Olmecs not a major civ

[Kupe Navigator]

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

Because world isn't just full of American civilization. Sad I know.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

I think @Boris Gudenuf explained it the best.
Without in depth research many of them will just look similar, and it wouldn't make a fun game experience. We already have had overlap with Aztecs and Maya both using a ball court as their unique infrastructure, though used in separate games.
Any more than 2 spear throwing unique units in the same game would also look redundant.

The Aztec and Maya are obviously the two that we have the most info on and at this point are staples in the series. After that it's hard to differentiate between many of the others, let alone try to find good info on possible leaders, which sometimes for the Maya it's even hard. In that regard I think the country of Mexico has the best chance than any other Mesoamerican civ, after Aztecs and Maya, to appear.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Because world isn't just full of American civilization. Sad I know.

Moderator Action: Video removed. There was an earlier warning to leave current events and politics out of these threads. Keep posting it and this thread will be closed. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I think @Boris Gudenuf explained it the best.
Without in depth research many of them will just look similar, and it wouldn't make a fun game experience. We already have had overlap with Aztecs and Maya both using a ball court as their unique infrastructure, though used in separate games.
Any more than 2 spear throwing unique units in the same game would also look redundant.

The Aztec and Maya are obviously the two that we have the most info on and at this point are staples in the series. After that it's hard to differentiate between many of the others, let alone try to find good info on possible leaders, which sometimes for the Maya it's even hard. In that regard I think the country of Mexico has the best chance than any other Mesoamerican civ, after Aztecs and Maya, to appear.

Yes, in this point you are right. They can have different Unique Units but always will be replacement for warriors or Atlalist.
But I still have hope at least the Toltecs can grab their space in this game, at least they can do theses statues as Unique Improvment.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Posts deleted. If it is political, you know it shouldn't be here so ignore it and stop discussing it so we do not have to deleted it. Please use your heads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Anyways... Really, I'm interested in the Purepecha @Evie mentioned. Let's talk more about that and why they should go in before the Olmecs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Anyways... Really, I'm interested in the Purepecha @Evie mentioned. Let's talk more about that and why they should go in before the Olmecs.

I knew they as Tarascans> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarascan_state
I think this video is great about all of they:

I also don't know that much about they, I can't say a name for a leader or Unique Feature.

 

[Henri Christophe]

If Maya receive more recent units as EZLN? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
that would give room to more Mesoamericans enter in this game with Atlalist

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

If Maya receive more recent units as EZLN? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
that would give room to more Mesoamericans enter in this game with Atlalist

That's like giving the bloody Aztecs a Mexican Unit, no offense meant. The Mayans didn't even exist when the EZLN were first founded, so it wouldn't work at all.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If Maya receive more recent units as EZLN? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
that would give room to more Mesoamericans enter in this game with Atlalist

I'd rather just the Aztecs and Maya in the game rather then go to this absurd route.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Or maybe something more ~1800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_War_of_Yucatán
as the Caste War where they also use riflemans.

Maya still alive nation

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Or maybe something more ~1800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_War_of_Yucatán
as the Caste War where they also use riflemans.

Maya still alive nation

No, Henri, not to be rude, the reason why this won't work is that the Mayans are an ancient Civilization. Some parts of their culture may exist, but as a whole, the Mayans' Civilizations is gone and only history and a few living descendants of the Mayans can tell the ancient Mayans' tales. So, in conclusion, nothing modern could work for the Mayans. It just won't.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or maybe something more ~1800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_War_of_Yucatán
as the Caste War where they also use riflemans.

Maya still alive nation

Sure there are people of Maya descent that are still alive today but that doesn't mean the civilization exists right now. It's literally in the title of the video you posted: Why did the Maya Civilization collapse?

To add to what @Duke William of Normandy means is not just nothing modern, but no unique units or anything after the Spanish came and took over.

And that goes for any Mesoamerican culture.

 

[Henri Christophe]

It's literally in the title of the video you posted: Why did the Maya Civilization collapse?

in the end of the video they speak about Casta wars and EZLN moviment and how Maya still a live nation, in special to Belize and Guatemala where had great numbers of Mayans speakers

 

[Evie]

No, Henri, not to be rude, the reason why this won't work is that the Mayans are an ancient Civilization. Some parts of their culture may exist, but as a whole, the Mayans are gone and only history can tell the Mayans' tales.
So, in conclusion, nothing modern could work for the Mayans. It just won't.

The idea that the Mayans are gone, both as a people and as a civilization, is based on a ridiculously reductive view of what the Mayans are - a storybook cliché rather than a living people. They've changed, certainly (but then, the French - or English, or Chinese, or Japanese, or... - of today bear little resemblance to the same civilization a thousand years ago!), but there is still a Mayan people with a distinct culture, language, identity and so on - a civilization, in other words. An independent polity is not necessary for that.

