fact, the more intact they can leave a civ’s infrastructure, the better.

If Aztec needs to be tilted more towards a victory condition, maybe it shouldn’t be domination?

The more I look into this, the more I’m convinced that the / on kills should be increased to 150%. It is a good and necessary change, since the Aztec UA stacks up poorly vs the god of war pantheon and the Celtic pantheon. Greece with the god of war pantheon, or celts can basically do Aztec better than Aztec.

Yes, the Aztec only need to win wars to make use of their UA, not actually take cities and go for a Domination victory. You could potentially "farm" your neighbors all game and go for a Cultural victory just as easily as Domination (Authority > Artistry > Rationalism to take advantage of the Golden Ages). The AI Monty may be a thirsty warmonger, but in human hands the Civ isn't pigeonholed into Domination, IMO. It's another reason why I'd like to see the Floating Gardens get a "+% Yields in city during Golden Age" ability rather than just static .

Agreed. I went through a spell of successfully playing them for SV's. Depending on what Gazebo does with the UB, multiple options are strengthened.

But.. if all you care about is buffing the lower-echelon warmonger civs in a never-ending escalation, then this isn't going to satify you.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're seemingly not thinking about other civs at all. Do you really think Aztecs are going to beat Korea to a science victory? (Maybe if you're bullying them, but then other civs will outrace both of you.)

We're talking about running a civ with a slight bonus to food, production, faith and a good amount of extra golden ages as a science civ, compared to the insane power of it's opposition.

Korea is literally just a way better golden age science civ. It gets tons of synergy with golden ages and science. They get golden age points from doing sciency-stuff and science from golden ages. They're well designed with their UA and UB working together in a powerful synergy.

If you won with them it's in spite of playing Aztecs, not because of it. (And also likely before the floating garden nerfs, when it was actually a really, really powerful food and production steriod.)

If you think Aztecs should be more versatile that's okay, but acting like domination isn't part of their design space isn't fair or honest. They're meant to have at least as much interest in domination as France, Greece or Assyria, who can all win in other ways. (And not only are all of them better at this style of play, they get actual combat bonuses to accomplish it!)

Domination civs conquer, kill and capitulate other civs. If you kill/capitulate a civ, you can’t use them for GA triggers anymore. Aztecs don’t go to war to destroy, only to “win”. If the benefits of killing off a civ outweigh the benefits of constant winning for Aztec, then the bonus for winning wars needs to be increased

You want a reward that outweighs multiple cities and an entire victory condition? Give me a proposal, don't just say what they 'need' because that sounds totally unrealistic. I can't believe you consider this less controversial than a bonus versus wounded units.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Yes, the Aztec only need to win wars to make use of their UA, not actually take cities and go for a Domination victory. You could potentially "farm" your neighbors all game and go for a Cultural victory just as easily as Domination (Authority > Artistry > Rationalism to take advantage of the Golden Ages). The AI Monty may be a thirsty warmonger, but in human hands the Civ isn't pigeonholed into Domination, IMO. It's another reason why I'd like to see the Floating Gardens get a "+% Yields in city during Golden Age" ability rather than just static .

Again, Greece and Denmark do not need to take cities as well. It's not like Aztecs are unique in not being forced to win with warmongering. Greece gets scaling 5 Culture per city each kill, help keeping CS at their side and free Tourism. In medieval, that's 10 per unit. In industrial, 20. Denmark gets 20 Culture/Production per city per pillaged tile at that point which means it's easy getting buildings up. France and Japan can easily win tourism, with Japan having tons of Science and Faith so Scientific victory will be way easier. Aztecs cannot really compete because you can get thousands of both yields in a single turn with ease, and in both cases you have to kill and pillage (it's hard getting warscore very high without taking cities/pillaging).

Agreed. I went through a spell of successfully playing them for SV's. Depending on what Gazebo does with the UB, multiple options are strengthened.

But.. if all you care about is buffing the lower-echelon warmonger civs in a never-ending escalation, then this isn't going to satify you.

