Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America

[reddishrecue]

And the nations and city-states of the Rivierra. And Macau. And Uruguay. And formerly Lebanon. And several other notable hotspots.

Wdym

 

[Patine]

Wdym

Casino hotspots.

 

[reddishrecue]

Casino hotspots.

Ohh wow really? Interesting.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

AZTEC TO MEXICO

By the Industrial age, the Aztec player is expected to have a wide empire and 20-30 Luxury resources. This becomes quite unreasonable for modern warfare, as inherent Aztec combat bonus should not translate to vehicles. Even foot soldiers in modern times tend to have better training with fighting skills and martial arts due to trade, books, and cultural exchange. The combat bonus no longer makes sense, so forcing the civilization to change into Mexico, with a new leader, puts a time limit on easy Aztec Domination.

Mexican Leader ability: Siesta: +1 culture for every neighborhood. Cities with 6 population or more lose 1 production for each additional population. City Projects cost twice as much production. Factories provide 1 Amenity to cities within range. +3 food, and -3 gold to import it, for city centers built on Snow, Tundra, or Desert. Cities that lack sufficient amenities lose 1 population, which migrate to a nearby city of another empire, preferably America. This can only happen once per city.

Mexican unique building: Taco Shop. Replaces the Granary. Does NOT provide food or housing. Friendly units in city territory heal 5 every turn even if they take action. +4 Tourism if the city has at least 4 Population. +2 Tourism for each world wonder, and natural wonder, in a city.

Mexican Unique Unit: (you think of one)

So when the wide Aztec empire becomes Mexico, it loses the extra amenities and combat bonus, and shifts towards achieving a cultural victory with a unique strategy that favors making lots of cities with Taco Shops, but you can't just spam cities everywhere as you need at least 4 population, (except during a Draconis age) You don't need great people, but all wonders help. Cities with the Aztec unique building get to keep it, as well as any eagle warriors you still have.

Amenities become more of a problem, but you should have built lots of entertainment districts for the Aztec unique building, and you can get extra amenities by making good use of factories and cities built close together. There is a disadvantage for city projects: Twice the cost, but not twice the benefit, except for effects that happen every turn.

The loss of production and increased cost of city projects is actually a blessing for big cities, as managing a wide empire in the end game quickly turns into a nightmare. I actually dread making too many cities, because you are micro managing all of them every single turn. I would rather eliminate city projects and bring back gold and science focus from Civ 5, but since the devs didn't have the common sense to do this, and players don't have the common sense to demand it, this is the next best thing.

Plus there is a religious belief or card that actually reduces the production time for city projects, which is proof positive the devs don't play the game for very long. Why would anyone ever want to finish them twice as fast?

I don't know if Aztec can be evolved to Mexico. While geographically (and partial Demographically),... . Aztecs and Mexicans seems to be one and same. even Monty himself called his country 'Mehika' in his introduction line. in truth they aren't.
1. Mexico had been heavily Hispanialized. they were still Catholic Zealot nation for one o two centuries after Mexico broke away from Spain. and even Catholic Tyrants remain in charge long after that. Pre-Christian religion has never been restored. (and the tenet itself is very much evil by modern standard--human sacrifice). or any attempts to do so will be suppressed swiftly, and deadly (if such religion has ever been restored. the first target of human sacrifices will be the entirety of Roman Catholic Fraternities and Sororites because they NEVER recognize One God as theirs).
Did Roman Catholicism still remain THE ONLY LEGAL RELIGION in Mexico? (or when did it still being so, and whoever not being catholics are considered criminals. did the modern Mexican constitution keep this line or more tolerance towards other religions but never secularized, or secularized alredy?)
2. No pre-conquest archetectures ever been restored or rebuilt. The Mexico City retained much of Spanish Imperial archetecture, no temples of Old Gods and Palace of Montezuma are rebuilt on the same spot after they broke free from Spain.
3. Aztec language has not been restored,
4. All mexicans now use Spanish names.
5. 'Nominal' maps of Mexico (Before Great American Expansions of the early half of 19th Century) covers the territory OUTSIDE Old Aztec Empire. I doubt how Paiutes of what's now Utah, Apache and Comanche, and anyone else North of Los Angeles ever recognizes Aztec Imperial Power or even pay tributes to Aztec Emperors when the Empire still stands).
6. Aztec Army of the 16th Century and Mexican Army under Santa Ana fought differently, not just weapons but also tactics. Santa Ana's army is clearly an emulation of Napoleon's Grand Armee, consists of just about EVERYTHING Napoleon has (Including Cuirassiers, something US Army Cavalry didn't even bother to create but before a confrontation, still fear them so the US Army had to deploy horse artillery just to turn those tough cuirassiers into donuts because they didn't sure anyone else in the US Army can do the same.)


