Aztecs Overpowered

[Rhyfelwyr]

Having recently landed in the New World, I've been fighting several battles against the Aztecs. My Venetian armies match theirs in size, and are filled with Venetian Heavy Infantry, Venetian Archers, and Feudal Knights. However, Aztec armies are still overunning my forces. A line of Jaguar Warriors routed my Venetian Heavy Infantry (in one thread here claimed the best infantry in the game) in seconds. I think this is ridiculous considering they are armed with clubs and have fur for armour.

I think Aztec unit need to be significantly toned down, and perhaps give them slightly larger armies in compensation. Also, a scripted plague in their settlements when the Europeans arrive would represent the crippling effect the new diseases had on the Aztecs.

Anyone else here been frustrated when fighting them?

[RTKBarrett]

Aztecs are in no way overpowered my friend, u just need to deal with them in the proper way :-) Infantry on infantry the aztecs are superior to pretty much every unit going when it comes to 1 on 1, and with the morale boost from a priest i can understand ure frustration...

However easiest way to handle them is a simple repetative charge with heavy mounted cavalry *it doesnt even have to be in the flank* Just be careful about engaging cav with two handed units on the charge as sometimes it gets messy and hard to move out of the engagement...

I know alot of sp'ers try to limit the amount of cav in their stacks to 4-6 for realism purposes and what not but i believe if u want success ure going to have to notch that up a bit and mayb remove some of the ure heavy archer units etc...

Also iirc venetian heavy are ap units? If u can recruit late era swrdsmen or something similar i think they will fair better

[AggonyDuck]

Well the greatest strength of the Aztecs is the effect they have on the enemy's morale, while the biggest weakness of the Venetian Heavies is their morale. What should work better against Aztecs is cavalry and cav arch.

[Lacessit]

Gunpowder and cavalry are your friends! Don't try to match the aztecs in fierceness, they'll always beat you. Infantry is useless against them, except for pinning down a line. Cavalry, artillery and arquebusiers will destroy the Aztec morale though, after that, your infantry should be able to rip through them!

[Xehh II]

How do you use cavalry in the Aztec Jungles? Whenever I fight them it's endless jungles.

[Ramses II CP]

Less a problem with the quality of your troops, more a problem with their morale. Bring a standard, a high chivalry general, and some guns. Problem solved. :)

[IrishArmenian]

Missile cavalry is ideal against the Aztecs, preferably Heavy Missile Cavalry. If unavailable, just use good charger cavalry!
I utilised Boyar Sons to much effect against the Aztecs! You'd be surprised at the amount of damage a cavalry unit can do to an Aztec army. Remember, taking prisoners is far more effective than killing in combat, so chase down the routers in the case that they do muster enough strength to return to the battle!

[FactionHeir]

Heavy cavalry, even in a jungle, will easily crush an equal aztec infantry army. Actually, I had a stack composed only of Albanian cav, Mailed knights, chiv knights and serbian hussars, and the battle was over in under 5 minutes.

As for infantry tactics, you can usually beat them handily if you bring long range missile units. Archers work better than crossbows against them. So hire some free company longbows or venetian archers in your case.

Also, the best way to beat them is to take their northern city and just hold it. They'll besiege it every turn and in a sally, you can easily beat them.

[Slaists]

i understand that in the game heavy cavalry is the tool to beat aztecs. however, if we consider realism, it should not be the case that iron + sword heavy european infantry should lose to a stone-age army (aztecs)... however fierce they would be.

[Matt_Lane]

I had a similar problem during my South American vacation. I lost most of my infantry when I attacked the first northern city, I couldn't believe that English Armored Swordsman could be cut down by clubs and spears. Reinforcements were still many turns away but fortunately by this stage of the game my economy was such that I was able to hire an army of local mercenaries to supplement my meager cavalry & longbow men. These were inferior to the enemy's troops but they could be relied upon to pin them long enough for cavalry or infantry to sweep round and attack their rear. Please note this was with the game set at the default difficulty and I expect the harder settings would make the line route much quicker.

[Benandorf]

But they could and did, to some extent. In the times soon after Europeans began colonizing America, there were many instances where old technology beat out the newer weapons of the Europeans simply because their warriors were skilled and fierce. Weapon Tech hadn't changed enough to make a big enough difference to allow the Europeans to just walk through the native armies. The Natives had too many numbers, and many skilled, brave warriors.

