[R&F] Mapuche First Look

[Kimiimaro]

@pgm123, but after the Second Punic War, didn't he try to improve Carthaginian situation from his position of Suffet? If I know well, he cared about happiness of common Carthaginian people, he tried to make Carthage merchant superpower of Mediterranean again, and he also tried to reduce the power of rich and corrupt oligarchy, which is why they hated him and exiled him.

 

[Guandao]

I'm too distracted by her arm clipping through her dress and sash.

I always fail the notice the clipping on the leader animations. I don't know why....

 

[Kimiimaro]

Victoria is ugly. :/ Jadwiga's adorable but kind of young.

Maybe, but not the most ugly. This goes to Cleopatra by far

 

[Josephias]

I'm not putting emphasis on anything in particular, it's just that -5 loyalty per kill doesn't seem useful for anything in particular. The rest of the Civ I get. Maybe the math will work out different on release than what I expect, but based on the information I have I feel justified in making that assessment.

I agree -5 per kill alone will not be useful. But I'm interested to see your math. I'm not inclined to start the problem myself (that's what I do for work, so gaming for me has to be something else), but I would find interesting checking the numbers. It all depends on which is the standard loyalty balance - if it sets an average -+20 per turn, of course it is nonsense. But if (as I think it would be in normal cases, the average is under +-10 per turn getting two or three kills may help tipping the balance, gaining 2-3 turns and getting the city to rebel before the opponent can take defensive loyalty action by means of buildings/governors/social policy changes). This, I think, will be the strenght of the ability, trying to flip a city only through military does not seem the best option.

 

[Guandao]

Maybe, but not the most ugly. This goes to Cleopatra by far

Cleo's better looking when she is friendly.... But I think they made her chest too big....Plus giraffe neck....

 

[Thormodr]

I'm just going to leave this here.
After researching them, the Mapuche are fine in my book.
Barring the Inca, they would be my first pick of another indigenous SA Civ. The Muisca would be good too, but harder to pull off.
Of course their not as significant as their northern counterparts but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included.
And if we go on global impact/ significance in history we would only have China, America, India, Arabia, Japan, Egypt, Babylon/Persia and the rest European probably.
Edit: Should have mentioned Mongolia as well.

Ahhh...good. I was about to mention that you left out Mongolia.

 

[Gutmensch]

At first it strikes to me as one of the ancient era palaces (so no specific). Can't tell which era they are playing when it is seen in the FL, however.

You can see the palace at around 1:04 in the First Look. I believe they are in the medieval or renaissance era during that portion of the video. Also, it looks the Mapuche didn't just get a unique palace, but also a unique city design (at least for the time being).

 

[Uberfrog]

Oh, really?!?!
Ok. Await protests from Mapuche headman over Leftraro!

The reaction so far is pretty positive, see, e.g., https://twitter.com/HistoriaMapuche.

With Mapuche resistance to the environmental destruction being caused to their lands very much still a relevant issue, I feel this portrayal of resistance is likely to be quite favourable in the minds of many Mapuche - see https://www.mapuche-nation.org/blog/defiance-of-the-mapuche/.

 

[pgm123]

Carthage.

Carthage had a regional impact, not a global one. Though Mapuche territory was probably closer in size to Tunisia, so I'll agree they had less of an impact. The Inca, however, had a much larger impact than Carthage. They dominated the Andes more than Carthage dominated the Western Mediterranean.

@pgm123, but after the Second Punic War, didn't he try to improve Carthaginian situation from his position of Suffet? If I know well, he cared about happiness of common Carthaginian people, he tried to make Carthage merchant superpower of Mediterranean again, and he also tried to reduce the power of rich and corrupt oligarchy, which is why they hated him and exiled him.

He did try to improve Carthage from his position as Suffet (Judge) and I'd argue he did a good job. Carthage also used its peace dividend effectively. But he was resisted every step of the way and his civil impact wasn't lasting because he never took authority away from the Oligarchs and things were just as corrupt when he was gone. But I think his role as Suffet does give him a better case than he'd have if he was simply just a general. I'd hope they had war-weary older Hannibal if they pick him as leader because at least that hasn't been done before.

 

[Leyrann]

Carthage.

Global. Impact.

Well, if you see "the mediterranian" as global, I guess it holds.

 

[Josephias]

Cleo's better looking when she is friendly.... But I think they made her chest too big....Plus giraffe neck....

Cleo's attractiveness is in attitude, and looks. I tend to think Gitarja has a good balance between cute and sexy...

But yes, I think we need the Russian Caty as an alternate leader... except if they go the Civ III version :s

 

[Magil]

I agree -5 per kill alone will not be useful. But I'm interested to see your math. I'm not inclined to start the problem myself (that's what I do for work, so gaming for me has to be something else), but I would find interesting checking the numbers. It all depends on which is the standard loyalty balance - if it sets an average -+20 per turn, of course it is nonsense. But if (as I think it would be in normal cases, the average is under +-10 per turn getting two or three kills may help tipping the balance, gaining 2-3 turns and getting the city to rebel before the opponent can take defensive loyalty action by means of buildings/governors/social policy changes). This, I think, will be the strenght of the ability, trying to flip a city only through military does not seem the best option.

