Montezuma for Aztec Leader again

[lumpthing]

Are there better leaders for the Aztecs? Yes, most certainly.

Does the average casual gamer know them? No.

There's your reason. Personally, I would prefer Itzcoatl, Ahuitzol, or even Tlacaelel. But most people would not.

Firstly, only offering leaders that the average casual gamer already knows about is just lame. People, especially civ-playing people, enjoy discovery.

Secondly, Firaxis doesn't think this is an important principle. If they did, the leaders of China, Japan and Arabia wouldn't be who they are now.

So the choice of Montezuma is just a mystery. As Inhalaattori points out, it's possible that they mean Montezuma I, but this isn't at all clear. I suspect the Civilopedia will reveal that it is still the same old Monty II.

 

[luke2345]

There's your reason. Personally, I would prefer Itzcoatl, Ahuitzol, or even Tlacaelel. But most people would not.

who are they.

 

[Magma]

They probably met vikings. They're easy to mistake for gods.

 

[Welnic]

I think Monty's big advantage over the other leaders is his name is pronounceable.

 

[astrognash]

So are the others...

granted, I find that Eyjafjallajökull is very easily pronounceable, as all it really requires is knowledge that in Icelandic, "j" has an American/English "y" sound.

 

[KIEJ.MANIK]

I know the first Montezuma was a good leader, but in Civ 4 it was the second Montezuma, and I'd rather have Itzcoatl even if it is the first Montezuma to avoid any confusion, and It'll also be a refreshing change Montezuma is always chosen as leader

 

[Isikien]

Because Monty is a pre-requisite for games involving rampant militaristic diplomacy

 

[KIEJ.MANIK]

Montezuma II was a letting the spanish walk all over him and Montezuma I could be mistaken for Montezuma II, there were more bloodthirsty Aztec leaders and it'll be nice to have a change