Technology didn't change a whole lot for a long time. In fact, in the 1400 years between RTW and M2:TW, there historically was not that much change. Better armor, the Crossbow, better lances, and better siege equipment, but nothing compared to, say, early 1900s vs. modern weapons.

[Mr Frost]

In reality , Caledonian Rhyfelwyrs' army would have slaughtered huge numbers the Aztec warriors .

The Aztecs' best and favorite weapons were obsidian edged wooden swords {imagine a thin cricket bat with slots on the leading edges which shards of carefully knapped obsidian were inserted} . Obsidian is glass . When glass {volcanic or otherwise} impacts hard steel , the glass shatters .

The only weapons they had even remotely suitable for combating foes who wear steel plate were stone headed maces {depending on what type of stone was used , some would also shatter on steel} which would still have been much inferior to the steel headed ones plate armour was designed to resist .

There has been suggested that Atlatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl) launched darts were good against plate , however the projectiles were still tipped with stone or bone which is again likely to shatter on steel and if they truely were all that lethal to plate , the Spanish Conquistidores would have been wipped out by massed volleys of them , which history shows did not happen . Likely , the weapon could sometimes penetrate with a perfect strike from a perfect angle and this was blown out of proportion by the Spaniards whom were by then used to being nigh invunerable to native weapons .



Personally , I think the Aztecs need a reverse of the ap function , where armour has twice its' value and to ballance this give them larger numbers plus atlatls {javlin mechanics with longer range would do , but still double armour verses them} in good numbers .

[Husar]

Since Patch 1.2 I found it quite a bit easier to beat the aztecs, even with armoured swordsmen and the likes. Just remember to bring more than one army, two or three full stacks should do the trick. Oh and I think artillery and ranged units can be very effective, the Aztecs like to start with a ranged duel after which my arquebusiers and cannons have sometimes wiped out half their army or more. When they then charge my infantry, they're easily routed by a few cavalry units on the flanks or in their back. Making sure your units have armour and especially weapon upgrades also helps a lot.

[Iavorios]

After all you must know that spanish did not wear full plate armors. They used brest plates, helments, and sometimes a shield. This not only does not protect the hall body, but in the hot, wet whether tires the warrior to fast. So it is not a big problem to cut these man's leg or arm and just let him bleed to dead.

[Ramses II CP]

It's also worth considering that if you sailed across the sea and found the equivilent of 6 stacks of peasants, you'd be pretty disappointed. It's a good thing that they present some challenge, even if unrealistic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I just think that it would be more realistic if the challenge was being swarmed by their numbers, rather than an Italian City State depending on numbers against the Aztecs. I shouldn't have to match them man for man really. It would be a lot more interesting having to find a good defensive position and holding of swarms of the crazed natives!

[Slaists]

But they could and did, to some extent. In the times soon after Europeans began colonizing America, there were many instances where old technology beat out the newer weapons of the Europeans simply because their warriors were skilled and fierce. Weapon Tech hadn't changed enough to make a big enough difference to allow the Europeans to just walk through the native armies. The Natives had too many numbers, and many skilled, brave warriors.

Technology didn't change a whole lot for a long time. In fact, in the 1400 years between RTW and M2:TW, there historically was not that much change. Better armor, the Crossbow, better lances, and better siege equipment, but nothing compared to, say, early 1900s vs. modern weapons.

well, even Rome's armies should beat Aztecs head on and man on man, the former having steel weapons and armor while the latter having STONE and GLASS weapons and LEATHER armor (if any). if anything, the advantage the natives should have (if going by historical accuracy) should be numbers (make their units maybe 3x the size of european units or even bigger).

[FactionHeir]

There is a design limitation with that though. There is a max size a unit can have in M2TW I believe. So unless you force everyone to play under small unit size (with aztecs getting the max unit size), only the stat boost could represent the aztec's numbers.

[Furious Mental]

Take out their coyote priests.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've just finished another battle against the Aztecs, and what a turnaround in my fortunes against them! I took the advice of someone here and this time added 3x Merc Arquibusiers in front of my Venetian Archers. The Aztecs were mostly "shaken" by the time they reached my army, and quickly routed when they hit my Venetian Heavy Infantry, with the aid of a couple of cavalry at the flanks. In the end, I had 9% casualties against 100% of theirs. We both had 20 stack armies BTW.

I remember making a thread complaining about gunpowder units, but I take it back, I didn't realise their morale effect was so devastating.

[ixidor]

Yeah, not good idea to use VHI against them, especially due to moral issues. Put a carrocio standart close to them this may helps.

