Olmecs not a major civ

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe Civ 7 can do Greeks and Mayas just city states and not playable civs, that should open space for more civs come with Atlalists as Unique Unit

Greeks wouldn't have atlatlists.
They don't like to throw their spears, unless their Gorgo or competing in the Olympics.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Greeks wouldn't have atlatlists.
They don't like to throw their spears, unless their Gorgo or competing in the Olympics.

What about Peltasts, though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltast

They were Greek soldiers who threw javelins like Atalists.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about Peltasts, though? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltast

They were Greek soldiers who threw javelins like Atalists.

Well yeah. I was making my comment more like a joke and that would have ruined it.

Either way there is no need to demote the Maya into a city-state just to have more Mesoamerica civs with a spear thrower unit.
The Maya were known to sometimes throw hornets nests at enemies so that could be a future UU.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Maybe Civ 7 can do Greeks and Mayas just city states and not playable civs, that should open space for more civs come with Atlalists as Unique Unit

Greek is too important to be just a city state.
You have some WEIRD ideas man....

 

[Zegangani]

Maybe Civ 7 can do Greeks and Mayas just city states and not playable civs, that should open space for more civs come with Atlalists as Unique Unit

Or keep Civs like the Greeks, Mayans and Gauls as normal Civilizations but limited in the amount of Cities they can settle (but can conquer other Civs Cities), and in counter part make them (city based) stronger and perhaps being able to have larger borders. You can call them "semi-full civilizations".

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Or keep Civs like the Greeks, Mayans and Gauls as normal Civilizations but limited in the amount of Cities they can settle (but can conquer other Civs Cities), and in counter part make them (city based) stronger and perhaps being able to have larger borders.

That seems like a very interesting idea that might work.

Greek is too important to be just a city state.
You have some WEIRD ideas man....

To be fair, I once did a Confederate Civ idea with Slave as the Unique Unit. A long time ago, though, when I was like 12 or 11.

Anyway, to address the topic at hand, 3 main points why the Olmec have never been in Civilization:

1: No notable Leaders to pick from the Olmec.
2: Their language is, if not completely, dead.
3: We already have the Maya as a Mesoamerican Civilization along with the Aztecs.

 

[Evie]

Or keep Civs like the Greeks, Mayans and Gauls as normal Civilizations but limited in the amount of Cities they can settle (but can conquer other Civs Cities), and in counter part make them (city based) stronger and perhaps being able to have larger borders. You can call them "semi-full civilizations".

That would be far out of line in a game about writing your own history.

A mechanism where all civilizations at game start (except maybe Sumer) start as one city state and have to take certain political steps to be able to found new cities and keep full control of them, sure. But a mechanism where certain civilizations have built in arbitrary city state mode would be boring (unless, of course, it exists to balance out very powerful alternate abilities).

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

That would be far out of line in a game about writing your own history.

A mechanism where all civilizations at game start (except maybe Sumer) start as one city state and have to take certain political steps to be able to found new cities and keep full control of them, sure. But a mechanism where certain civilizations have built in arbitrary city state mode would be boring (unless, of course, it exists to balance out very powerful alternate abilities).

A good counterpoint with some also good points.

 

[Zegangani]

A mechanism where all civilizations at game start (except maybe Sumer) start as one city state and have to take certain political steps to be able to found new cities and keep full control of them, sure. But a mechanism where certain civilizations have built in arbitrary city state mode would be boring (unless, of course, it exists to balance out very powerful alternate abilities).

I didn't say they would behave like CSs, they would still act as normal Civs, have their Traits/Agendas..etc, they would only have a limit on the Cities they can build (maybe adjustable per era), but the alternate would be, for example, to have Tall play bonuses.

What do you mean with political steps? like having some specific Civic, a loyal city and happy citizens? But Yeah, I would welcome that.

That would be far out of line in a game about writing your own history.

The Game is ALREADY far out of line concerning writing your OWN history. The Civs are mostly Traits(culture) and Agenda based, so we don't have much freedom to shape their cultures as WE want. We can't play with Peters Russia and settle only on desert and then expect that our Cities gonna adapt to that environment. Wy Not?!! Because the Civs are not designed for that, which is sad, because the Game isn't even a historical simulation. So Civs should be able to adapt to the environment, shape their culture from era to era, and EVOLVE with the Events happening to it and ,more importantly, it's own Actions towards itself and others (Wars, Diplomacy, Loyalty, Happiness, Economie...etc).

