View Full Version : New unit: Conquistadores
http://www.totalwar.com/en/medieval2/gameinfo/units/index.html
Another great looking unit.
Only recruitable in America, very interesting
Makes me wonder what more kinda units are we can recruit over there.
Bob the Insane
10-09-2006, 11:46
Well BI introduced (reintroduced) regionally recruitable troops in to the game (yes I am aware a lot of mods did this prior to BI, I mean from a CA perspective) so I guess they will be making more use of this which is cool...
But does the Conquistadore one not come across as a bit of a paradox? I mean if you can only build Conquistadores in the new world then who captures the settlements? :help: :laugh4:
Furious Mental
10-09-2006, 11:47
Weird. Technically I think conquistadores should be recruitable in Cuba.
Makes me wonder what more kinda units are we can recruit over there.
A screenshot of the Portugese custom battle roster shows a dismounted conquistador, so it would make sense for that also to be recruitable.
Beyond that, there may be some allied native American units.
A screenshot of the Portugese custom battle roster shows a dismounted conquistador, so it would make sense for that also to be recruitable.
Beyond that, there may be some allied native American units.
I tought the cav was dismountable?
Lord ZORO Savage
10-09-2006, 13:12
I tought the cav was dismountable?
The cav is dismountable.
The Blind King of Bohemia
10-09-2006, 13:32
I think the cavalry should be only recruited in the Caribbean at the very least. I mean the last thinh we want to see is hordes of cavalry swarming around in Mexico. When you look into the history of the battles with the Aztecs, Incas and other indigenous peoples of the Americas, the Spanish had only limited numbers of cavalry availiable. I don't mind dismounted units being trained but not loads of horsemen, the Indians peoples will get destroyed in a few turns of the European armies landing which isn't great for gameplay
Bob the Insane
10-09-2006, 14:02
I think the cavalry should be only recruited in the Caribbean at the very least. I mean the last thinh we want to see is hordes of cavalry swarming around in Mexico. When you look into the history of the battles with the Aztecs, Incas and other indigenous peoples of the Americas, the Spanish had only limited numbers of cavalry availiable. I don't mind dismounted units being trained but not loads of horsemen, the Indians peoples will get destroyed in a few turns of the European armies landing which isn't great for gameplay
And that would make your cavalry all the more valuable over there if they could not be built or retrained...
Well get game first, play vanilla and have fun, then look to the mods... :2thumbsup:
Basileus
10-09-2006, 14:47
The unit looks good though
There were region-specific troops in MTW1
Well BI introduced (reintroduced) regionally recruitable troops in to the game (yes I am aware a lot of mods did this prior to BI, I mean from a CA perspective) so I guess they will be making more use of this which is cool...
But does the Conquistadore one not come across as a bit of a paradox? I mean if you can only build Conquistadores in the new world then who captures the settlements? :help: :laugh4:
What the hell are you on about? RTW had regional troops. Just that very few troop types used it. Elephants, Camels, Spartans, and legionary first cohorts were region specific in RTW. In BI besides Elephants/Camels only Sughdian warriors were region specific.
Bob the Insane
10-09-2006, 15:46
Well my apologies for being wrong, sorry for offending you so greatly... :oops:
lanky316
10-09-2006, 15:51
What exactly were conquistadores anyway? Forgive my ignorance but I'd always read that it was just a generic term for the latino invaders to southern America who were conquering but the trend in these games involving speicalist units with the role has sort of thrown me regarding that now :book:
It litterally means conqueror. They were the leaders of the epeditions that took the new world for Spain. They were a quasilegal group. With men being given the right to conquer in the name of the king and govern what they took. They also split the loot between themselfs, their men, and the king. Although "their men" usually mean't their brothes/cousins and buddies they took with them to lead the expeditions. Also most of them were from minor Castillean nobility (or in Pizarro's case the illegitimate son of one) looking to make their fortunes in the new world.
Furious Mental
10-09-2006, 17:18
By the looks of it they are just lancers wearing a half-armour. I don't really see why the same sort of cavalry wouldn't be found in Europe.
They are. They be's called demi-lancers. The demi having to do with the percentage of their asses covered by armour.
IrishArmenian
10-09-2006, 23:38
I would think you could only recruit them in the last era. They used Spaniards to be Conquistadors, not native Americans!
CaesarAugustus
10-10-2006, 00:38
I would think you could only recruit them in the last era.
There are no "eras" in M2TW.
Unit looks good, can't find much to complain about.
There are no "eras" in M2TW.
Eras are in multiplayer and even though you cannot start the SP game at different eras, I hope CA have found someway of making sure late period units only come late. The easiest way would be keeping eras in. Or specific units could be linked to exogenous events (like a discovery). Or by making the tech requirements pretty steep.
