Leathaface
Emperor
I know Mapuche have a mountain bias, but I am not sure what other civs have it. It would be handy for getting good campus adjacencies and defence.
[R&F] Which Civ's have mountain biases?
- Thread starter Leathaface
- Start date
No others have a mountains start bias. Greece and Korea have a hills bias. As mountains will often have clusters of hills around them there is probably a slightly higher chance of starting near some. After those two, Nubia and Russia have a bias to flat and hill tiles of desert and tundra respectively. These (and the other civs’ start biases) are all from Zigzagzigal’s Civ Summary Guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1034073500
Leathaface
Emperor
No other Civs have a mountain start bias? It's a real nice boost to Mapuche so that they are the only Civ with a mountain start bias.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
You'd think civs like Persia would have some mountain bias. Georgia probably should if it doesn't. I'd like to see some combo biases too, so that for civs like Morocco (should it return) could have desert + mountains. Inca should see a return with mountain bias. Aztec could have jungle/mountain combo etc.
It's interesting that the Mapuche have this bias probably solely for the Chemamull improvement.
Future civs I can definitely see getting them are the Inca and Austria if they return.
Maya are a possibility but I can see a rainforest bias being the major one first.
Future civs I can definitely see getting them are the Inca and Austria if they return.
Maya are a possibility but I can see a rainforest bias being the major one first.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Going off terrain Aztec getting mountain bias makes more sense than Maya no? It's somewhat of a reach in both cases, but unless we're going to add tribes from the Rockies, Austria, or maybe Ethiopia (even that's debatable) there aren't many civs that are mountain heavy.
Georgia would make sense though, it could use the boost, and it fits the defensive theme.
Georgia would make sense though, it could use the boost, and it fits the defensive theme.
The only reason why I would give the Maya some is based of a unique improvement I came up with that would give adjacent science if next to a mountain. But it would have to be built on a rainforest tile anyway so that bias is needed more. Austria would need it for their unique improvement that I came up for it as it would be required to be adjacent to one.
The Inca is a no brainer and Georgia already has a bias towards hills which spawn around mountains so I don't see the need for a mountain bias for them because gameplay wise it isn't necessarily needed except maybe for the Holy Sites.
Zigzagzigal
Chieftain
I have the feeling hills start biases can act as a kind of nudge towards mountains seeing as hill-heavy regions are often found near them. Hills start biases are still not that common, though - Greece and Korea get all hills but snow ones in their start bias, while Russia gets both flat and hilly tundra, and Nubia gets both flat and hilly desert.
Civ 6 generally is more restrained with start biases relative to Civ 5. 19/34 civs have start biases compared to 33/43 in Civ 5. Civ 5 often used start biases for historical flavour even when the civ had no particular gameplay relating to it, while Civ 6 only uses start biases when the civ directly makes use of that kind of terrain (the Mapuche are the one exception to the rule as their benefit from mountains is indirect, via tile appeal bonuses). I suspect this is to help ensure civs more dependent on their start biases (e.g. Brazil, Indonesia) are less likely to miss out than they could be in Civ 5, where vast numbers of civs shared an equal coastal start bias despite some clearly needing it more than others. As such, you'll probably only see another mountain start bias once there's a civ with a direct bonus involving them.
Civ 6 generally is more restrained with start biases relative to Civ 5. 19/34 civs have start biases compared to 33/43 in Civ 5. Civ 5 often used start biases for historical flavour even when the civ had no particular gameplay relating to it, while Civ 6 only uses start biases when the civ directly makes use of that kind of terrain (the Mapuche are the one exception to the rule as their benefit from mountains is indirect, via tile appeal bonuses). I suspect this is to help ensure civs more dependent on their start biases (e.g. Brazil, Indonesia) are less likely to miss out than they could be in Civ 5, where vast numbers of civs shared an equal coastal start bias despite some clearly needing it more than others. As such, you'll probably only see another mountain start bias once there's a civ with a direct bonus involving them.