Anyway, cavalry and gunpowder is the way to beat them. Without cavarly they are incredible weak against charges from heavy infantry, and especially, missile cavalry. About gunpowder, well, it's use is simple, put your gunpowder units between heavy infantry, but slightly on front. Fire at them. When they come after them, retreat for the space you left between your heavy infantry units (but slightly behind it), and they will came after you. Then your heavy infantry will attack them from their sides and they will start fighting. Then, while you come for behind and charge to their rear with heavy cavalry (they have no armor so the results will be awesome for you), you continue to shot at them since you will still have a clear sight of them, with no friendly units between you and them. While fighting heavy infantry from their left and right side, being charged from behind with heavy cavalry and being food cannon from musketers on their front, carnificine is inevitable.To avoid massive routs, put some carrocio and your general close to your units. Then zoom in and enjoy the show. This tactic works so well, i love it :yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Apparently Aztecs do get cavalry. When I took their last city their remaining General went Rebel. And now they get a European Feudal Knight-style Generals Bodyguard unit. Bizarre.:inquisitive:

[ixidor]

:inquisitive:

:idea2: Well, it seems you will need to bring piques for the New World after all

[Eng]

Use heavy infantry and a very high chivalry general even better when he has traits like brave. ohh and I almost forgot anti units cannons.

[HoreTore]

i understand that in the game heavy cavalry is the tool to beat aztecs. however, if we consider realism, it should not be the case that iron + sword heavy european infantry should lose to a stone-age army (aztecs)... however fierce they would be.

It would be VERY bad for gameplay if the aztecs were depicted realistically. They would pose NO challenge, and as such be boring and completely pointless.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I notice every here says use high chivalry Generals for the morale boost. I thought was what Command was for, and Chivalry was just for boosting settlements happiness and growth.

[Nelson]

The Meso-Americans were bound to be problematic in Total War.

What do we know for sure?

Well, the Spanish were way outnumbered. They used guile where possible but when capturing the local boss couldn’t fill rooms with gold they needed allies to help in a fight. These they could seemingly always find.

Regarding technology, it is difficult to know how often the Spanish wore their armor. Certainly sometimes; quite likely not always. There is evidence both ways. Gunfire and horses were big plusses at first but these advantages disappeared over a period of years as their shock value wore off. Unfortunately for the natives though, it was disease and their own particularly fatalistic worldview that went on to make European domination a certainty, neither of which is a particularly fun circumstance to model in the game.

I would like the game to severely limit the number of European troops that can be sent to the New World while at the same time making local allied mercenaries plentiful. A large European army would have been invincible IF one could have ever arrived and been maintained. I’m not sure feeding and equipping such a large force from across the Atlantic was practical in the early 16th century.

[GFX707]

Technology didn't change a whole lot for a long time. In fact, in the 1400 years between RTW and M2:TW, there historically was not that much change. Better armor, the Crossbow, better lances, and better siege equipment, but nothing compared to, say, early 1900s vs. modern weapons.

Actually as far as I know the crossbow was around before even Rome....

[GFX707]

I would like the game to severely limit the number of European troops that can be sent to the New World while at the same time making local allied mercenaries plentiful. A large European army would have been invincible IF one could have ever arrived and been maintained. I’m not sure feeding and equipping such a large force from across the Atlantic was practical in the early 16th century.

All of what you say is already pretty much modelled in the game....it takes 10+ turns to get an army over to the Aztecs, plus you can never really seem to retrain anything from captured cities, especially not after about 4 Aztec stacks attack your armies over a couple of turns, and when you compare the amount of (very cheap) native mercs on offer over there to what you'd get in any European zone, it's a massive amount....as the Moors I recruited enough in one turn for a stack and a half upon landing.

[Benandorf]

Actually as far as I know the crossbow was around before even Rome....

Well, it was, but I believe it was expensive so wasn't used much, and it was much improved between Rome and Medieval times.

But that simply reinforces the point. There wasn't a HUGE difference in technology over the years. A club with very sharp rocks and primitive bows weren't legions behind armor, swords, and slightly less primitive bows.

I'm actually fairly disappointed that disease didn't come into play in the new world once you get a bunch of people over there. Apparently the Black Plauge is okay to put in the game, but Europeans diseases against American immune systems is not?

[joe4iz]

Pizzarro used under two hundred veteran troops to kill over 6000 Incas warriors when he captured the Inca King. No Spanish were killed in that fight.

I would not want to fight any faction that did not offer some decent resistance. The first time I went to the New world I was overwhelmed by the Aztecs when they counterattacked the first settlement I took.