SV? Space Victory? Aztecs weren't a great help in that considering Golden Ages do not increase Science. They only affect Culture, Production and Gold. You could've just played Denmark and gotten way more of all the three things doing exactly the same things you need to increase warscore to the right number so you win the war. Or maybe Japan, for +3 Science in your UB and potential thousands in Science and Culture for levelling units up, which also seems better. You'd also get free Golden Ages from spending your bonus Great Artists, which also applies to France who can simply pillage and let AI resettle.

Why exaggerate, too? It's just about Aztecs, not about all the lower-echelon warmonger civs which do not really exist. I think other civs have their niches, unless I just forgot about a civ.

Domination civs conquer, kill and capitulate other civs. If you kill/capitulate a civ, you can’t use them for GA triggers anymore. Aztecs don’t go to war to destroy, only to “win”. If the benefits of killing off a civ outweigh the benefits of constant winning for Aztec, then the bonus for winning wars needs to be increased
this is why we have been discussing a % boost during GAs on the floating garden

But the same can be applied to Denmark, Greece, Japan, France. Neither need to kill or capitulate civs. They're allowed to do so more because you can just move to a bigger fish if it's available because you have finite units and finite units/tiles to kill before AI makes more, sure, but the same applies. As France maybe less so, but it's wise just waiting until AI resettles a city or a few you razed and watch as he lets you get 0.5 GWAM each for free (raze costs staying until you acquire another one is weird though)

 

[Txurce]

The problem with what you're saying is that you're seemingly not thinking about other civs at all. Do you really think Aztecs are going to beat Korea to a science victory?... If you won with them it's in spite of playing Aztecs, not because of it.

You have to keep in mind that not everyone plays with "the best civ for a specific VC." I find that about as boring as playing Domination most of the time.

If you think Aztecs should be more versatile that's okay, but acting like domination isn't part of their design space isn't fair or honest. They're meant to have at least as much interest in domination as France, Greece or Assyria, who can all win in other ways. (And not only are all of them better at this style of play, they get actual combat bonuses to accomplish it!)

I agree with you here, but the Aztecs have a combat edge in the early game that can really snowball into a GA powerhouse. Whether you choose to use GA's for Domination vs. some other VC is up to you. This may still leave them in the lower-echelon of warmongers when lined up side by side for overall efficiency, but not so they're not playable. Again, all civs aren't going to be equal in strength, or in general interest.

 

[pineappledan]

The problem with what you're saying is that you're seemingly not thinking about other civs at all. Do you really think Aztecs are going to beat Korea to a science victory? (Maybe if you're bullying them, but then other civs will outrace both of you.)[...]

I don't think comparing Aztec to Korea in that way is charitable. Korea is laser-focused on GPs and golden ages; they aren't nearly as flexible as Aztecs.
Persia is the Golden Ages domination civ
Brazil is the Golden Ages CV civ
Korea is the Golden Ages SV civ

So what does Aztec do? They have more and earlier faith than Korea. They have more golden ages than any of those other civs. but their biggest difference is they have more food, and more hammers than any of those other civs, and the consistent golden ages means they have a steady supply of money for investment. This makes a lot of sense, considering the size of Tenochtitlan, and the enormous population that the Aztec Empire encompassed. So I think that merely a little more food, and a little more hammers is all that's needed. That high production and population can help create a massive war machine, but you could just as well pummel a pet civ for free GAs, and focus on a "build ALL the things!" style

You want a reward that outweighs multiple cities and an entire victory condition? Give me a proposal, don't just say what they 'need' because that sounds totally unrealistic. I can't believe you consider this less controversial than a bonus versus wounded units.

How about +15%, +20%, +35% in all cities and +1 to all gold tiles for 10 turns after winning a war?
Also, if you use the 4UC modmod, they get a permanent +3//UnitXP in capital after winning a war.

That proposed +15%/ to the UB during GAs is more than enough I think, and it will be useful even if you don't go for a hard domination with Aztec.

I edited the thing you quoted. Of course an elimination should be attractive, but the benefits of winning should be attractive enough that a mere win should placate you, rather than going for the more tedious capitulation/elimination.