^ This is what generic musketry or maybe rifles of 1840s can do to Mexican Cuirass, a small dent on this armor.

^ This is what US Army wanted to do when meeting Santa Ana's Cuirassiers. turn them all into donuts. something possible with fieldguns of any kind.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

And the nations and city-states of the Rivierra. And Liechtenstein. And Luxumburg. And Macau. And Uruguay. And formerly Lebanon. And the UAE. And several other notable hotspots.

i’m still hoping for my Macau cs

 

[Patine]

I don't know if Aztec can be evolved to Mexico. While geographically (and partial Demographically),... . Aztecs and Mexicans seems to be one and same. even Monty himself called his country 'Mehika' in his introduction line. in truth they aren't.
1. Mexico had been heavily Hispanialized. they were still Catholic Zealot nation for one o two centuries after Mexico broke away from Spain. and even Catholic Tyrants remain in charge long after that. Pre-Christian religion has never been restored. (and the tenet itself is very much evil by modern standard--human sacrifice). or any attempts to do so will be suppressed swiftly, and deadly (if such religion has ever been restored. the first target of human sacrifices will be the entirety of Roman Catholic Fraternities and Sororites because they NEVER recognize One God as theirs).
Did Roman Catholicism still remain THE ONLY LEGAL RELIGION in Mexico? (or when did it still being so, and whoever not being catholics are considered criminals. did the modern Mexican constitution keep this line or more tolerance towards other religions but never secularized, or secularized alredy?)
2. No pre-conquest archetectures ever been restored or rebuilt. The Mexico City retained much of Spanish Imperial archetecture, no temples of Old Gods and Palace of Montezuma are rebuilt on the same spot after they broke free from Spain.
3. Aztec language has not been restored,
4. All mexicans now use Spanish names.
5. 'Nominal' maps of Mexico (Before Great American Expansions of the early half of 19th Century) covers the territory OUTSIDE Old Aztec Empire. I doubt how Paiutes of what's now Utah, Apache and Comanche, and anyone else North of Los Angeles ever recognizes Aztec Imperial Power or even pay tributes to Aztec Emperors when the Empire still stands).
6. Aztec Army of the 16th Century and Mexican Army under Santa Ana fought differently, not just weapons but also tactics. Santa Ana's army is clearly an emulation of Napoleon's Grand Armee, consists of just about EVERYTHING Napoleon has (Including Cuirassiers, something US Army Cavalry didn't even bother to create but before a confrontation, still fear them so the US Army had to deploy horse artillery just to turn those tough cuirassiers into donuts because they didn't sure anyone else in the US Army can do the same.)


^ This is what generic musketry or maybe rifles of 1840s can do to Mexican Cuirass, a small dent on this armor.

^ This is what US Army wanted to do when meeting Santa Ana's Cuirassiers. turn them all into donuts. something possible with fieldguns of any kind.

Well, number 3 is TECHNICALLY incorrect - Nahuatl, Zapotec, Mayan languages, Northern Mexican Indigenous (Chichimeca) languages, and others ARE still spoken fluently in the home, transmit to younger generations, even in significant numbers, but it is a counter-point to the Aztec-to-Mexico argument, as speakers of those languages have long been been treated as a, "second-clas rural, peasant caste," of oppressed and poor farmworkers, ranch hands, and mining and forestry workers, exploited by wealthy, Spamish-mother-tongue-speaking peninsular-descendents, creoles, and mestiszos. This lead to rebellions like the Caste War, a notable portion of the support for Zapata and Poncho Villa in the Mexican Revolution, several insurgent faction in the Mexican Dirty War of the '80's, and the modern and ongoing Zapatista and Popular Revolutionary Army revolts as reactions - but none of then cutting out hearts with obsidian knifes to placate Huitzilpoctli for victory on record.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And what are these rebellions view on Roman Catholicism today? did these rebellions hate the Church so much and under what lens did these rebellions view the church? the same Cross Worshipping Tyrants that came there four centuries ago or a different view?