Edit: you can reply here, since we're out of this topic.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: I don't know where the Olmecs have gone in this discussion, but we have lost our way once again. Back to topic please.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

In other words we know too little about Olmecs outside of "gaint head status "... and what we DO know is already covered by Mayans. /end of thread.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I just discover the world "Olmec" means from the Coast. That is the why Olmec-Xicalanca is called Olmec, because they lived in Olmec coast.
It's sad know so little about they, but I instead believe is possible a civ called Olmec Xicalanca, at least we do know one of their leaders, the 3Deer. *Maybe a mythical god*

 

[Kupe Navigator]

, at least we do know one of their leaders, the 3Deer. *Maybe a mythical god*

who is NOT going to be a civ leader... Zeus is more likely to be a Greek leader than him.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just discover the world "Olmec" means from the Coast. That is the why Olmec-Xicalanca is called Olmec, because they lived in Olmec coast.
It's sad know so little about they, but I instead believe is possible a civ called Olmec Xicalanca, at least we do know one of their leaders, the 3Deer. *Maybe a mythical god*

I feel like there is more info on the Olmecs than the Olmeca Xicalanca people, which makes them impossible to get in the game.
If we want another Mesoamerica civ why not try either the Toltecs, Zapotecs, or Purépecha.

 

[Evie]

The Olmec Xicalanca are still maya, still covered by the Maya civ, and really, no, we should not add them. They8re so far down the priority list we shouldn't even discuss them. The Purépecha, Zapotec and Mixtec at the very least should have precedence. One of the Chichimeca people too. If we're splitting the Maya, then Kiché/Kaqchikel and the highland maya have a stronger claim than Xicalanca, and we definitely need to split Tlaxcala from the Aztecs first. The Toltec also have a better case (and it's not very good). And I'm only scratching the surface.

Xicalanca is a waste of resources.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Again no and no to ANY form of Olmecs.
END OF DISCUSSION.

Moderator Action: Please do not purport to instruct others about what, when, where or whether to post. Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Henri Christophe]

split Tlaxcala from the Aztecs first. The Toltec also have a better case

I agree on that, I'm very fan of Tlaxcala because the conquest history and I think they deserve at least to be a city state who spawn unity.

Toltec are by far the best option of Mesoamerica because was the greatest empire (in land area) and have Unique Features different from others. The Atlante Warriors who can be a warrior and also an improvment.

 

[Evie]

No, they're really really really not. While not as bad as the Olmecs, they are a civilizatioh still shrouded in legends of which we actually know relatively little. Their "empire" is also more in the nature of a sphere of cultural influence than an actual empire - many of those cities belonged to other groups (read: Maya) but were heavily influenced by Toltec culture, for example.

Or, in civ terms, a lot of those areas had heavy Toltec loyalty pressure, but most of them never actually flipped.

i'd rank them fairly low on the priority list (but still far above Xicallanca); certainly the Purépecha and Zapotec are higher priority.

My view for Mesoamerican priorities:
0th tier (already here): Maya, Aztec.
1st tier (deserve representation, space permitting): Major civilizations extent around the time of conquest ): Purépecha, Zapotec and Mixtec, in that order
2nd tier (not that essential, but could be nice): assorted smaller, less organized groups: Chichimecan tribes, etc.
3rd tier (information likely insufficent to include, but would be nice): cool classic and post-classic empires we know only legends about: Toltecs.
4th tier (mosty useful if relevant scenarios are made): major offshots of the major civilizations extent c. The conquest: Highland Mayans, Tlaxcalla, etc
5th tier (Really no good reason) ; minor and trivial offshots of larger civs: Xicallanca
6th tier (not happening except as city state) civilization of which we only have assorted archaeological traces: Olmecs.

Seeing as we'd be lucky to get even one first tier civ into the game, let alone all three, second tier is a very remote chance at best, and beyond that...lol

 

[Henri Christophe]

3rd tier (information likely insufficent to include, but would be nice): cool classic and post-classic empires we know only legends about: Toltecs.

I can't understand why the biggest empire of Mesoamerica have insufficient information about? I guess there is at least 3 Cronist who write about they by this link of Wikipedia> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toltec_Empire

And Toltec can have a warrior UU making the game very fun to start next to Aztecs in real world

 

[Evie]

They're not the largest empire in Mesoamerica. That map shows more their sphere of cultural influence - not an area that was politically united.

Some recent scholars believe that the Toltecs as a political entity or even a unified culture didn't exist - that they are a hodgepodge of assorted pre-Aztec civilizations that the Aztecs lumped together into one mythological entity (these scholars believe the "toltec" cultural influence is more Teotihuacan cultural influence)

And that's why our information is poor: because what we have is Aztec legends about toltecs. The Aztecs who, as far as we know, never even encountered the alleged Toltec empire - as far as we know it would have collapsed about a century before they reached central Mexico. And a lot of what they tell us about the Toltecs correspond to Aztec religious motives. Even the scholars who believe they did exist recognize that our sources on them are crap and the best we can do is guesswork from the Aztec legends.

Trying to understand Toltec history from that is roughly like trying to understand Macedonian history from the Arabic Alexander romances.