 

[grmagne]

I don't think comparing Aztec to Korea in that way is charitable.
Persia is the Golden Ages domination civ
Brazil is the Golden Ages CV civ
Korea is the Golden Ages SV civ

So what does Aztec do? They have more and earlier faith than Korea. They have more golden ages than any of those other civs. but their biggest difference is they have more food, and more hammers than any of those other civs, and the consistent golden ages means they have a steady supply of money for investment. This makes a lot of sense, considering the size of Tenochtitlan, and the enormous population that the Aztec Empire encompassed. So I think that merely a little more food, and a little more hammers is all that's needed. That high production and population can help create a massive war machine, but you could just as well pummel a pet civ for free GAs, and focus on a "build ALL the things!" style

How about +15%, +20%, +35% in all cities and +1 to all gold tiles for 10 turns after winning a war?

That proposed +15%/ to the UB during GAs is more than enough I think, and it will be useful even if you don't go for a hard domination with Aztec.

I edited the thing you quoted. Of course an elimination should be attractive, but the benefits of winning should be attractive enough that a mere win should placate you, rather than going for the more tedious elimination.

I like that the Aztecs are one of the few nations that excel in the Tradition warmonger strategy so I agree with the idea of buffing production & food to help build high population cities with good infrastructure. I'd prefer it as a one-time boost in every city, such as +30 food, +30 production, scaling with era, after each winning war because:

- instant boost UA has a high fun factor, such as the Ottoman trade route completion.
- it helps new cities, aiding the players that want to try a Progress Aztec empire.

 

[ElliotS]

You have to keep in mind that not everyone plays with "the best civ for a specific VC." I find that about as boring as playing Domination most of the time.

I mean you can't balance around playing civs inefficiently.

I agree with you here, but the Aztecs have a combat edge in the early game that can really snowball into a GA powerhouse.

A UU isn't really a combat edge. Not to mention that outside of a duel map the Jaguar is actually too early to be really good for snowballing. You just aren't ready to take a bunch of cities. which greatly hampers your effectiveness.

How about +15%, +20%, +35% in all cities and +1 to all gold tiles for 10 turns after winning a war?

As opposed to france who gets a massive boost to / every time they take a city, AND every 2 cities they get a golden age, +3 permanantly AND a bomb. (Or great works, which you would only take if they're BETTER than the alternative.)

Not to mention you get that by taking cities, which directly leads you to winning the game.

Your vision for Aztecs seems to be twiddle their thumbs and be a worse version of a bunch of civs.

 

[Gazebo]

More food and more production is more valuable in the latest, as you can't grow yourself into an unhappiness spiral quite so easily. I think making Monty the warmonger's India is the right call (i.e. early pantheon, growth-centric strategy, etc.).

G

 

[pineappledan]

Aight, well I'm with @Txurce on this one. I know you are a hardcore domination strat player, @ElliotS, so wanting to kill the world is how you play. I don't think anyone here has been suggesting that domination potential should be ignored, but I think bonuses on infrastructure is where we can set Aztecs apart. Maybe you funnel that extra production into more units. Throwing larger populations and bigger armies faster than their neighbours is very thematic for the Aztecs; that's basically how and why the Xochiyaoyotl existed.

I agree with @Gazebo that nothing quite so dramatic needs to be done. Remove the , and add a GA boost to floating gardens, and I would guess that's all that's necessary.

 

[Hinin]

I remember the times when the Floating Gardens were a monstruous UB : when discovering Monty, he usually had the biggest capital by far (like, 45 citizens at the end of the Medieval era) and bullied everyone on the continent with an endless stream of soldiers while keeping a relatively limited number of cities

I agree with Gazebo that Monty should be the "warmonger India" (and not the "Gandhi of warmongers", for we know what Civ Gandhi truly thinks of his "allies") : growth should be his "long-term weapon", allowing him to stay relevant throughout the game (having tons of citizens allowing you to gain a variety of yields through different strategies), and GAges should be his way to gain huge spikes of growth.