The math is based around the assumption that a newly settled city starts at 100 loyalty and, most of the time, will have positive loyalty pressure. In order to flip, it must drop to 0 loyalty. Now, you can reduce its yields by pillaging and reducing its loyalty below 75, and that is marginally useful (the pillaging is better than the loyalty drop, because you directly get something out of the pillaging). But for me war is always more about gaining something for myself rather than hurting my opponent, and the loyalty doesn't gain me anything without some big investment (for what benefit? Just build some units and take the city by force already). Maybe, maybe it will, in some circumstance somewhere, drop the city's production so that it delays ancient walls by a turn or two. Seems highly situational to me, but it might happen at some point.

So to use your example, if a city is gaining 10 loyalty per turn, okay you can kill three units next to the city to drop it from 100 to 85... then it goes to 95 next turn. Even if you kill another unit it'll be at full next turn, and just how many units are you expecting to kill? No, for this to be useful, a city will need to be decreasing in loyalty already, and you may be able to speed up the flip by a few turns. In which case, it becomes a free city, which I don't see as a good thing, for reasons I already stated (why do my units get kicked out of its borders? Free cities shouldn't enforce borders. Movement is already annoying in Civ VI).

 

[PhilBowles]

If they're going to move away from series staples, can't they at least justify the newcomers by giving them unique gameplay that dovetails with something the civ is notable for? We've seen that with Scotland, but we've also had a version of Georgia that could have been reskinned as Byzantium without changing any of its abilities, and now we have a civ that - despite tangentially relating to most of the new systems in Rise and Fall - is both weirdly generic and not clearly a good fit specifically for the Mapuche. Even the summary doesn't attempt to justify the 'extra experience in cities with governors' in relation to Mapuche history, despite making efforts to associate all the other abilities with 'Mapuche' things (albeit things the Mapuche share with basically any other society subject to European colonialism - Lautaro's ability could have been given to Shaka with no changes, as for that matter could the civ ability).

Civ VI has passed 'peak improvement' - there's not much left to do with improvements, so we get another rinse-and-repeat culture improvement.

Only the loyalty loss for defeating units in their territory is an interesting take, but again it could be given to basically anyone and makes no actual sense for the Mapuche specifically (did many Spanish cities rebel after military losses?). Overall this feels a wasted opportunity - both for costing us an established civ that could use comparable abilities (Ethiopia, for instance) and for adding a new name to the roster without giving them anything that feels fresh or distinctive, or communicates who the Mapuche were.

 

[ltccone]

Global. Impact.

Well, if you see "the mediterranian" as global, I guess it holds.

If Carthage had defeated Rome

Carthage had a regional impact, not a global one. Though Mapuche territory was probably closer in size to Tunisia, so I'll agree they had less of an impact. The Inca, however, had a much larger impact than Carthage. They dominated the Andes more than Carthage dominated the Western Mediterranean.



He did try to improve Carthage from his position as Suffet (Judge) and I'd argue he did a good job. Carthage also used its peace dividend effectively. But he was resisted every step of the way and his civil impact wasn't lasting because he never took authority away from the Oligarchs and things were just as corrupt when he was gone. But I think his role as Suffet does give him a better case than he'd have if he was simply just a general. I'd hope they had war-weary older Hannibal if they pick him as leader because at least that hasn't been done before.

A victory by Carthage over Rome in the Second Punic War would have changed the history of three continents.

 

[frubox]

If Carthage had defeated Rome

A victory by Carthage over Rome in the Second Punic War would have changed the history of three continents.

So many ifs and maybes and woulds...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even the summary doesn't attempt to justify the 'extra experience in cities with governors' in relation to Mapuche history, despite making efforts to associate all the other abilities with 'Mapuche' things (albeit things the Mapuche share with basically any other society subject to European colonialism - Lautaro's ability could have been given to Shaka with no changes, as for that matter could the civ ability).

I'm assuming that a governor=a toqui in this regard. Although I agree that it could have been demonstrated in maybe another way.

 

[Leyrann]

If Carthage had defeated Rome

A victory by Carthage over Rome in the Second Punic War would have changed the history of three continents.

If.

Seriously?

IF???

Well, it did not happen. This is a history-inspired game, not a fairytale-inspired game.

 

[Duuk]

So many ifs and maybes and woulds...

And if the Byzantines hadn't been busy fighting each other, Islam may have never become a thing. There we go, now the cycle is complete.

Can we get back to discussing how awesome this civ is? I like the idea of a defensive culture "snapping turtle" civ.

 

[Schug2K]

Here's some info about Lautaro's agenda!

Spirit of Tucapel
Tries to create and maintain a high degree of cultural loyalty. Dislikes civilizations that fail to maintain the loyalty of their people, likes those who do.

 

[Giskler]

Here's some info about Lautaro's agenda!

Spirit of Tucapel
Tries to create and maintain a high degree of cultural loyalty. Dislikes civilizations that fail to maintain the loyalty of their people, likes those who do.

Allright, no silly golden age hating