On what basis? Most of the land of the Aztec land was pretty flat (there were some mountains there, sure, but I wouldn't exactly characterize the Aztec as having a "mountain affinity"). It would make more sense for the Mixtec or Zapotec, though.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Few mountains in Aztec, but also there's the question of how much of their subject/regional territory to represent. It certainly would be no more ridiculous than giving Mughal fort to India under Gandhi in Civ 5.
If we're trying to slip a few mountain biases in there's not that many obvious candidates.
Their heartlands weren't jungle either. A lot of the territory they conqured was, but they didn't live, colonise or rule outside the central Mexican plateau, just wage war and exact tribute.
Mountains like Tundra tend to not produce civilizations, that isn't to say that there aren't mountain cultures like the Alpine culture in Germany, Switzerland, France, Austria, and Italy. Terrain is just too rough and villages tend to be isolated. Even the Mapuche mountain bias is ahistorical. They lived on the coastal forested plains of southern Chile and had cultural diffusion over the Andes but they weren't specifically mountain dwellers.
The perhaps best most obvious choice for a mountain bias would be the Inca with Nepal\Tibet, Switzerland, and Basques having much less of a chance of making the cut.
The perhaps best most obvious choice for a mountain bias would be the Inca with Nepal\Tibet, Switzerland, and Basques having much less of a chance of making the cut.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Generally speaking the biases are things that are in close proximity to the power centers of civs, rather than something that drove its power in developmental stages. Even an obvious candidate like England didn't derive its unique situation from being "coastal", but rather from being on an island. Since they're a reasonable fit if you want to throw in some coastal start biases, it makes more sense to give it to them than France. Same goes for mountains + Aztec as opposed to mountains + USA or mountains + Scythia.
There are better choices than the Aztec, though, like Georgia and the Inca. Aztec territory was not particularly mountainous, and where it was the Aztec didn't really inhabit the mountains. It would be rather like giving a coastal bias to Germany IMO.
If having mountains in their territory is all we're basing this on, there are bigger mountains in the USA than the Nahua heartland.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
There are better choices than the Aztec, though, like Georgia and the Inca. Aztec territory was not particularly mountainous, and where it was the Aztec didn't really inhabit the mountains. It would be rather like giving a coastal bias to Germany IMO.
If having mountains in their territory is all we're basing this on, there are bigger mountains in the USA than the Nahua heartland.
USA is proportionately bigger relative to its mountains, depending on how you fudge Aztec + represented borders.
That said I already mentioned Georgia and Inca as obvious choices, though the latter isn't in the game yet unfortunately despite that it was THE premier South American civilization pre-colonialism (arguably for whole western hemisphere - they were significantly more impressive than Aztec).
Sure, but the USA also actually uses and inhabits its mountains; the Aztec did not.
It may have become such given time, but at the time of its demise it had to share that title with the older Muisca civilization. Details are limited, but archaeology and the early reports of Spanish explorers support the idea that there were in fact advanced civilizations in the Amazon as well. Shame we know so little about them. It would have been nice had the Spanish had fewer conquistadors and more anthropologists.
Of their time, perhaps. Of all time, certainly not. Inca civilization was young and couldn't compare to the older civilizations of Mesoamerica, notably the Maya, the Mixtec, the Zapotec, and (in their heyday--Cortes caught them when they were already in decline) the Aztec. Not to slight the Inca or the impressive civilization they were building, of course; given another hundred years or so they might have compared favorably with Mesoamerica. Unfortunately the Inca were cut down in the flower of their youth, so what they might have become is speculation. What they were at the time of their demise was promising and impressive but not quite on the order of older civilizations.
Moving forward a couple centuries they also have to contend for the title with the Iroquois, who were probably more successful at adapting themselves to European encroachment than any other New World civ.
tl;dr: Despite impressive accomplishments, the Inca's best days were ahead of them and they hadn't reached quite the level of some other New World civilizations.
