[R&F] Mapuche First Look

[Morningcalm]

A very fun Civ design, and I'm glad Firaxis had the Mapuche military design allude to the Mapuche adaptation to Spanish tactics and arms (after the Battle of Tucapel, Lautaro stuck the Spanish governor with a lance (the irony) and may have eaten the governor's forearms or beating heart).

Unfortunate that the horse unique unit isn't more interesting gameplay wise (i.e. Slightly increased reduction of enemy loyalty upon kills). Also, why does it have a ridiculous top hat looking thing? XD

Along with Mongolia, the Mapuche have the Civ/leader design I like most so far in this expansion. The others seem dull (e.g. Korea), too disparate to be historically thematic in a meaningfully synergistic way (e.g. Scotland), or too similar to existing Civ leaders (e.g. Chandragupta).

 

[Bosque]

Keep in mind that this is 5 loyalty per kill on top of any existing loyalty effects. So throw Amani in your closest city and you'll already be bleeding them dry from loyalty. The 5 per kill isn't supposed to be enough to flip a city on its own.

Also remember that loyalty is partly attributable to amenities. Pillage their unique luxuries with malones, and their loyalty will drop even faster.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

A very fun Civ design, and I'm glad Firaxis had the Mapuche military design allude to the Mapuche adaptation to Spanish tactics and arms (after the Battle of Tucapel, Lautaro stuck the Spanish governor with a lance (the irony) and may have eaten the governor's forearms or beating heart).

Unfortunate that the horse unique unit isn't more interesting gameplay wise (i.e. Slightly increased reduction of enemy loyalty upon kills). Also, why does it have a ridiculous top hat looking thing? XD

Along with Mongolia, the Mapuche have the Civ/leader design I like most so far in this expansion. The others seem dull (e.g. Korea), too disparate to be historically thematic in a meaningfully synergistic way (e.g. Scotland), or too similar to existing Civ leaders (e.g. Chandragupta).

I'd add Cree to your list but I mostly agree.

 

[DeutschDachs]

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

Sorry, I'd definitely have to concur with Victoria being bottom of the barrel. Her head is barely wider than her neck! And she's constantly pouting :/

Even Amanitore has more to love! (in a couple ways )

 

[Guandao]

Sorry, I'd definitely have to concur with Victoria being bottom of the barrel. Her head is barely wider than her neck! And she's constantly pouting :/

Even Amanitore has more to love! (in a couple ways )

What about Catherine de Medici?

 

[PhilBowles]

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

Still not very specifically Mapuche.

Though the few other posts I've seen on this thread suggest I may be in a minority in finding 'warrior civ with random resource-granting UI' a rather tired formula by now. I'll grant that it's not yet another "+2 movement and X% bonus to Y within ten turns after declaring a culture bomb" civ, but I see nothing interesting about this civ, especially when it's revealed right before the Zulu who could plausibly have every one of these bonuses other than the cultural UI and the UU being cavalry. It seems perverse to have two civs in the same expansion - let alone revealed within a week of each other - both defined by nothing other than their resistance to European powers. There's enough resistance to the Zulu in Civ as a series without bringing in their South American counterparts.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Also, why does it have a ridiculous top hat looking thing? XD

They seem to be going for the shirtless top hat look →

Spoiler :

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Having +10 against golden aged civ is a Great bonus, especially in deity games, where AI's are more likely to be in golden ages. (Assuming they have Golden Age point bonus from difficulty?)

 

[Phrozen]

Looks like a badly modeled stetson which of course was fairly popular throughout the Americas.

Edit: Actually probably a chupalla except they shortened the brim quite a bit.

 

[Wingednosering]

Chandra vs Latauro will be a pretty epic encounter.

Swift Hawk is not super powerful, but it isn't terrible either. Use the cav to pillage and take down some enemy units. Under 75 loyalty, the city won't flip, but you'll cripple their economy.

 

[pgm123]

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.

Oh, this makes sense. It encourages wars with cities who are likely to loyalty flip.

Interestingly it seems like he's more likely to like you if you're in a Golden Age (more loyalty) and dislike you if you're in a Dark Age (less loyalty).

In a way this makes sense. The Golden Age ability is National Ability. The agenda is tied to the leader and his leader ability is geared around loyalty flipping. So, he'll want to go to war with civs who are in danger of losing cities to his loyalty pressure.

 

[bbbt]

His ability is making me wish loyalty affected city defense (i.e. half loyalty = half strength). It would make sense thematically.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

There's enough resistance to the Zulu in Civ as a series without bringing in their South American counterparts.

Actually if you look at the Civ playing population as a whole there's great excitement about the Zulu, a staple of the Civ franchise. There are a group who resist it and they are very prominent in these forums but I don't think it's a generally held position.

 

[Phrozen]

His ability is making me wish loyalty affected city defense (i.e. half loyalty = half strength). It would make sense thematically.

Yes, I proposed something like that if we got Italy with Garibaldi. Combat bonus towards cities with low loyalty.

 

[Uberfrog]

[...] I see nothing interesting about this civ, especially when it's revealed right before the Zulu who could plausibly have every one of these bonuses other than the cultural UI and the UU being cavalry. It seems perverse to have two civs in the same expansion - let alone revealed within a week of each other - both defined by nothing other than their resistance to European powers. There's enough resistance to the Zulu in Civ as a series without bringing in their South American counterparts.

I would disagree. The Zulu are famous for their conflicts with the Boers and British, but Civ portrayals focus on the military reforms of Shaka, who never had anything to do with European colonists, and his lightning offensive against the other regional tribes. I don't think you could translate any of the Mapuche abilities to the Zulu in a satisfying way, except maybe the "bonus against a Civ in a Golden Age" one.

I expect Shaka and his Zulus to focus more on large, mobile armies of melee infantry. We already know he's getting a bonus to corps and army production.

 

[darkace77450]

Rapid pillaging? Combat affects Loyalty of nearby cities? I can't help but feel some of these abilities are what Mongolia should have been.

 

[Quis]

Very nice design choices for Lautaro and the Mapuche. I'm pleasantly surprised. I like the colors well, and the music theme is promising.

Little nitpick: I don't like the fact that Lautaro is using the same/a similar "Sword" as Philip. Not my kind of humor...

 

[steveg700]

Yes, I proposed something like that if we got Italy with Garibaldi. Combat bonus towards cities with low loyalty.

Yeah, I proposed something similar to that, where city-states/free cities receive more loyalty pressure from Italian cities when Garibaldi wins battles near them.

Was bummed not to see Italy make the cut. Thought that was what the paintbrush & palette in the trailer was alluding to, along with plague scenes.

 

[DeutschDachs]

What about Catherine de Medici?

She has a distinguished beauty, aged like a fine French (Italian?) wine

 

[clapyourhands]

I really, really like how this civ's playstyle seems to be shaking up. I've been wanted a cultural turtle for ages, and the loyalty shenanigans seem like icing on the cake.

The -5 Loyalty per kill seems like a good way to circumvent warmongering penalties, since taking a free city isn't the same taking an enemy city. Since I don't like drawn-out wars I could easily see flipping a city to free and then just peacing out and annexing the city by loyalty for no warmongering penalty at all.

I was skeptical about the Mapuche, but the big thing for me is if the civ is executed well and introduces a novel playstyle into the game, and the Mapuche definitely did that. None of their uniques even crowd into what the Inca might have, so I'm not worried about gameplay similarities or lack of distinction between the two of them.