View Full Version : Playing as the Aztecs is fun
I have been playing as the Aztecs in the Custom Campaign Mod (someone please fix it so you can hire agents or build mines.) and although I haven't invaded anywhere against a faction yet (reason in next post) it is so easy to build all of your units. You don't need to build a barracks for this or an archery range for that, you get EVERYTHING from upgrading the walls except the Coyote Priest.
So, after I finish my experiment this time I will try to blitz the hell out of the world and burn everything to the ground. The Aztecs are the Slash and Burn Blitzers dream come true.
a_ver_est
07-11-2007, 08:53
Does the mod add a boat able to cross the ocean ?
Yeah, it makes the simple starting boat ocean crossable. Although one of the flaws of the mod is that you can't as far as I know, build anything but the simpliest one.
The flaws you mention are historical accuracies. The Aztecs did not have agents, mines, or high level boats (or any boats capable of sailing to Europe).
The flaws you mention are historical accuracies. The Aztecs did not have agents, mines, or high level boats (or any boats capable of sailing to Europe).
I kinda figured that but still, just because it didn't exist doesn't mean that if you were in charge you wouldn't hire/build it if you saw others with it.
Philbert
07-13-2007, 16:28
Well... I would have, had I not been so busy dying from the flu...
... in that previous life of mine.
John_Longarrow
07-13-2007, 19:57
Budwise,
True, but then again if I had been the ruler of Scotland in 1080 I'd have worked hard on getting my troops to use a mixture of 75% Potassium Nitrate, 15% Charcoal, and 10% Sulfur to push oblong projectiles made of lead (with a nice indentation at the base) down a tube with spiral groves cut into it.
Since I can't produce rifled firearms that early due to "Historical" issues, I can see why the game doesn't allow for similar non-historical units for factions that didn't produce them.
Budwise,
True, but then again if I had been the ruler of Scotland in 1080 I'd have worked hard on getting my troops to use a mixture of 75% Potassium Nitrate, 15% Charcoal, and 10% Sulfur to push oblong projectiles made of lead (with a nice indentation at the base) down a tube with spiral groves cut into it.
Since I can't produce rifled firearms that early due to "Historical" issues, I can see why the game doesn't allow for similar non-historical units for factions that didn't produce them.
That could be difficult, but how hard would it to hire a man to go up to another man waving a flag of honor (Or whatever) and saying that his country and yours should trade rice, dyes, gold, sex, whatever.
Is ther any nweay t play as the aztecsa without u8sing thwe mod?
Monsieur Alphonse
07-14-2007, 12:17
The flaws you mention are historical accuracies. The Aztecs did not have agents, mines, or high level boats (or any boats capable of sailing to Europe).
The Aztecs did have mines and they had diplomats. Remember the gold the Aztecs had. They also send missionaries to the Spaniards. The only thing they couldn't do is invade Europe. But since we are changing history when are playing this game and since if history (history which looks at what if) is a "serious" part of historical science, we are only doing historical research. :grin: :laugh4:
Deutschland Uber Alles
07-14-2007, 13:06
The Aztecs did have mines and they had diplomats. Remember the gold the Aztecs had. They also send missionaries to the Spaniards. The only thing they couldn't do is invade Europe. But since we are changing history when are playing this game and since if history (history which looks at what if) is a "serious" part of historical science, we are only doing historical research. :grin: :laugh4:
Ohh....Then lets just add to all factions spaceships , nuclears bombs,balistic missles and some taks.And then we could see ,,What IF"
Ohh....Then lets just add to all factions spaceships , nuclears bombs,balistic missles and some taks.And then we could see ,,What IF"
If a spaceship can run off of ether and "black powder", than sure. But your all acting like having a diplomat IS A HUGE HISTORICAL STRETCH to have.
Kadagar_AV
07-14-2007, 15:14
I dont quite get the argumentation...
