Olmecs not a major civ

[Henri Christophe]

The Cortes/god thing is questionable at best. There is a lot of scholarly writing that sees it as an after the fact justification employed to rationalize their defeat by the Spanish (and picked up by the Spanish because it was pretty useful to their purposes).

As far I know, indeed happens the Aztec tought Cortez was a god, but it was used by europeans in another places as Inca or Hawaii proclame they self as god. What not happens, just one time native was confuse about divinity of europeans invaders and was just the Aztecs.

I guess all you have to do is have Hernan Cortez, speaking Spanish, leading the Toltecs in Civ 6.

Hernan Cortez could lead a civ called Mexico I guess, Toltecs are way earlier.
but look this beard! Quetzalcoalt always come with an amazing beard

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Hernan Cortez could lead a civ called Mexico I guess, Toltecs are way earlier.
but look this beard! Quetzalcoalt always come with an amazing beard

The #$&!(%@$^&!@%??!! (I don't actually swear, I'm just trying to portray my baffled mind here.) That's worse than Idi Amin leading Uganda or Papa Doc leading Haiti.
This is far too controversial, and I would 100% support Firaxis not doing this.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The #$&!(%@$^&!@%??!! (I don't actually swear, I'm just trying to portray my baffled mind here.) That's worse than Idi Amin leading Uganda or Papa Doc leading Haiti.
This is far too controversial, and I would 100% support Firaxis not doing this.

Yeah! Fireaxis can do Mexico way better leading by Benito Juarez.
Just have better choices to come first.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Yeah! Fireaxis can do Mexico way better leading by Benito Juarez.
Just have better choices to come first.

Let it go man.... No mythological gods in civ series.
Play age of mythology if you want mythological games.
Let it go.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Let it go man.... No mythological gods in civ series.
Play age of mythology if you want mythological games.
Let it go.

Toltec's Quetzalcoalt isn't that mythological. I just discover his real name was
Topiltzin

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Just checked @Henri Christophe's Topiltzin. It checks out.

 

[Patine]

And that's different from three-time civ leader Gilgamesh how, exactly?

At the end of the day, Toltecs and Ce Acatl Topiltzin (aka Quetzalcoatl) are very far down my priority list (as in we'd have to have hundreds of civs to include them), but your argument here seems to be a bit of a double standard considering Sumeria is already in (and keeps making it back).

I've never liked Gilgamesh in game and always felt his inclusion was a mistake. Sargon the Great might have been a better choice, there, for example.

Just checked @Henri Christophe's Topiltzin. It checks out.

Just because the linguistics are verified doesn't mean we enough leader information to go on.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Just because the linguistics are verified doesn't mean we enough leader information to go on.

we have enought to do a Civ, even the Toltec language can be re-builded.
Just take a look in Wikipedia how much information there are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ce_Acatl_Topiltzin

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Just because the linguistics are verified doesn't mean we enough leader information to go on.

I meant that Topiltzin actually exists.

 

[Patine]

we have enought to do a Civ, even the Toltec language can be re-builded.
Just take a look in Wikipedia how much information there are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ce_Acatl_Topiltzin

It says in the first line of the article, "a mythologized figure."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've never liked Gilgamesh in game and always felt his inclusion was a mistake. Sargon the Great might have been a better choice, there, for example.

Sargon would be great but wouldn't that have to be the Akkadian Empire and not Sumer?

 

[Henri Christophe]

It says in the first line of the article, "a mythologized figure."

Because it is also Quetzalcoalt. And is hard to find good sources about they, I stay all day looking.
Look this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toltec_Empire , how diverse can be the list of kings of Toltec Empire.
But, as the biggest Empire of Meso America, it should be in this game.

If you don't like Quetzalcoalt (who is the best name) it isn't the only one.
We have Xochitl (who was a woman) a great other name.
Or Huemac, the last king by the codice Chimalpopoca.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In order to do Meso-America right in Civ (VI or more likely, VII or VIII) there are several prerequisites, IMHO:

1. We need an Olmec language, City List and at least semi-historical Leader. We don't have any of those yet.

2. We need some serious in-depth research on the cultural, technological and religious differences to distinguish the various Civs. We run into the problem that they all played a ball game with rubber balls, they all used throwing stick atlatls or their equivalent, they all worked jade and obsidian, they all worshipped very similar deities (as far as we can tell from very dubious information sources, frequently filtered through European misconceptions). So, who among the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans and Aztecs get the throwing spear, the ball court, the Feathered Serpent, the stepped pyramid/temple, the irrigation system, the chocolate drinks? - Because they all had them in very similar (at first glance) form.
3. Finally, since at least the Olmecs, Toltecs and Mayans appear to have been individual City States instead of 'unified' Civs, the game needs a way of representing those kinds of polities before it goes any further in misrepresenting them. Individual Alternate Leaders only goes so far in showing the differences between Sparta and Athens, or Yax Mutal (Tikal) and Baak' (Palenque), or making a collection of Uncooperative cities be a playable 'Civ' in a game that up to now has always been about Empire Bulding right from the beginning in 4000 BCE.