But you got to love the colorfulness of the uniforms and stuff. I always go to the New World now just to fight them.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, it was, but I believe it was expensive so wasn't used much, and it was much improved between Rome and Medieval times.

But that simply reinforces the point. There wasn't a HUGE difference in technology over the years. A club with very sharp rocks and primitive bows weren't legions behind armor, swords, and slightly less primitive bows.

I'm actually fairly disappointed that disease didn't come into play in the new world once you get a bunch of people over there. Apparently the Black Plauge is okay to put in the game, but Europeans diseases against American immune systems is not?

Well, crossbows were invented by the greeks and Chinese seperately. The Greeks never took too it and it was lost to history to the point that Romans recreated the idea using mini-ballistas. The Chinese on the other hand went nuts with it and eventally created man portable rapid fire versions of the things and in some cases created volley fire racks of crossbows or armed large masses of troops with them as well as developping a huge version that was able to lob projectiles extraordinary distances.

As for the Romans, I don't think they would have liked fighting in the jungle, it didn't quite work for them in Germania or Britannia.

One could argue that the native american advantage modeled in M2 is their knowledge of fighting in their native terrain. The eventuality of being outclassed technologically is a-symmetric warfare even if their weapons were that less effective as you claim. Obsidian Swords hack off limbs, clubs and rocks deliver shock through armour or crush exposed body parts, and darts are quite accurate in the hands of a skilled hunter.

[ReiseReise]

I think the Aztecs were put in as a final challenge, something to work towards and have to fight for rather than another 5 cities to steamroll and add to your empire.

[Daveybaby]

I'm actually fairly disappointed that disease didn't come into play in the new world once you get a bunch of people over there. Apparently the Black Plauge is okay to put in the game, but Europeans diseases against American immune systems is not?
TBH by the time you take the americas in the vanilla campaign then game's usually almost over anyway, so a hit to the population isnt going to be very significant.

However, note that the kingdoms american campaign does include the effects of european epidemics (at least it does according to the manual).


I think the Aztecs were put in as a final challenge, something to work towards and have to fight for rather than another 5 cities to steamroll and add to your empire.
Exactly, people keep forgetting that this is a game, not a historical simulation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Aztecs could still be made challenging by weakening their troops stats significantly but giving them much more troops. That would be more fun and more realistic IMO.

[Benandorf]

The Aztecs could still be made challenging by weakening their troops stats significantly but giving them much more troops. That would be more fun and more realistic IMO.

But at that point you get into technical problems. Do really want to be fighting against 5000 aztecs in a single stack on Large? How many people have computers that could play that on huge on anything above minimum? Answer: not a whole lot. It would force you to autoresolve or simply play low numbers.

[Guyus Germanicus]

The Meso-Americans were bound to be problematic in Total War.

What do we know for sure?

Well, the Spanish were way outnumbered. They used guile where possible but when capturing the local boss couldn’t fill rooms with gold they needed allies to help in a fight. These they could seemingly always find.

Regarding technology, it is difficult to know how often the Spanish wore their armor. Certainly sometimes; quite likely not always. There is evidence both ways. Gunfire and horses were big plusses at first but these advantages disappeared over a period of years as their shock value wore off. Unfortunately for the natives though, it was disease and their own particularly fatalistic worldview that went on to make European domination a certainty, neither of which is a particularly fun circumstance to model in the game.

I would like the game to severely limit the number of European troops that can be sent to the New World while at the same time making local allied mercenaries plentiful. A large European army would have been invincible IF one could have ever arrived and been maintained. I’m not sure feeding and equipping such a large force from across the Atlantic was practical in the early 16th century.

I think you're remarks are right on, Nelson. Cortez had small numbers, but the Aztec system of oppressing their client tribes made them ripe for joining a 'liberator.' That, and small pox sealed the victory.

I'm curious if wardogs weren't used in this early period. DeSoto brought them with him on his expedition, and he was present during the Inca conquests. But I don't know if the Spanish used thm in the Andes campaign. Apparently CA hasn't put them in the game. I'm assuming that since I don't have the game yet and I haven't read any remarks in the Guild that says otherwise.

When DeSoto was exploring in the American South he lived off the land and raided the food supplies of Indian settlements to secure his food. Stored corn was very important. He also used wardogs in some of the small skirmishes he had with the natives. But most of the dogs died during the course of the expedition.