1. Mines.... Where do you think them gold thingies came from?
2. Diplomats...
"We have some foreigners at our coasts, if there only was some way to.... uhm... like have us say something to them, and then they could answer in return and... uhm.... no, I give up, I cant figure it out"
:laugh4:
redriver
07-14-2007, 15:31
I dont quite get the argumentation...
1. Mines.... Where do you think them gold thingies came from?
2. Diplomats...
"We have some foreigners at our coasts, if there only was some way to.... uhm... like have us say something to them, and then they could answer in return and... uhm.... no, I give up, I cant figure it out"
:laugh4:
I think they picked up the gold from the river banks and shallows... most of it was a legacy from the gods and previous ppls that built the major indian empires/civs which were later occupied by local tribes....
Ars Moriendi
07-14-2007, 15:55
"We have some foreigners at our coasts, if there only was some way to.... uhm... like have us say something to them, and then they could answer in return and... uhm.... no, I give up, I cant figure it out"
LOL for some reason I can't stop reading the above in Peter Griffin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Griffin) voice :clown:
About the tech limitations of the aztecs : they could of course have diplomats and mines. But then, where do you draw the line ? What about them looking at dead conquistadors after a battle and going "Hmm, maybe we could take those steel swords and use them ? Or the shiny armour, we could try fitting in, looks kinda cool. And maybe those prisoners we captured know a thing or two about how to make them.". They were primitive, not retarded - I bet they could easily figure out that if they put a stallion and a mare together they'd get lots of little horsies to ride...
If you go that way, there's no reason for not allowing them access to all technology the europeans had, and while it may seem cool to do it, they would lose some of their "exotic flavour".
Kadagar_AV
07-15-2007, 04:21
redriver, with all due respect, do you think gold would have the value it has if it was a matter of bending down and picking it up?
They had mines mate:)
ars moriendi, I agree. I prefer good gameplay over some kvasi-scientific "what would be if".
I have no problem what so ever with no mines + no diplomats, I just had to reply to the actual arguments as they weren't very well thought out:
About the tech limitations of the aztecs : they could of course have diplomats and mines. But then, where do you draw the line ? What about them looking at dead conquistadors after a battle and going "Hmm, maybe we could take those steel swords and use them ? Or the shiny armour, we could try fitting in, looks kinda cool. And maybe those prisoners we captured know a thing or two about how to make them.". They were primitive, not retarded - I bet they could easily figure out that if they put a stallion and a mare together they'd get lots of little horsies to ride...
Well... How many battles Aztecs and Mayans won against Spanish?
And they all were like totally scared about those men combined with this big four legged creatures they thought were gods, So using horse would mean they want to be gods and their original gods would be pissed off.
EDIT: Forgot to mention they werent used to anykind of armour other than leather or clothes, so why start now?
Specially because all the armor Spaniards had were sooo heavy.
Ars Moriendi
07-15-2007, 19:11
Well... How many battles Aztecs and Mayans won against Spanish?
la noche triste (http://www.google.com/search?q=la+noche+triste)
Not many, it's true, but how many they needed to get their hands on some armour and swords plus a few prisoners ?
EDIT: Forgot to mention they werent used to anykind of armour other than leather or clothes, so why start now?
Getting their arses kicked by the Spanish seems a pretty good reason.
Anyway, we're derailing from our game context. If we talk history, then it should be noted that the technological advantage of the Spanish wasn't the major factor for their success. Both Cortez and Pizzaro only had a handful of men and no matter how good their weapons and scary their horse were, they would have not succeeded if it were not for their cunning tactics, their american allies (outnumbering them 10-to-1), the aztecs and inca naivety regarding the spanish methods. And of course the diseases they brought with them, which was the final cause for the downfall of the meso-american empires.