(And about Narc Warlords in Mexico. is it parts of America-supported dirty wars to keep Mexico in line (and never to betray their 'Blonde Masters' and became a big fan of cute pandas))

 

[Patine]

^ And what are these rebellions view on Roman Catholicism today? did these rebellions hate the Church so much and under what lens did these rebellions view the church? the same Cross Worshipping Tyrants that came there four centuries ago or a different view?

(And about Narc Warlords in Mexico. is it parts of America-supported dirty wars to keep Mexico in line (and never to betray their 'Blonde Masters' and became a big fan of cute pandas))

I don't believe all of the groups I mentioned have a unified view on the Roman Catholic Church, to be honest. And the Mexican Dirty War of the '80's is a significantly different conflict than the Mexican Drug Wars of the 21st Century.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Santa Ana's army is clearly an emulation of Napoleon's Grand Armee, consists of just about EVERYTHING Napoleon has (Including Cuirassiers, something US Army Cavalry didn't even bother to create but before a confrontation, still fear them so the US Army had to deploy horse artillery just to turn those tough cuirassiers into donuts because they didn't sure anyone else in the US Army can do the same.)


^ This is what generic musketry or maybe rifles of 1840s can do to Mexican Cuirass, a small dent on this armor.

^ This is what US Army wanted to do when meeting Santa Ana's Cuirassiers. turn them all into donuts. something possible with fieldguns of any kind.

Sorry, but there is no cuirass made of pre-armor plate alloy steel that a man can wear and move in that is proof against gunpowder muskets or rifles.

British troops had discovered that French cuirasses, which were deeply concave, made great soup kettles for a squad of infantry. After the Battle of Waterloo, British infantry were discouraged to discover that of the many French cuirasses (and cuirassiers) littering the battlefield, every one had a hole through it, from close-range musketry. Every French cuirass came with a dent in the upper left quadrant from a pistol ball, which was fired to 'proof' the finished cuirass at the workshop: they could stop a pistol ball, but not a heavier musket ball fired at a higher velocity, and even less a pointed rifle bullet from the 1840s on.

The problem the American cavalry had in the Mexican-American War was that most of the cavalry (the dragoons and 2 'real cavalry regiments) carried only pistols or carbines, and so were at a disadvantage in close mounted combat with the cuirassiers. On the other hand, there is no record of American infantry with rifles having any trouble shooting them out of their saddles if they got too close, nor did cuirasses protect any French cavalry in the war of 1870 - 71 (and note that Prussian 'cuirassiers' had already stopped wearing the cuirass in the field because its uselessness for anything but parades had been recognized).

For body armor that a man can move in that is also proof against infantry weapons, you have to wait for Kevlar and its derivatives of the Late Modern Era.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ So the Americans used Horse Artillery to shoot as many Mexican chargers of all kind as they can and 'avoid locked into hand to hand combat' with firepower? (and not about AP needs, that they have to turn these Mexican cuirassiers into donuts before they were trampled over) At this point did the Westpoint really aware how good (or bad) cuirassiers were on the battlefield or even how to counter enemy cuirassiers or even is it possible for simple linear infantry of that time to stand their ground against enemy cuirassiers?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As far as I know, no one in the American army ever seriously considered fielding Cuirassiers. There are several reasons fo this that have nothing to do with how good they might be in a mounted swordfight with other cavalry:

1. As stated, they were still as vulnerable as any other mounted force to infantry firepower, so the expense of providing cuirasses was wasted except in very limited tactical engagements against other cavalry.

2. The American army just started fielding 'regular' cavalry in the 1830s, and by the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 still had only 6 regiments (understrength) of them: 2 each of dragoons, cavalry, and mounted rifles. Comparatively, they had over 20 regiments of infantry.

3. American military 'doctrine' or expectations of how to Win, ever since the revolution were based on he individual infantryman with a good firearm. The US Army right down to World War Two always believed that "a good rifleman an accomplish anything" even in the face of evidence that against well-handled machineguns, mostly what he could do was get massacred when trying to attack. What was true, though, is that by the early 19th century, the infantryman with one of the new rifles or rifled muskets could do almost anything: he could outrange any artillery trying to fire cannister/grapeshot at him, and absolutely devastate any mounted force trying to close with him: the cavalry needed open ground to charge, and on open ground a mounted man was 10 times the size of target that a man on foot was. The result, by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 - 71, was the institution of the dubious tactic of "Death Rides" when cavalry units tried to charge and very few of them ever came back. Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade was all too generally applicable.

