Civ Discussion - Mexico

[bengalryan9]

Our next modern age civ is one that made its debut in this game - Mexico. Mexico is a cultural and diplomatic civilization with a starting bias towards desert and plains. Their associated wonder is Palacio de Bellas Artes, which gives a base +5 culture, +3 happiness on all great works, 1 free artifact, and 3 artifact slots. Mexico can be unlocked by playing as Maya, Inca, the Shawnee, or the Spanish earlier in the game, by choosing Pachacuti, Simon Bolivar, Tecumseh, Amina, or Isabella as your leader, or by having 3 distant land settlements in either desert or tropical terrain.

Their unique ability is Revolucion, which forces Mexico to choose a unique government that grants +30% culture as a celebration effect.
Their unique military unit is the Soldaderas, a line infantry replacement that allows adjacent units to heal +10 HP (but this doesn't stack).
Their unique civilian unit is the Revolucionario, a great person that can give a wide array of effects. I'm not going to list them all here but they're mostly centered around buffing commanders, giving free units, or granting gold/culture bonuses.
Their unique buildings are the Catedral (base +5 culture, with bonus happiness for adjacent culture buildings or wonders) and the Portal de Mercaderes (base +5 culture, with bonus gold for adjacent culture buildings and wonders), which together form their unique quarter the Zocalo, which grants +2 culture for every tradition slotted into the government and allows the training of Revolucionarios.

Mexican Civics:
Planes Politicos - unlocks the Catedral, the Portal de Mercaderes, and the Corridos tradition, and at mastery unlocks the Palacio de Bellas Artes and grants +1 policy slot
Plan of Iguala - unlocks the Cry of Dolores tradition as well as an additional celebration effect that grants +40% production towards military units
Plan of Ayutla - unlocks the La Reforma tradition as well as an additional celebration effect that gives +50% influence towards initiating diplomatic actions
Plan of Tuxtepec - unlocks the Order and Progress tradition as well as an additional celebration effect that grants +30% science

Mexican Traditions:
Corridos - +2 happiness in settlements for every tradition slotted into the government
Cry of Dolores - +1 CS for land and naval units in friendly territory for every tradition slotted into the government
La Reforma - +1 culture in settlements for every tradition slotted into the government
Order and Progress - +1 science in settlements for every tradition slotted into the government

What are your feelings on Mexico? Are they strong, weak, or just right? How do you prefer to play them, and in what areas do you feel like they struggle? Which leaders and other civs pair well with them? Discuss in the thread below!

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm still baffled that Francisco I. Madero wasn't part of the Revolucionario list, I get that they focused more on the Conventionist side as oposed to Constitutionalist and that's why we don't get Obregon and Carranza, but Madero started the whole revolution shabang.

I'm a bit biased, because Mexican, but I adore Mexico made it in Civ, It was about time. say what you will about VII, but at least we don't need to have these endless arguments about certain civs being discarded because "we already have X civ" or "that area is too crowded already". flavour wise Palacio de Bellas Artes was spot on as well as the Zocalo and It's buildings.

Gameplay I think Mexico is in a good spot, you can get some crazy culture numbers with a celebration focused leader and traditions. and really just as with so many modern civs, the problem is that the era just feels unimpactfull. I can imagine once we get the Mexica in Firaxis will add a few events to relate them, soi that's nice.

It would have been nice to get a Mexican leader tho...plenty of non politicians to choose from...just saying Firaxis...

 

[uppi]

Their theoretical culture output in late-Modern is very good, but first, it takes some time to get there and once you are there, what are you going to do with it? The problem with culture in Modern is that you need a modest amount to get the key techs, but everything beyond that is essentially useless. Unfortunately, this makes Mexico a weak choice in Modern, because it does not really give you much of an advantage at any victory condition.

Soldaderas is a good support unit though and usually, you will always have some infantry, so you don't even to build them.

 

[Siptah]

Mexico feels good to play, very thematic, with good music. Yet, I don‘t think they are particularly good for finishing any path terribly fast. The culture celebrations can shorten the wait for hegemony by few turns, but that’s all. It‘s fine to me though, and I‘ve played them fairly often, also because they are very easy to unlock.

 

[bengalryan9]

For those wondering if that extra culture from their unique really matters all that much... who cares? You only really need it at the start:
1) Use that extra culture to research Planes Politicos. This gets you both of your unique buildings, which isn't the case for most civics unique civics.
2) Use that extra culture to research Plan of Tuxtepec. Now you get +30% science on celebrations.
3) Use that new bonus to push through the science tree, which is much more important IMO.

I also really like how Mexico's kit fits together in terms of stacking traditions, too. With some proper planning of civ choices earlier in the game you can get a bunch of yields from that, and your unique quarters benefit from them as well.

I like Mexico a lot and am happy to see them in Civilization.