[Patricius]

The Aztec numbers could be simulated by giving them four to six unit slots in a city. I think myself they are just right statistically.

[Yesugey]

I think problem is come from the misunderstanding of historical facts: Europens were never so stronger than Natives, and the fear of gunpowder is overrated.

Yes Spanish wear quality armor, and natives had only clubs, but natives are fierce troops and experienced warriors in scary jungles. Their army could devastate Spanish armies in a heartbeat. Natives also not afraid to death, and dont fear from the muskets. So M2TW is realistic about the Aztecs.

But in history, they were beaten by a bunch of Spanish bum. Why? Here is a small history lesson:

* Its long and tragic story, but simply: They thought Spanish are their gods. They opened their cities, and worshipped them. But ofcourse Spanish want no friendship but gold.
* They lost against Cortes because Spanish fooled them. So their King taken prisoner by Cortes and they slaughtered one by one.
* They do not fear the gunpowder. They fear that the guns are the work of God.

After terrible defeat of Incas, Aztecs ordered themselves against the Spanish. Spanish even lost battles against them, Cortes have been captured once..

But the problem is, unlike Mayans and Incas, Aztecs are not wise, cultured people. They were brutal and warlike. They never be popular on MezoAmerican tribes anyway. And many tribes choosed Spanish to fight together. . Spanish mostly won with help of the Natives.

And ofcourse, diseases came from european countries and did terrible damage on native's population. Europeans know that and they even sold their diseased blankets to native tribes.

All because of these; i can comment that with an alternative event, Aztecs could crush Spanish and M2TW's troop qualities are realistic. Only problem is, in M2TW you creating your alternative story, and putting the historical events in M2TW is much harder thing to do.

[Horatius]

You all have a very different idea then me on what Aztecs are infact for.

Give a very hefty bribe to improve your relations to perfect, make an Alliance, gift them some of your enemies cities in the old world, and laugh as your Aztec allies make mincemeat out of your enemies :idea2: :beam: :2thumbsup:

You need to bring entire stacks of cavalry along endless oceans, and they can't be replenished in the new world, the mercenaries are very expensive and limited in number, and there aren't enough cities to seriously effect wether you win the campaign or not, and it is funny seeing your enemies falling to cotton wearing club wielders :laugh4:

I tried bringing Noble Cavalry, Lancers, and French Mounted Archers before, your casualties will be very high, the all noble army you bring hurts realism, they will win by right of their large numbers of soldiers, and you will have a massive drain on time better spent fighting your true enemies.

Last but not least as a good reason to ally the aztecs, Gold, gold, chocolate, tobbacco, chocalate, and chocolate, the new world is full of resources even a 1 star finance merchant will rake in money from, and it's better to bring the merchants then the cavalry, especially since merchants are free.

Which is the reason I never even try to conquer the Aztecs :laugh4:

[Megas Methuselah]

Pizzarro used under two hundred veteran troops to kill over 6000 Incas warriors when he captured the Inca King. No Spanish were killed in that fight.


By the terms Pizarro met with the Sapa Inca, everyone was supposed to be unarmed. After a small series of supposed insults, the Spaniards grabbed the emperor, unsheathed weapons they weren't even suppose to be wielding, and fought off thousands of unarmed nobles and warriors. Not surprising they were so willing to risk their lives really, as their emperor was a god-king on par with the Egyptian pharoahs or Chinese emperors.


I think problem is come from the misunderstanding of historical facts: Europens were never so stronger than Natives, and the fear of gunpowder is overrated.

Europeans had better armour and battlefield tactics (especially the tercio), but as they were never present in overwhelming numbers, that doesn't count for much.

Gunpowder is severely overrated. Crossbows were much more favoured by the conquistadores over the early, primitive, and unreliable firearms.



* Its long and tragic story, but simply: They thought Spanish are their gods. They opened their cities, and worshipped them.
* They lost against Cortes because Spanish fooled them. So their King taken prisoner by Cortes and they slaughtered one by one.
* They do not fear the gunpowder. They fear that the guns are the work of God.


Most contemporary historians agree that the whole God thing is largely a myth. Exceptions can be made for Moctezuma, though, who may have feared that Cortez might have been Quetzacoatl or a descendant of Quetzacoatl coming to reclaim his throne. This statement alone, though, is disputed.



After terrible defeat of Incas, Aztecs ordered themselves against the Spanish. Spanish even lost battles against them, Cortes have been captured once..


Yeah, the Spaniards lost their share of battles in the conquest. But why are you mentioning the Incas? They had no part in this.