MTW SP restricted troops by era, but it also used events (e.g. the discovery of the compass?) and tech requirements to pace things out. You were lucky if your settlement buildings were sufficient high tech to be able to build chivalric knights at the start of the chivalric era. Gothic knights also had formiddable building requirements.
][GERUDO][Mojoman
10-10-2006, 01:42
another thing they got wrong....conquistadores used MUSKETS not lances...grrr...
CrackerJap
10-10-2006, 02:27
Conquistadore is a broad term used to describe the Spanish adventurer types who went to the new world for the three G's (God, Glory, and Gold for you not in the know), basically CA could've made them use whatever they wanted to but calvary is a good choice imo.
The Blind King of Bohemia
10-10-2006, 10:08
[GERUDO][Mojoman']another thing they got wrong....conquistadores used MUSKETS not lances...grrr...
Mate if we are talking about the mounted perspective, they would have used lances. Why do you think the charge was so devastating against the Indian ranks? Although the gun was used, most conquisatadors prefered to use the Crossbow, Pike or Sword as the terrain and enemy were elusive except the Aztecs. But the latter had speed on their side, and could close the ground very quickly before an arquebusier/musketeer could reload. The majority of the killling against the natives was done by Spanish steel
Vladimir
10-10-2006, 12:47
[GERUDO][Mojoman']another thing they got wrong....conquistadores used MUSKETS not lances...grrr...
I was hoping for a mounted gun unit as well. I think a little more cheese wouldn't hurt.
Callatian
10-10-2006, 15:57
Have a blast:
Live Conquista...whatever:
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/Cain2/MTW2%20Germany/DSC00838.jpg
Dead Conquistamachos:
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/Cain2/MTW2%20Germany/DSC00857.jpg
As you can see ... useing the horses to muck can create the upper leg problem when you die ;)
"another thing they got wrong....conquistadores used MUSKETS not lances...grrr.."
The conquistadors used cannons, muskets, pikes, lances, swords, crossbows, and other weapons. (including, I think, a few war dogs)
Using muskets from horse back was hardly ideal and I'm glad they are not a musket armed horse unit. We can leave that bit of anachronism to Age of Empires.
Furious Mental
10-10-2006, 17:38
"I was hoping for a mounted gun unit as well. "
"Using muskets from horse back was hardly ideal and I'm glad they are not a musket armed horse unit."
Well good news for Vladimir and bad news for Ulstan, there are cavalry that use guns in MTW 2, e.g. the Reiters (HRE horsemen armed with pistols) and Sudanese gunners (Moorish musketeers on camels). According to the developers if you want the Conquistadors to use guns you'll only need to change a few lines of text to replace the lance with a gun and make sure they use the right animation.
Callatian
10-10-2006, 18:00
The only muskets you guys are going to get are this:
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/Cain2/MTW2%20Germany/DSC00834.jpg
Or ... you could prefer some heavy missile launchers:
https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/Cain2/MTW2%20Germany/DSC00843.jpg
the_mango55
10-10-2006, 18:15
Lol, I hope that guy moves before he fires those rockets, or he might end the battle with a lot less hair than he started it with.
Sun of Chersonesos
10-10-2006, 18:18
besides the fact that conquistadores should have muskets, what if you recruited conquistadore and then brought it back to south western europe :) awwwwwwwwwwwww
:focus:
CrackerJap
10-10-2006, 19:59
"another thing they got wrong....conquistadores used MUSKETS not lances...grrr.."
The conquistadors used cannons, muskets, pikes, lances, swords, crossbows, and other weapons. (including, I think, a few war dogs)
They did indeed use war dogs. The Spanish were particularly brutal for a while during what a history teacher of mine called "The Black Legend" which is basically an account of how the Spanish would play games with the Indian captives such as: How far can the Indian women and children run before our war dogs catch them and rip their throats out? Or: How many heads of Indian children can I chop off in one swing? After a while though the Church put a stop to this because they wanted converts.
Callatian
10-10-2006, 20:07
besides the fact that conquistadores should have muskets, what if you recruited conquistadore and then brought it back to south western europe :) awwwwwwwwwwwww
:focus:
They die quite fast ... those dead are under missile fire :)
Watchman
10-12-2006, 11:07
Europeans were experimenting with "mounted shot" already fairly early on, although AFAIK not yet during the conquest of the Americas. Not that such skirmish tactics would have been terribly effective there given the large sizes of the native armies, the vanishingly small numbers of Conquistador cavalry and the abysmally slow reloading times of the firearms in question anyway.