 

[Chiyo]

Mexico can be unlocked by playing as Maya, Inca, the Shawnee, or the Spanish earlier in the game, by choosing Pachacuti, Simon Bolivar, Tecumseh, Amina, or Isabella as your leader, or by having 3 distant land settlements in either desert or tropical terrain.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a while. Mexicans are what the Aztecs called themselves so in one of the very few cases where it actually made sense to have a Civ progression the predecessor Civ is not available. Instead it can be created by the Spanish, who invaded the Aztecs and forced their original state to disband, so that Madrid, Barcelona, Cordoba etc. will turn Mexican. What a perfectly realistic progression! If Firaxis ever wanted to know why the Civ switching mechanic is plain stupid they should look at this example.

 

[Leucarum]

I really like the design of Mexico. Making everything about customizable celbrations is a very cool idea, and there's a nice feeling of assembling something.

If there's one civ in modern which might move into the category of "Civ I'd play for fun" it's Mexico. But they are really, really, really hamstrung by their era.

 

[disjointaccount]

Similar case as France, but suffers more from it: they're excellent at generating something that just isn't needed very much.

 

[ehecatzin]

This is the funniest thing I have read in a while. Mexicans are what the Aztecs called themselves so in one of the very few cases where it actually made sense to have a Civ progression the predecessor Civ is not available. Instead it can be created by the Spanish, who invaded the Aztecs and forced their original state to disband, so that Madrid, Barcelona, Cordoba etc. will turn Mexican. What a perfectly realistic progression! If Firaxis ever wanted to know why the Civ switching mechanic is plain stupid they should look at this example.

I don't want to sound harsh but I don't think this is the own to Firaxis you apparently think it is.

This may come as a shock but, while we derive the name of the country from "Mexica", the modern Mexican identity is not a direct continuation from the Aztecs to present, (we have the post-revolution nationalist regime to thank for that idea) it has It's origin in a violent amalgamation of Spanish and all of the indigenous cultures in the territory ...even more, the Aztecs weren't either a cultural monolith or the only ones here before Spain.

Spain switching to Mexico is as valid as Aztecs into Mexico, or even something like Maya into Mexico, or Purepecha into Mexico. As for your example, yes Tenochtitlan could eventually turn into Ciudad de Mexico, just like Cartagena was once Qart Hadasht.

**PD: I do wholeheartedly agree with you in that, hope that once the "Aztecs" are added into the game they don't chicken out and instead call them Mexica.

edit*small typos for clarity

 

[bengalryan9]

This is the funniest thing I have read in a while. Mexicans are what the Aztecs called themselves so in one of the very few cases where it actually made sense to have a Civ progression the predecessor Civ is not available. Instead it can be created by the Spanish, who invaded the Aztecs and forced their original state to disband, so that Madrid, Barcelona, Cordoba etc. will turn Mexican. What a perfectly realistic progression! If Firaxis ever wanted to know why the Civ switching mechanic is plain stupid they should look at this example.

Sometimes I do some crazy civ switch like Han China to Shawnee to France just because i know it drives certain people out there nuts.

"Oh no, my game isn't historically accurate now, guess I'll go launch a spaceship I made out of chopping down forests to Mars in the year 1834 in Civ 6 instead."

 

[Chiyo]

Sometimes I do some crazy civ switch like Han China to Shawnee to France just because i know it drives certain people out there nuts.

"Oh no, my game isn't historically accurate now, guess I'll go launch a spaceship I made out of chopping down forests to Mars in the year 1834 in Civ 6 instead."

Wow, that is very impressive! Can you give some names of people you have driven nuts so far? And how does it work? Do you force people to watch you play? Or do you pay them?

 

[bengalryan9]

Wow, that is very impressive! Can you give some names of people you have driven nuts so far? And how does it work? Do you force people to watch you play? Or do you pay them?

Force or pay them? Lol, they tend to find these threads just fine on their own for free. Nothing better to do, I guess.

 

[Chiyo]

Force or pay them? Lol, they tend to find these threads just fine on their own for free. Nothing better to do, I guess.

But how does your decisions while playing have any effect then? Sounds like your strategy is as thought through as Civ switching and historical paths. But let's leave it at that. I don't mind you or anyone else having fun with the game. Enjoy it as much as you like and play any way you want. My problem is that I do not enjoy the game and as most people who also do not do it are not active on Civ forums anymore I drop in from time to time to make the other side noticed. I think it will increase the chance that the next iteration can be enjoyed by more players if the devs notice that not everything is great about the game.

 

[pjotroos]

So anyway, Mexico!

They are great aesthetically; music, design, unique district and units. Not particularly strong at any victory type, but can be tailored to work for most of them. They can also help with one of the hardest meta-game objectives - the three full promotion trees on a commander - since one of their great people can grant extra five levels. Never my first pick for any victory type, but happy to play them for most; I think economy is the only one where they offer no advantages.