In M2TW context - if one european nation could adopt other nation's technology (things like plate armour, horse archery or gunpowder), there's no reason for the americans not to be able to do the same in the hundreds of years that the game covers. The only reasons I can see not to implement this in the game is balance and diversity. And I think I like it better this way.
slippybee
07-15-2007, 21:47
[QUOTE=Ars Moriendi]
About the tech limitations of the aztecs : they could of course have diplomats and mines. But then, where do you draw the line ? What about them looking at dead conquistadors after a battle and going "Hmm, maybe we could take those steel swords and use them ? QUOTE]
Had the Aztecs repulsed Cortes (and he was nearly killed on a number of occassions) there's little doubt that their experience of fighting the Spaniards would have had a great impact on their fighting tactics.
The primary Spanish technological introductions were horses (and mounted lancers), cannons, arquebusiers and crossbows. Indeed, one of the reasons why they were able to gather allies from local tribes (up to 100,000 troops supposedly) was that their allies recognised the "shock" value of their firearms and cavalry which could tip the balance in their favour. Cortes never had more than 900 troops with him at any one time and his local allies would not have seen them as a serious threat but as an aid to their own victory.
During their first flight from Tenochtitlan the Spaniards abandoned their cannons and there's no reason to suppose these wouldn't have fallen into the Aztecs hands. Some other weapons likely to have been recovered swords, armour, crossbows, arquebusiers and maybe even horses. What would these have meant to the Aztecs? They had used captured swords, some attached to poles as scythes to attack mounted troops and Cortes was nearly killed by a crossbow bolt (supposedly fired by an Aztec with a captured weapon). Could they have turned these against the Spanish? Could they have learned to use captured cannons?
Although the Aztecs did not work iron, the tribes who had allied with Cortes were taught to make copperheaded crossbow bolts and there would have been an inexhaustible supply of these.
Cannons and arquebusiers required gunpowder and while all the ingredients were available locally it's concoction would be unknown to the Aztecs but horses might be mastered. We could have seen Aztec cavalry such as those encountered on the Great Plains by later invaders.
Or......some enterprising Spaniards start selling swords, armour, arquebusiers etc to the Aztecs in exchange for Gold or religious conversion (not unlike the Spanish / Portugese did in Japan). Or other european powers, jealous of Spain's hold on the Americas, choose to do so.
Or some captured Spaniards change sides to avoid being sacrificed or for personal reasons. (Gonzalo Guerrero, who was shipwrecked off the Yucatan, had risen to the rank of a military commander amongst the Mayans and led an attack on the Spanish, even refusing an entreaty from Cortes to rejoin the Spanish cause).
Or the victorious Spanish troops, thousands of miles from home rebel and establish their own independent kingdom, or, or , or?
I understand you not wanting to get into the realms of fantasy with the Aztecs. Llama mounted cannons anyone ? But there's no reason to suppose that these peoples wouldn't have been enourmously impacted by contact with the Europeans from a cultural, political, technological and military perspective.
Should it be in the game.......probably not but to suggest these people wouldn't have adapted following contact with the Spanish seems flawed.
Incidentaly, I'm amazed there hasn't been a Hollywood film made about Cortes and the conquest of the New World (Aguilla wrath of god is an exception). He's an "amazing" character, full of contradictions and much like Alexander the Great seems almost singularly responsible for holding the entire conquest of an empire by sheer force of personality.
Just my 2 bob.
Slug For A Butt
07-16-2007, 01:19
Had the Aztecs repulsed Cortes (and he was nearly killed on a number of occassions) there's little doubt that their experience of fighting the Spaniards would have had a great impact on their fighting tactics
The Aztecs really should have killed Cortes, they had all the time in the world, and the manpower while Cortes was slogging his way through rough terrain towards Tenochtitlan. It just seems like Moctezuma was playing a game of brinksmanship that he really didn't understand, my personal opinion is that he believed that by welcoming the Spaniards they would show him the same courtesy.
But as we all know, the Spaniards took the God Moctezuma and put him under house arrest and humiliated him before the Aztecs revolted against the Spanish.
But back on topic, I believe the Aztecs should have access to Diplo's as was mentioned by an earlier poster. Moctezuma used them so why not?
I also think they should have access to basic mines to reflect their wealth that so infatuated Cortes and his mercenaries.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.