The Conquistadors used both firearms and crossbows, but neither was really particularly important. Infantry crossbows by that point of time were pretty much all steel-stave arbalests made to kill anything not clad in some pretty damn good plate armour at range but awfully slow to reload, and the arquebuses were much the same save less accurate and more frightening due to the smoke, flame and noise. Given the sheer sizes of the Indian armies they faced both were only really tactically useful as "sniper" weapons used to take down officers and similar high-value individual targets - the local practice of having officers wear often very extravagant and conspicuous decorations, standards and other marks of rank and means of battlefield identification no doubt helped in this.
An additional obstacle for the employement of firearms would have been the sheer difficulty of reliably supplying gunpowder (or even slowmatch, for that matter) in the conditions the Conquistadors usually campaigned in, and what they had and could get went first and foremost to the few pieces of artillery they were able to bring along - these had great psychological impact on the battlefield and were also very useful in sieges (Cortez's boys apparently also mounted them on the prows of boats for naval fighting around Tenochitlan during the siege of the city), and duly had the priority. Native allies were easily able to supply crossbow bolts once shown a few specimen to copy though - I've read the Conquistadors actually considered the copper-tipped ones of local manufacture in some ways superior to the ones they'd brought along.
For the most part, however, the invaders had to rely on tried-and-true cold steel for dealing with the opposition.
ajaxfetish
10-12-2006, 16:10
If I understand correctly, the conquistadores were the many young adventurers of the Spanish lesser nobility who suddenly had nothing to do after capturing Granada in 1492, and ending the reconquista. Conveniently for them, Columbus opened up a new theater of conquest that same auspicious year. How they'd be recruitable in America rather than in Spain where the horses, manpower, and technology for the invasion existed is beyond me.
As far as German ritter's with pistols though, I can accept that if it's late enough since IIRC that was a common if less than stellar cavalry tactic in the late Renaissance up to around the 30 Years War to ride into pistol range, fire on the enemy, and wheel about to ride back and reload (though the name of the maneuver escapes me, and I'm not sure of exact dates, especially since I can't remember the name to look it up, grr).
Ajax
Furious Mental
10-12-2006, 16:28
Well irl the caracole was pretty worthless because cavalry could never beat musketeers in a gun fight. However there could be situations in MTW 2 where it could be useful to wear down infantry unaccompanied by missile troops.
Watchman
10-12-2006, 16:31
The Conquistadores came in the main from (or through) the already established colonies in the Caribbean and along the American coastline. Usually more-or-less middle-class types and lower gentry looking to improve their fortunes and so on (a while later the equivalent method in southern England and the French coast was piracy and privateering). Former soldiers were actually pretty rare, although I wouldn't be all that suprised if many of the men had had some sort of militia training and education in swordsmanship and suchlike was pretty widespread in the societies of the time.
There were also surprisingly many enterprising African slaves in their ranks - capable folks whom their owners had let off to earn the money to pay for their freedom as a sort of investement, and partly to keep such clever fellows from plotting trouble in bondage.
Opportunistic native aristocrats apparently turn up rather often in surveys of post-Conquest landowners too, although obviously these folks wouldn't have fought in the ranks as conquistadors but instead led native allies.
As far as German ritter's with pistols though, I can accept that if it's late enough since IIRC that was a common if less than stellar cavalry tactic in the late Renaissance up to around the 30 Years War to ride into pistol range, fire on the enemy, and wheel about to ride back and reload (though the name of the maneuver escapes me, and I'm not sure of exact dates, especially since I can't remember the name to look it up, grr). Called caracole, Italian for "snail". Really more of an anti-pikeman tactic as well as the cavalry equivalent of the infantry countermarch (ie. rotating musketeer ranks), but conditionally useful against cavalry too. Already known in the Spanish-Dutch wars of the 1500s, where the German mercenary Reiters (forerunners of the heavy cuirassieurs of the Thirty Years' War period) also saw action. A parallel technique used already in the French religious civil wars of the late 1500s was known as pistolade, and consisted of discharging the pistols against the enemy at short range and following up with the sword; the Swedes reintroduced this when they entered the Thirty Years' War and it soon became the norm for cavalry warfare.
Nothing to do with the Conquistadors though. Those sorts of tactics practically required wheellock pistols (flintlocks only started turning up around the mid-1600s), which were not only very expensive but also mechanically unreliable and delicate. No way they could have survived the American campaign conditions, especially as repairs in practice required some fairly skilled craftsmen.
i actually thought the swedes were the first western army to drop the caracole, and instead use "polish-lithuanian"-style cavalry charges with long lances.
using the caracole against pike.armed infantry is probably all fine and dandy, but using it against musket-bearers just seems incredibly stupid, riding up to them, getting well inside their firing range, almost stopping, turning half-sideways, firing, turning again and firing pistol number two, seems a great way to get shot by the infantry wielding bigger, longer range guns from a more stable standing position...
The crusaders did the same things with the Jews :shame: "How many Jewish babies can you fit on your sword?"
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.