I've not tried modern start yet - I doubt I ever will, honestly - but I feel they'd be a very solid pick for that.

 

[Bug Repellent]

But how does your decisions while playing have any effect then? Sounds like your strategy is as thought through as Civ switching and historical paths. But let's leave it at that. I don't mind you or anyone else having fun with the game. Enjoy it as much as you like and play any way you want. My problem is that I do not enjoy the game and as most people who also do not do it are not active on Civ forums anymore I drop in from time to time to make the other side noticed. I think it will increase the chance that the next iteration can be enjoyed by more players if the devs notice that not everything is great about the game.

Both here and on Reddit, posting anything critical about civ switching in particular and the game in general will get you downvoted into oblivion. Your original comment about *your experience* with civ switching is on point and did not attack anyone else, but the game design. Only to be followed by this gem that as of now has a bunch of likes:

Sometimes I do some crazy civ switch like Han China to Shawnee to France just because i know it drives certain people out there nuts.

"Oh no, my game isn't historically accurate now, guess I'll go launch a spaceship I made out of chopping down forests to Mars in the year 1834 in Civ 6 instead."

Imagine being so petty as to get pleasure from a silly civ switch only to stick it to some unknown people on an internet game forum.

 

[pjotroos]

Both here and on Reddit, posting anything critical about civ switching in particular and the game in general will get you downvoted into oblivion.

That's a fancy bit of tech, since there's no downvote button on this website. Did you mean "disagreed with"? That shouldn't be surprising, given that most people still talking about the game seven months from release will be the ones still playing, and most of the people still playing will be the ones that accept the series was always alternative history game and therefore don't mind the ahistorical switches all that much. Especially in a section called Civilization VII on a forum called CivFanatics.

And even if there were downvotes here, they genuinely can't hurt you. The only thing +1 and -1 votes tell you is what's the current consensus in any given group. I even agree that Aztecs are an obvious gap in the game that should be addressed soon, but I'm not going to upvote anything that calls it "plain stupid", because:
a) it's a concious design decision to always have pre-requisite and follow up civs
b) there is limited number of civs that could be included in the game on release
c) which means historical links are deliberately loose to begin with
d) and if you don't get that, either you didn't give the game much thought, or you're arguing in bad faith.
If Firaxis wanted to make a game where everything is Han -> Ming -> Qing, they could have made that, but it would be a different game from this one, it would rule out a large number of civs currently in the game from being there, and historical purists would still find something to complain about (both Qing and Mughals had plenty of detractors). It would also be far less interesting game than the current version; I rarely find good alternative pivots for the China path, because there's already one that's obviously correct, but I've been mixing and matching Europe a lot.

 

[bengalryan9]

But how does your decisions while playing have any effect then? Sounds like your strategy is as thought through as Civ switching and historical paths. But let's leave it at that. I don't mind you or anyone else having fun with the game. Enjoy it as much as you like and play any way you want. My problem is that I do not enjoy the game and as most people who also do not do it are not active on Civ forums anymore I drop in from time to time to make the other side noticed. I think it will increase the chance that the next iteration can be enjoyed by more players if the devs notice that not everything is great about the game.

...and you picked this thread to do it. Makes sense!

 

[bengalryan9]

Imagine being so petty as to get pleasure from a silly civ switch only to stick it to some unknown people on an internet game forum.

Imagine being such a crybaby about a game you don't like that you take it into threads where it's completely off topic.

 

[Sagax]

Imagine being such a crybaby about a game you don't like that you take it into threads where it's completely off topic.

Respectfully, I find your initial response about “sticking it to haters” more derailing than the post you replied to. I don’t think it’s wrong to complain about the civ’s unlock conditions in the thread where we discuss civs from all angles - especially when the civ unlocks are specifically mentioned in the OP. Even if the complaint came off rude, there are ways to shut it down without further fanning the flames - as @ehecatzin nicely showed it.

Back on topic, I share the sentiment that playing as Mexico feels fun, but they don’t give you a solid plan for finishing the game - and sadly, by the very nature of Modern, you can’t help but assess Modern civs through this lens. I’m also not sure if Mexico’s unique government and celebrations are objectively better than the default ones. In theory, the excess culture output could help you with passive artifact generation through Future Civic. That, however, is worse than just having an Explorer advantage and snatching enough artifacts early.

Also, I shared this before, but would like confirmation from others: do anyone else’s Soldaderas die in one shot when they attack, no matter how upgraded they are? Was there a fix in this regard in one of the patches?

 

[ehecatzin]

Also, I shared this before, but would like confirmation from others: do anyone else’s Soldaderas die in one shot when they attack, no matter how upgraded they are? Was there a fix in this regard in one of the patches?

I'm not sude if It's something unique to Soldaderas, y think overall Infantry in modern just gets super trampled by anything else. Firaxis really ought to up the defense bonuses of fortified infranty overall I think.