Once we get (3), we might be able to get viable and well-represented Mayans, Toltecs, and Aztecs - and also Classical Greeks, Early Modern Italian City States and Russian Principalities, the Taklamakhan cities of central Asia and numerous other groups that now simply cannot be represented as other than Fantasy Civs in Civ games.

 

[Evie]

Quetzalcoatl isn't the best name IMO - I vastly prefer Ce Acatl Topitlzin (or Topiltzin).

Boris, I think that representing historical city states civilizations independenty is just not going to happen. Especially as the point of civ is rewriting history: America with City States while Greeks form a massive unified empire is a perfectly reasonable outcome in this game. At that point City States need to be a game mechanism - a form of govenments perhaps, - separate from any civ, and with distinct gamplay advantages to justify players using it.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Because it is also Quetzalcoalt. And is hard to find good sources about they, I stay all day looking.
Look this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toltec_Empire , how diverse can be the list of kings of Toltec Empire.
But, as the biggest Empire of Meso America, it should be in this game.

If you don't like Quetzalcoalt (who is the best name) it isn't the only one.
We have Xochitl (who was a woman) a great other name.
Or Huemac, the last king by the codice Chimalpopoca.

Just... let it go.

Moderator Action: Post something of interest or let it go yourself. Move on if you have nothing to add except this. leif

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Once we get (3), we might be able to get viable and well-represented Mayans, Toltecs, and Aztecs - and also Classical Greeks, Early Modern Italian City States and Russian Principalities, the Taklamakhan cities of central Asia and numerous other groups that now simply cannot be represented as other than Fantasy Civs in Civ games.

I don't necessarily agree with your number 3 either. I have no problem with the way that city-state civilizations are portrayed, particularly the Maya. At least to me it's better than not having them at all. Even so some of them can be portrayed differently and were in the past.
Under Alexander the Great all the Greek city-states were more or less unified under his kingdom. Phoenicia is an interesting case but it's easy to just picture it as the Carthaginian Empire.

As for Italy, it wouldn't be ideal to me, but you could put it under a modern leader, like Victor Emmanuel II, and give all the other attributes based off of Medieval/Renaissance Eras.

I feel like the Russian Principalities at this point would be best served under Russia, though several like Kiev, could be individual city-states.

 

[Evie]

Honestly if we're to add a third Mesoamerican civ, the Purépecha (Tarascans) and their Tzintzuntan Empire are my runaway favorites : we're talking the true archrivals of the Aztecs, the Persians to their Romans, (no flower wars here: this is full on imperial clash between two closely matched expansionist organized states - if anything there is a case for Tzintzuntzan having a very slight edge .

And the fun part (that Henri is sure to like) is: while we have some decent information about the emoire itself and its history, what came before is an enigma. Their language is a language isolate - it has no related languages in Mesoamerica. They used metallurgy in ways largely unheard of among their neighbors. The regional pottery work is also unique. In fact, unlike the Olmecs, there is actual serious scholarly suggestion that they may have their roots on a differtent continent altogether: South America, with linguistic and artistic evidence indicating at the very least an Andean influence on the Purépecha, and some claims, an Andean/Quechua origin.

You don't need quack-level conspiracy theories or unknown toltecs and Olmecs to have interesting American civilizations that aren't yet in the game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

we're talking the true archrivals of the Aztecs, the Persians to their Romans

Cool idea, but I tought the true rival of Aztecs was the Tlaxcala republic.
The Tlaxcaltecas was allied with Spain and conquer all America, we have Tlaxcala soldiers even in the conquest of Peru.
Tlaxcala have power untill 1759 (!) when had the war of Spanish sucession and the Bourbon family doesn't respect more the right of native americans

Maybe they also can be an good addition to Civ series

 

[Evie]

Tlaxcala gets fame for allying with the conquistadors, but no. They were a small state that managed to hold off Aztec expansion to some degree (which is impressive!) where the Purepecha were a true rival expansionist empire, both of them rapidly gobbling up part of Mexico at the same time and warring over their common border which rapidly became a fortified border as the two empires tried to gain an edge over one another.

Basically Tlaxcala managed to hold off the Aztecs, but could never dream of counterattacking and expanding into Aztec lands until the Spanish showed up. The Purépecha, on the other hand, forced the Aztecs on the defensive on their western border, and constantly threatened to expand into the western provinces of the Empire - which were the ones closest to Tenochtitlan.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Both are amazing, Mexico is so rich in civilizations, I can't understand why just Aztecs and Mayas have their space.
We need an expansion just with American leaders