New Civ Game Guide: Mexico

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What else does Mexico have to work with, other than a successful revolution and fiestas?

Not a lot. Hence the fantasy amazon unit.

Bad bad choice. and a ripoff of Humankind. Same latina cowgirls with winchesters.
They should be a kind of Chasseurs a pied. not main infantry.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Unique because it's imaginary. The Soldaderas were camp-followers and occasional combatants; there were no all-female infantry units in the Mexican forces.

Hopefully the in-game unit is mixed gender to avoid the absurd implication that all Mexican infantry is female, in which case the name of the unit is inappropriate, but I have the feeling they're going to go full Monty and make Mexico the land of Amazons.

Should be UC actually.
The main UU should instead be Californios. (Lancers)


^ Mexican lancers (wore Cowboy outfits). one of the best in addition to their regular lancers (wore the same Uhlan uniforms as European counterparts)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yeah, no disagreements here as to your assessment.

I’m just irked that it’s such an anemic and unflavorful governance system that equates all forms of government into an afterthought without any real impact.

Further, even if that were not the case, forcing the player to blindly choose a govt at the start of an age before they become aware of their needs and then not allowing them to switch strategically is not compelling design imo.

But I’m a poly-sci guy so

It is a bit weak, yes.

On reflection, I'm not sure it will feel any weaker than the system in VI. In theory, VI had a more complex system, but in reality you'd only ever have 3 governments over the course of the game, and there was minimal flavour to them imo.

I like that they've linked governments to happiness, but do hope they expand on this to make it richer and more interesting.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It is a bit weak, yes.

On reflection, I'm not sure it will feel any weaker than the system in VI. In theory, VI had a more complex system, but in reality you'd only ever have 3 governments over the course of the game, and there was minimal flavour to them imo.

I like that they've linked governments to happiness, but do hope they expand on this to make it richer and more interesting.

Government in Civ 6 is essentially a card building game, between the basic governments and the social policies.

In Civ 7, that core architecture is even more blatant and streamlined. The differences between Government cards are fewer and there's less thought to the deployment of policies.

I don't care for the direction it's taking, and I hope there's a better mechanic introduced later.

 

[fantsu]

Been mentioned already but the buildings look so, so sweet.
I dont think about the gameplay too much before I can actually try it myself if its fun or not.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm mildly encouraged that they went with Revolucionarios for the unique civilian unit. In Civ 6, they would have gone for Luchadores. I'm glad to see Civ 7 approach civ-design with a little more gravitas.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm mildly encouraged that they went with Revolucionarios for the unique civilian unit. In Civ 6, they would have gone for Luchadores. I'm glad to see Civ 7 approach civ-design with a little more gravitas.

All of the various unique great people are very cool and flavorful. I get the feeling that they are all design descendants of NFP Gran Colombia's Comandantes Generales.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Should be UC actually.
The main UU should instead be Californios. (Lancers)


^ Mexican lancers (wore Cowboy outfits). one of the best in addition to their regular lancers (wore the same Uhlan uniforms as European counterparts)

Californios is just the term for the Hispanic population that lived in California before the annexation by the U.S. I'd just use the term, Vaquero.

I'm mildly encouraged that they went with Revolucionarios for the unique civilian unit. In Civ 6, they would have gone for Luchadores. I'm glad to see Civ 7 approach civ-design with a little more gravitas.

Not sure why you'd think that?

 

[ehecatzin]

i wonder if mexicos focus on celebrations will work well with charlemagne's ability, spitting out tanks left & right in the late game

I was really hoping for a cavalry UU to keep up the path for a Charlemagne, Rome-Spain-Mexico, but the focus on celeberations also has great synergies. About that cavalry, if they were going for revolutionary flavoured UU's, I would have liked to see "Dorados" , Villa's elite force.

What else does Mexico have to work with, other than a successful revolution and fiestas?

Not a lot. Hence the fantasy amazon unit.

I think adding the soldaderas is fine, they do seem to be more about supporting the main army, I really don't see how they are fantasy. Out of proportion as UU? maybe, but they absolutely existed. If anything I would have liked to see a split between the main UU revolutionary unit, and soldaderas as support.