Maybe a way to do this could be, instead of a flat food boost during GA, to give the FGardens the ability to carry over Food when a Citizen is born during a GAge (knowing that, if it carried 25 % Food over, it would, with all the other buildings carrying food over, 100 % of the food would be carried over when a citizen is born during a GAge) ?
=> I suggest something like "During GAge, +20 % Food and 15 % Food is carried over when a Citizen is born"
That, with maybe a more important "production per citizen" bonus and the suppression of the culture bonus, could allow a well-played Monty to gain citizens at a very quick rate at a time when he also gains a lot of production and gold, allowing him to build the necessary infrastructures to not drown in unhappiness.

 

[ElliotS]

More food and more production is more valuable in the latest, as you can't grow yourself into an unhappiness spiral quite so easily. I think making Monty the warmonger's India is the right call (i.e. early pantheon, growth-centric strategy, etc.).

G

IF that's the way you want to go, fine. However I really think that SOME combat boost is necessary if they're to be the warmonger's india, because as it is past ancient era they have literally the same fighting capacity as India. That would just make them worse, miserable-to-start-next-to, India.

 

[pineappledan]

While we’re looking at changing Aztec, @Gazebo, maybe I can try to convince you to change the UA name to “Xochiyaoyotl/Flower War”?

• It’s what the UA is modelled after
• Ritual sacrifice of war prisoners is not unique to Aztec, or even American cultures. The flower wars are more distinct
• Sacrificial captives draws attention to the ‘barbaric’ aspects of Aztec culture, legitimizing the Spanish colonial narrative
• It is the will of the people

 

[CrazyG]

I feel like the Aztec have a cool role as warmonger with no warmongering bonuses past the very early game. Figuring out how to keep fighting is a puzzle. Its very unique.

On Pangea maps you can earn a lot of gold and faith with jaguars very quickly. I think the trick is to dump your gold into infrastructure, not more military. Attack neighbors to weaken them and get some promotions, not to conquer them. Jaguars are really strong for their price. Its hard to conquer the entire world without a combat bonus; once the warmonger penalties get high bonuses like Japan's or Sweden's are pretty much a necessity. Get a good start and going for a science victory is good gameplan that the Aztec toolkit supports.

They are very strong very early, which can lead the snowballing. I think they lost too many yields in prior patches, before some of the patches that really addressed the core issue of snowballing got put in place. The floating gardens could be better. they used to be a big enough bonus that if the UA and jaguar gave you a good start you could compete other civs mid and late game. I'd rather they get more food or production and have 0 culture, it made them very unique. They are very few civs with any culture at all from their uniques.

 

[Owlbebach]

Floating Gardens add: City gains +10% / during Golden Ages. Remove the 2.

I dislike it from gamedesign point of view. It is too generic buff.

UA: Land Melee units gain a promotion with "During a golden age unit gains +10% CS, +15% damage versus wounded units and converts 25% of damage to cities to culture."

This is more interesting, but i'm not a fan of this because it is way too similar to Persia and hard to use.

I'd prefer increasing Aztec's power in fight in some unique way. Maybe give heal on kill to all Aztec's melee units? Not 25HP like Jaguars, but maybe 5HP or 10HP?
Also I thing increasing gold/faith for killing is good.

 

[pza]

While we’re looking at changing Aztec, @Gazebo, maybe I can try to convince you to change the UA name to “Xochiyaoyotl/Flower War”?

• It’s what the UA is modelled after
• Ritual sacrifice of war prisoners is not unique to Aztec, or even American cultures. The flower wars are more distinct
• Sacrificial captives draws attention to the ‘barbaric’ aspects of Aztec culture, legitimizing the Spanish colonial narrative
• It is the will of the people

have you read what montezuma says when you sign a peace treaty with him?

 

[ElliotS]

Sacrificial captives draws attention to the ‘barbaric’ aspects of Aztec culture, legitimizing the Spanish colonial narrative

But like... They did sacrifice many of their captives. I like Flower War better, but not because sacrificial captives is inaccurate.

 

[Hinin]

But like... They did sacrifice many of their captives. I like Flower War better, but not because sacrificial captives is inaccurate.

I agree that the goal here shouldn't be to hide the fact Aztecs sacrificied human beings, but to highlight more unique cultural elements. After all, the Mayas also practiced the sacrifice of captives (and they had Star Wars, no joking).