Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benandorf
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benandorf
However, note that the kingdoms american campaign does include the effects of european epidemics (at least it does according to the manual).
Exactly, people keep forgetting that this is a game, not a historical simulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe4iz
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
Gunpowder is severely overrated. Crossbows were much more favoured by the conquistadores over the early, primitive, and unreliable firearms.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
Yeah, the Spaniards lost their share of battles in the conquest. But why are you mentioning the Incas? They had no part in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
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.
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%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yesugey
However, the whole blanket thing is an entirely different situation from a different century. You have your facts somewhat mixed up.
I choosed to avoid any details as possible, and give general info about invasion of Americas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
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:
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.
never having had a problem with the aztecs,
why did you ressurect a 2 year old thread Yesugey?
I told him to. Do not question my intentions, bwoi. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussian Iron
oh, good old meth. haphazardly ordering around newbies :P
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 ^^
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....
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:
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....