4. Cavalry is much, much more expensive than infantry, both to raise and to maintain. The US Army would not have raised any cavalry at all except that by the 1830s they were in contact with the plains natives, and the Lakotah, Cheyenne or Comanches could literally ride rings around any infantry unit: without some kind of mounted force, you'd never catch them unless they wanted you to, and that was never a Good Thing (see the Fetterman Massacre of 1869 for what happened when you 'caught' Lakotah who Wanted to be caught)

 

[BuchiTaton]

I don't know if Aztec can be evolved to Mexico. While geographically (and partial Demographically),... . Aztecs and Mexicans seems to be one and same. even Monty himself called his country 'Mehika' in his introduction line. in truth they aren't.
1. Mexico had been heavily Hispanialized. they were still Catholic Zealot nation for one o two centuries after Mexico broke away from Spain. and even Catholic Tyrants remain in charge long after that. Pre-Christian religion has never been restored. (and the tenet itself is very much evil by modern standard--human sacrifice). or any attempts to do so will be suppressed swiftly, and deadly (if such religion has ever been restored. the first target of human sacrifices will be the entirety of Roman Catholic Fraternities and Sororites because they NEVER recognize One God as theirs).
Did Roman Catholicism still remain THE ONLY LEGAL RELIGION in Mexico? (or when did it still being so, and whoever not being catholics are considered criminals. did the modern Mexican constitution keep this line or more tolerance towards other religions but never secularized, or secularized alredy?)

Mexico is a secular country since 1863 when Lerdo Law could be applied, with cult freedom and no religion is official, even more most of catholic church propierties were forced to be sold ending many of them in hands of the government. Later in 1926 the Calles Law that forced to withdraw any public religious demostration, events and symbols trigger an armed religious uprising, resulting in a more tolerant but still laic state. Even more current mexican president is a non-catholic christian and the more likely next president is a jew woman.
Also the average mexican religiosity is more about rite not dogmas, likely a result of the syncretic elements you can see that most catholic mexicans belief in all kind of "pagan" mystic traditions. In current Mexico there are not real controversies about religious topics like there are in USA.

3. Aztec language has not been restored,

Currently there are almost 2 millions Nahuatl speakers and since 2003 all the native languages of Mexico have a "national" status like spanish.
Anyway, of course inpractice spanish is by far the dominant language.

4. All mexicans now use Spanish names.

Most by far but not all, also the real deal are surnames and you can find last names like Xicotencatl, Pilloztin, etc. Many native nobility was reconized by spaniards and keep their native surnames. This is also common in Yucatan with the maya.

6. Aztec Army of the 16th Century and Mexican Army under Santa Ana fought differently, not just weapons but also tactics. Santa Ana's army is clearly an emulation of Napoleon's Grand Armee, consists of just about EVERYTHING Napoleon has (Including Cuirassiers, something US Army Cavalry didn't even bother to create but before a confrontation, still fear them so the US Army had to deploy horse artillery just to turn those tough cuirassiers into donuts because they didn't sure anyone else in the US Army can do the same.)

To be honest this is quite irrelevant. Is not like any other nation would not have changed their ways of warfare.

 

[BuchiTaton]

^ And what are these rebellions view on Roman Catholicism today? did these rebellions hate the Church so much and under what lens did these rebellions view the church? the same Cross Worshipping Tyrants that came there four centuries ago or a different view?

(And about Narc Warlords in Mexico. is it parts of America-supported dirty wars to keep Mexico in line (and never to betray their 'Blonde Masters' and became a big fan of cute pandas))

Anti christian sentiment were part of native uprising only in the early part of colonial rule and mostly for the non-urbanized native nations like Chichimecs.
For sure there was a lot of cases of abuse and forced conversion (like in some Maya regions) but many ignore that commonly mesoamericans had no real problem to integrate the christian belief in a syncretic way that religious orders knew to give good use to, and mostly the friars were native benefactors.
In fact catholic native population was the most fervent population, either under leadership of catholic authorities or as their own syncretic beliefs.

Interesting thing is that the "Liberation Theology" is popular among *"Latin American"* Native peoples because they already have communal religous ways, from both pre-hispacnic times and from their conversion under religious orders like the Franciscans.

