Is the aztec AI still stupid?

[caketastydelish]

Haven’t got civ 6 yet. In civ 5 montezuma was so stupid because declared war on half the people he met at the same time. Only to get wiped out.

When he could have steamrolled them if he went one by one.

Do the Aztecs or any other civs make such stupid decisions in civ 6 ?

Edit: meant to say ai in title. Stupid autocorrect.

Moderator Action: Fixed thread title. Note that you can do this yourself through the edit function. Browd

 

[Patine]

Haven’t got civ 6 yet. In civ 5 montezuma was so stupid because declared war on half the people he met at the same time. Only to get wiped out.

When he could have steamrolled them if he went one by one.

Do the Aztecs or any other civs make such stupid decisions in civ 6 ?

Edit: meant to say ai in title. Stupid autocorrect.

In RL history, the Aztecs had somewhat of a "bully" mentality there. They quickly declared war on any other city-state or nation in the Valley of Mexico at the slightest excuse, often attacks and rebellions by them, so they could claim more tribute as spoils (especially captives to be sacrificed), because, at the time, they were by far the pre-eminent power in the Valley of Mexico. HOWEVER, when Hernan Cortez and his Spanish Conquistadors on the shores of what is now Veracruz, such bravado went out the window and Montezuma started sending worshipful messages, tribute in vast amounts (a substance the Aztecs didn't regard as inherently valuable themselves, mind), and even welcomed them into Tenochtitlan and gave them lodging in his own palace. No military stand or resistance was made until Montezuma's death and his nephew, Cuahtemoc, becoming Huey Tlaloc of the Aztecs, but by that time, any resistance were just acts of desperation.

 

[Zaarin]

HOWEVER, when Hernan Cortez and his Spanish Conquistadors on the shores of what is now Veracruz, such bravado went out the window and Montezuma started sending worshipful messages, tribute in vast amounts (a substance the Aztecs didn't regard as inherently valuable themselves, mind), and even welcomed them into Tenochtitlan and gave them lodging in his own palace.

Or at least so said a Spanish monk. Historians dispute that claim as exaggerated, fabricated, or misinterpreted.

But yes, Aztec history was indeed characterized by a state of perpetual warfare with its neighbors to fuel its endless need for sacrifices.

But to answer the OP, I too frequently saw Monty get ground to dust under the AI's inept mismanagement in Civ5; in Civ6, however, he seems to handle himself quite well. In my current game he got jinxed by a bad starting location and isn't doing so great, but usually he seems to be in the upper half of the civs by score. Helps that the Aztecs have some solid bonuses; I'm not even a warmonger and I enjoy playing the Aztec.

 

[Patine]

Or at least so said a Spanish monk. Historians dispute that claim as exaggerated, fabricated, or misinterpreted.

But yes, Aztec history was indeed characterized by a state of perpetual warfare with its neighbors to fuel its endless need for sacrifices.

But to answer the OP, I too frequently saw Monty get ground to dust under the AI's inept mismanagement in Civ5; in Civ6, however, he seems to handle himself quite well. In my current game he got jinxed by a bad starting location and isn't doing so great, but usually he seems to be in the upper half of the civs by score. Helps that the Aztecs have some solid bonuses; I'm not even a warmonger and I enjoy playing the Aztec.

Which brings to mind a question. Now I know these kinds of situations deal with a degree of forward and adaptive thinking that Firaxis and Sid Meier's previous employer/collaborator, MPS, have not yet managed in any of the six iterations of Civ, but, if the Aztecs, in game, founded, or converted to or pretty much any big religion that doesn't require fueling by human sacrifice, shouldn't they become less aggressive and get other bonuses. Again, an ahistorical civilization adaptivity to unusual events set of algorithms that may enrich a future iteration of the game, if it can be made to work.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Yes, but then they won't be the Aztecs anymore, or at least not how we remember them.

 

[Patine]

Yes, but then they won't be the Aztecs anymore, or at least not how we remember them.

Well, would you say the Modern British are what was seen in the Anglo-Saxon or Norman days. They're still the same "nation" and "civilization," more or less, progressed through history, even if their society, government, attitude, etc., are completely different. I'm referring to the (wistful, I admit) idea where a future iteration of Civ can better extrapolate ahistorical turns of events for civilizations that happen in a given game and how they would more logically impact them and change them.