(besides It's not the first time a very small unique force was blown into UU, Praetorians anyone?)

But honestly the more I think about it, they went for the unit that both Zapata and Villa had in common rather than specific Dorados or Zapatistas, I can absolutely see me building a Soldera unit and pair them with Villa or Zapata, and if you pair them with Amalio, Petra or Angela it's an absolute flavour win.

Please notice something key here....there are no Constitutionalist revolucionarios on that list, (Carranza and Obregon) only Conventionist.(Villa and Zapata), and take a wild guess were Soldaderas were more common. So no, I don't think they were added for "amazon" flavour, they were added to represent Conventionist forces specifically, and you can read them as amazons if you'd like or as common people at arms, I choose the later.

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure why you'd think that?

Most of the Modern-ish civs in Civ6 were pretty memetic (Canada and Scotland in particular).

Out of proportion as UU? maybe

They certainly wouldn't be the first UU that's more interesting than ubiquitous, which I think is fine.

 

[AriochIV]

This is like saying that because the Soviet Union had female soldiers during World War II, this means they had all-female infantry units. Well, they didn't. The United States currently has some infantry units with female soldiers in them, but it doesn't have all-female units. And neither did Mexico, during the revolution or at any other time.

But it's worse than that... keeping in mind that we don't know what the Soldaderas looks like or exactly how it's implemented, normally the infantry UU replaces the standard infantry for that civilization. So if the unit is portrayed as all-female, and if it's a normal UU that replaces infantry for that Age (instead of some kind of support unit), then this means that ALL of Mexico's infantry will be female. Which is frankly silly.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

This is like saying that because the Soviet Union had female soldiers during World War II, this means they had all-female infantry units. Well, they didn't. The United States currently has some infantry units with female soldiers in them, but it doesn't have all-female units. And neither did Mexico, during the revolution or at any other time.

But it's worse than that... keeping in mind that we don't know what the Soldaderas looks like or exactly how it's implemented, normally the infantry UU replaces the standard infantry for that civilization. So if the unit is portrayed as all-female, and if it's a normal UU that replaces infantry for that Age (instead of some kind of support unit), then this means that ALL of Mexico's infantry will be female. Which is frankly silly.

It's silly that all of Perisa's infantry will be Immortals. It's silly that there's a Civ 6 generic unit running around armed exclusively with bazookas, when in reality they were assigned as part of a regular infantry dettachment. It's not out of place in this game that a small elite force gets broadly used or that a type of fighter that is supposed to be a portion of a more rounded infantry gets split and concentrated into its own unit. That's just the silliness of Civ.

The fact that Solderas are women is an irrelevant and spurious aside to what is a known affectation of the series.

And actually, it would be pretty cool if there was a way for the Soviet Union's all-female Night Witches bomber squadrons to be featured as a UU for Russia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Most of the Modern-ish civs in Civ6 were pretty memetic (Canada and Scotland in particular).

I guess so. Though I feel like the Luchadores would be a little too extreme, compared to even the Mountie or Highlander, but maybe that's just me.
At least the Mountie could create a National Park, and the only thing wrong with the Highlander is I wish it came earlier so it wouldn't be based off the British regiment.

As for the Soldaderas, they are fine. They fit the description of unique, so I don't see the problem. I think they will feel less out of place than Spanish Tercios at 400 A.D. Which reminds me that I guess Tercios could eventually become Soldaderas once they reach the Modern Age.

 

[Josephias]

It's worded strangely, but I think it's just an additional social policy slot. Not that Celebration-heavy Mexico will have a shortage of those regardless.

I could even suggest, considering multiple revolutions will lead to an abundance of policiy slots and the game gide says

unique Government type, Revolución. This Government has one Celebration effect, granting a large Culture boost for a set number of turns. Cannot enter any other Government type.

that the base "Revolution" Celebration does not grant additional policy slots and you need to go to Planes Politicos Tier 2 to re-enact this feature present in any government.