 

[Patine]

Later in 1926 the Calles Law that forced to withdraw any public religious demostration, events and symbols trigger an armed religious uprising

The Cristero War, I assume? The one that got covert moneys and supplies from the Knights of Columbus in the U.S.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

The Cristero War, I assume? The one that got covert moneys and supplies from the Knights of Columbus in the U.S.

The war where the Irish, Knights of Columbus, the United States, and the Vatican were at odds with the United Kingdom, a terrorist organization, and also the United States?

 

[Patine]

The war where the Irish, Knights of Columbus, the United States, and the Vatican were at odds with the United Kingdom, a terrorist organization, and also the United States?

Not, that one.

 

[Quintillus]

Well, this thread developed into an Aztecs -> Mexico/Cherokee -> American/taco shop focus pretty quickly.

But I think that in part goes to show how tough this would be to do on a geographic basis, and how many groups would object to such decisions. Imagine if the Byzantine Greeks became the Turks, who then became the modern Greeks. Both Greeks and Turks would be up in arms, even though from a geographic standpoint, one could make an argument that it follows the timeline accurately.

It might work for Rome -> Italy, but overall, I think (1) would be hazardous on geographic grounds in much of the world.

Humankind tried (1) but without geographic constraints on the evolution. IMO, the result was perhaps even worse from a gameplay standpoint. At least if you have Aztecs -> Mexico, you know which civ is which geographically. In Humankind, you can go from England to Japan to Mali, and so can your neighbors, and it rapidly becomes impossible to remember who's who. Having a stable identity is, IMO, important in a 4X game.

I think (2) and (3) are much more interesting and practical ideas.

It wouldn't necessarily work timeline-wise for everyone, since not every civ has been around for all of human history. But you could fudge it with the nearest available option; the USA has George Washington from 4000 BC until the Industrial Era, when they get someone more modern like Chester Alan Arthur. France has their Civ3 Joan of Arc in the Middle Ages and Napoleon in the Industrial Age and De Gaulle in the Modern Age.

The downside is it's more art work and does it really make the game better?

Or you just do (2) as written with changing uniforms, and that's exactly what Civ III did. Aside from some debatable choices about Joan's modern military uniform, it worked pretty well overall. Yeah, it required a bit of imagination to have Mursilis of the Hittites in a modern office building, but it added some nice flavor and immediate visual feedback on the diplomacy screen as to which era your opponent was in. And with only 4 eras (versus 9 in Civ6 + GS), it was manageable in terms of art overhead.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The Cristero War, I assume? The one that got covert moneys and supplies from the Knights of Columbus in the U.S.

Yes, is the Cristero War.

The war where the Irish, Knights of Columbus, the United States, and the Vatican were at odds with the United Kingdom, a terrorist organization, and also the United States?

A little time ago it turned into a meme because the support groups listed by the Wikipedia article about the war. I think a common problem with wiki articles about wars is that dont clarify the magnitude of the support, so as in this case is not like the terrorist organization with multiple k had a relevant role anyway.

 

[Patine]

Or you just do (2) as written with changing uniforms, and that's exactly what Civ III did. Aside from some debatable choices about Joan's modern military uniform, it worked pretty well overall. Yeah, it required a bit of imagination to have Mursilis of the Hittites in a modern office building, but it added some nice flavor and immediate visual feedback on the diplomacy screen as to which era your opponent was in. And with only 4 eras (versus 9 in Civ6 + GS), it was manageable in terms of art overhead.

This was actually one of my least favourite aspects of Civ3, actually. I found it quite jarring and goofy, visually.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It wouldn't necessarily work timeline-wise for everyone, since not every civ has been around for all of human history. But you could fudge it with the nearest available option; the USA has George Washington from 4000 BC until the Industrial Era, when they get someone more modern like Chester Alan Arthur. France has their Civ3 Joan of Arc in the Middle Ages and Napoleon in the Industrial Age and De Gaulle in the Modern Age.

I like this idea as long as it's not set in stone that this leader can only lead for two eras, and not before this era etc.
Regarding France who would be there leader at the beginning of the game if Jeanne d"Arc was only available starting at Medieval. Surely, we wouldn't have a leader from Gaul?
To me there's not a problem with this idea if we could start the game off with someone like Napoleon and then decide to switch to her through something like a government change.