(Also, even if we were to say an independent polity is essential, "ancient" civilization is still a bit of a misnomer. We're not talking Rome and it's AD 470 or so fall here - we're talking a civilization that still existed as an independent nation 330 years ago (the last Mayan state, in the Peten basin of Guatemala, only fell in 1696). It would be very hard to justify calling a civilization that co-existed with Newton and Louis XIV "Ancient").

Now, Henri IS wrong, but the reason why he's wrong is simply that UU, UBs and the like should reflect the heydays of a civilization - which for the Mayans definitely is NOT anything in the 19th or 20th century. Mayans should absolutely have UUs and UBs that reflect the Classic and Post-Classic eras. But not because they somehow stopped existing after.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The idea that the Mayans are gone, both as a people and as a civilization, is based on a ridiculously reductive view of what the Mayans are - a storybook cliché rather than a living people. They've changed, certainly (but then, the French - or English, or Chinese, or Japanese, or... - of today bear little resemblance to the same civilization a thousand years ago!), but there is still a Mayan people with a distinct culture and a distinct identity. An independent polity is merely one possible way of expressing a civilization.

(Also, even if we were to say an independent polity is essential, "ancient" civilization is still a bit of a misnomer. We're not talking Rome and it's AD 470 or so fall here - we're talking a civilization that still existed as an independent nation 330 years ago (the last Mayan state, in the Peten basin of Guatemala, only fell in 1696). It would be very hard to justify calling a civilization that co-existed with Newton and Louis XIV "Ancient").

Now, Henri IS wrong, but the reason why he's wrong is simply that UU, UBs and the like should reflect the heydays of a civilization - which for the Mayans definitely is NOT anything in the 19th or 20th century. Mayans should absolutely have UUs and UBs that reflect the Classic and Post-Classic eras. But not because they somehow stopped existing after.

This may be bad wording, but I didn't mean that the Mayans as a people were gone, I meant their civilization. They still exist, their "empire" doesn't.

 

[Evie]

I mean, what Empire? The Mayans were (like the Greeks and some other civs) a collection of local City States that sometimes formed leagues and united, but never really remained that way very long.

An Empire is not a civilization. It's merely one possible manifestation of a civilization.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I mean, what Empire? The Mayans were (like the Greeks and some other civs) a collection of local City States that sometimes formed leagues and united, but never really remained that way very long.

An Empire is not a civilization. It's merely one possible manifestation of a civilization.

Alright, fixed it, again... :| Anyway, yeah, I guess you're right.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I mean, what Empire? The Mayans were (like the Greeks and some other civs) a collection of local City States that sometimes formed leagues and united, but never really remained that way very long.

An Empire is not a civilization. It's merely one possible manifestation of a civilization.

All correct, except in Civilization games, in which you play as a single Political Entity in which you have complete political, economic, social, religious, and military control of everything, and no matter the culture or 'civilization' you might have, when you lose political control (as in, your Cities) you are out of the game.

The fact that the game does not and never has modeled Civilizations that have a distinct culture, religion, language, and self-identity but do not have political control or unity is one of the major defects of the Civ Franchise, IMHO. As a result of that such very important Civilizations as Classical Greece (and the preceding Myceneans), the Maya (and the Olmecs before them), the states/tribes of Germany for most of their history (until 1871 CE, to be exact) and others are seriously misrepresented in the game.
I'd go further and postulate that this has become such a Fixture of the Civ Franchise that it has become invisible to many of us, most of the time. So, we can play as a Greek city state (Athens or Sparta) that Conquers the World when in fact no Greek city state even managed to control more than a small fraction of Greece, and that only briefly!
To put it bluntly, that is no longer a 4X Historical game, but a 4X Fantasy game: welcome to Endless Athens . . .

 

[Evie]

I mean Athens uniting Greece is no more or less fantasy than communist America. This is the nature of the genre: if you let the players control their game, they are likely to take it in ahistorical direction. And that was the case from Civ I onward. If you don't let players take things in different directions - turn Athens into an Empire or play Rome as a city state (one city challenge), then you have a history book, not a game.

Player agency and gameplay trump accurately representing internal Greek politics of the 5th century.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The fact that the game does not and never has modeled Civilizations that have a distinct culture, religion, language, and self-identity but do not have political control or unity is one of the major defects of the Civ Franchise, IMHO. As a result of that such very important Civilizations as Classical Greece (and the preceding Myceneans), the Maya (and the Olmecs before them), the states/tribes of Germany for most of their history (until 1871 CE, to be exact) and others are seriously misrepresented in the game.
I'd go further and postulate that this has become such a Fixture of the Civ Franchise that it has become invisible to many of us, most of the time. So, we can play as a Greek city state (Athens or Sparta) that Conquers the World when in fact no Greek city state even managed to control more than a small fraction of Greece, and that only briefly!
To put it bluntly, that is no longer a 4X Historical game, but a 4X Fantasy game: welcome to Endless Athens . . .

So what you are saying is we should keep Alexander as leader of Greece, or his father Phillip II, considering they did unite the Greeks by conquering them.
At least this is the closest thing that you can get to a united Classical Greece in game.