(so, it would be a "malus" of the CUA, that your initial celebrations do not provide extra policy slots, but you can negate it and recover by learning two civics - actually, the same civic twice).

 

[untitledjuan]

Should be UC actually.
The main UU should instead be Californios. (Lancers)


^ Mexican lancers (wore Cowboy outfits). one of the best in addition to their regular lancers (wore the same Uhlan uniforms as European counterparts)

What if they are saving a Lancero unit (cavalry with lances) for the Llanero unique unit of a future Colombian civilization. The Llaneros were quite a bit more famous in the main battles of Bolívar's campaigns than the Californio lanceros/vaqueros.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What if they are saving a Lancero unit (cavalry with lances) for the Llanero unique unit of a future Colombian civilization. The Llaneros were quite a bit more famous in the main battles of Bolívar's campaigns than the Californios.

Yes, I agree it would be best to save those for other potential civilizations, if Mexico could have something more unique. Argentina could even get Gauchos as well, though they would probably use bolas instead of lances.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

that the base "Revolution" Celebration does not grant additional policy slots and you need to go to Planes Politicos Tier 2 to re-enact this feature present in any government.


(so, it would be a "malus" of the CUA, that your initial celebrations do not provide extra policy slots, but you can negate it and recover by learning two civics - actually, the same civic twice).

I'm not sure we can say that for certain. The "choices" when celebrations occur seen previously make no mention of policy slots, the "choice" is between the yield bonuses. I personally think that granting a policy slot is just the inherent effect of a Celebration, and the choice between yields is as it presents itself. Thus, only having one initial "choice" would not preclude Mexico from getting policy slots.

 

[AriochIV]

It's silly that all of Perisa's infantry will be Immortals. It's silly that there's a Civ 6 generic unit running around armed exclusively with bazookas, when in reality they were assigned as part of a regular infantry dettachment. It's not out of place in this game that a small elite force gets broadly used or that a type of fighter that is supposed to be a portion of a more rounded infantry gets split and concentrated into its own unit. That's just the silliness of Civ.

The fact that Solderas are women is an irrelevant and spurious aside to what is a known affectation of the series.

And actually, it would be pretty cool if there was a way for the Soviet Union's all-female Night Witches bomber squadrons to be featured as a UU for Russia.

I don't agree that it is silly that Persia's infantry are Immortals, because Immortals are not fundamentally different from regular infantry. Tercios are a little weird in that they're anachronistic, but that's kind of a separate issue... they were still the normal infantry for their correct period. It would be a little weird if things like bazookas or machine guns replaced the normal infantry, but they don't; they're specialty units. If the Soldaderas is a specialty unit, or if it's depicted as a mixed-gender unit, then I don't have any problem with that. But if the entire Mexican infantry is going to be an Amazon force (which seems the most likely situation), then I do think that's pretty silly.

If that doesn't bother you, that's fine... but then I have to ask, where the line is for you in terms of breaking historicity in a historical game? Or is anything and everything acceptable?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't agree that it is silly that Persia's infantry are Immortals, because Immortals are not fundamentally different from regular infantry. Tercios are a little weird in that they're anachronistic, but that's kind of a separate issue... they were still the normal infantry for their correct period. It would be a little weird if things like bazookas or machine guns replaced the normal infantry, but they don't; they're specialty units. If the Soldaderas is a specialty unit, or if it's depicted as a mixed-gender unit, then I don't have any problem with that. But if the entire Mexican infantry is going to be an Amazon force (which seems the most likely situation), then I do think that's pretty silly.

If that doesn't bother you, that's fine... but then I have to ask, where the line is for you in terms of breaking historicity in a historical game? Or is anything and everything acceptable?

It's silly in a way that is completely regular for Civ.

 

[Josephias]

I'm not sure we can say that for certain.

You’re right, as stated by the conditionals, I’m only suggesting a theory that, I think, would give an interesting initial starting dilemma for Mex: push firt for culture, to enable these policy slots, or push for happiness outright, as even if not giving policy slots, these first celebrations would provide you the culture to recover the policy slots in the long run.