But the problem is, unlike Mayans and Incas, Aztecs are not wise, cultured people. They were brutal and warlike. They never be popular on MezoAmerican tribes anyway. And many tribes choosed Spanish to fight together. . Spanish mostly won with help of the Natives.


YES! Yes, this is the primary point. The Spaniards were able to gather the support of tens of thousands of native troops. It was with this support alone that the Spaniards were able to emerge victorious. Left to their own devices, the Spaniards would merely die on the outskirts of the Aztec empire; they almost did, in fact, had they not found some allies in Cempoala who resented the Aztec human taxation for sacrifice.

The Aztecs were, contrary to your statement, a wise and cultured people. But they were brutal and warlike. It was this, together with the decentralization of their empire (unlike the Incan empire, it was more of a league of semi-autonomous city-states that were loyal to the Triple Alliance, which was in turn loyal to the Tenocha Mexica), that allowed the Spaniards to gather the support of so many allies from amongst the empire's bitter and/or independant-minded subjects and foreign enemy states.



And ofcourse, diseases came from european countries and did terrible damage on native's population. Europeans know that and they even sold their diseased blankets to native tribes.


Yes, this is another primary point. Tenochtitlan, in particular, suffered a devastating outbreak of plague. The native populations, once struck, often dropped by 60 to 90%.

However, the whole blanket thing is an entirely different situation from a different century. You have your facts somewhat mixed up.

[Yesugey]

But why are you mentioning the Incas? They had no part in this.

You have your facts somewhat mixed up.

I choosed to avoid any details as possible, and give general info about invasion of Americas.

For example, i said Aztecs are not wise. They are not, but if you compare with Mayans and Incas. They had good technology and culture, but they appeared just 1300's, and most of their traditions were adopted. There is no way to tell they are wise and cultured, if you compare them with +3000 years old Mayan or Inca empires.

Also the blanket story is about Apacheans. (Thats why i said "Europeans" not Spaniards)

History geeks could find more gaps :7detective:

[O'Hea]

In the Aztec army, status was derived from taking prisoners. Weapons were designed to wound and debilitate enemies without killing them, because almost every war the Aztecs participated in was a garland war. A large part of why so few Spaniards died was probably the fact that the Aztecs would try to drag them off rather than kill them in the field. The Spaniards had no such problem. They also had steel swords that could punch through Aztec armor and kill with one blow.

And although the effect of guns and horses was very real, the vast majority of Cortez's men were swordsmen. If I remember correctly, there were only about a dozen horses with them at the start of the expedition, and about as many guns and crossbows.

[Prussian to the Iron]

never having had a problem with the aztecs,


why did you ressurect a 2 year old thread Yesugey?

[Megas Methuselah]

why did you ressurect a 2 year old thread Yesugey?

I told him to. Do not question my intentions, bwoi. :laugh4:

[Prussian to the Iron]

oh, good old meth. haphazardly ordering around newbies :P

[Yesugey]

I just started using the forum and wanted to say something about old subjects. I like to put all information on one big post, instead of opening thousands of posts and force everyone to write same things over and over again.
I just cant understand why necro posts bugging people also. I even got a warning because of that.

And yes, Megas Methuselah dragged me to do that ^^

[Prussian to the Iron]

because , at least for me, i usually have subscriptions to any thread i post in, which means that if some year old thread i posted in gets reopened, than i get some stupid message telling me so, and than i see a post with an old argument i no longer care for.

in this case however, most people simply dont care to re-start a 2-year dead argument. anmd necroposting is just bad manners.

i think anything with necro- in it is negative. necro-pheliac, necro-mancer, necro-poster....

[Galain_Ironhide]

meh, it doesn't really matter, not much gets discussed in the Citadel much these days anyway, so if Yesugey wants to bring up old stuff, let him. I don't look through here much anymore myself, though it doesn't seem that thread necromancy is as frowned upon as it once was.

Yesugey, perhaps if you open your new thread with a reference link to the old thread first, then you wont have the mods and other members breathing down your neck.

:2thumbsup:

[nafod]

I guess the other downside to necromancy is, if you're like me and have tired of ETW (being the flash in the pan that it was). And your wife just bought you a book on Barbarian Invasions that has rekindled your interest in CA's earlier titles.

You come into the Citadel during your off time to see something new, and find a 46 comment posting about the Aztec's being overpowered.

Thinking it will be a new and vivid discussion you open it and find a heated somewhat funny discussion you recalled reading 30 months ago....