Printable View
Courtesy of Lithuanian on the TotalWar.com forums.
https://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d...-to-acteks.jpg
https://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d...to-acteks2.jpg
These guys look awesome! I seriously don't think anyone can have any complaints on how these guys turned out.
They look good, and will probably be fun, but my concerns, and the concerns of others too I think, have been that their implementation on the campaign game might be strange and/or unbalanced, and that with the limited number of factions in the engine it'll mean removal of a more important faction in Europe or the Middle east, where there are already a bit too few factions to make it realistic and fun. Diplomacy with only 21 factions is for example not as fun as diplomacy with some 50 factions, pacts, tight alliances, backstabbing and buildup or destruction of a rumor of being trustworthy. With 21 factions it's difficult to find out who is a backstabber, and difficult to use diplomacy and internal wars to turn opponents against each others, and alliances don't mean that much.
This makes me think they already have the add-on in mind.
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix:
Given the recent 'pseudo-confirmation' of the Mayans and Incas, it looks as though the developers may well have increased the faction limit to at least 30 as they said they would, maybe more.
They look good, and will probably be fun, but my concerns, and the concerns of others too I think, have been that their implementation on the campaign game might be strange and/or unbalanced, and that with the limited number of factions in the engine it'll mean removal of a more important faction in Europe or the Middle east, where there are already a bit too few factions to make it realistic and fun. Diplomacy with only 21 factions is for example not as fun as diplomacy with some 50 factions, pacts, tight alliances, backstabbing and buildup or destruction of a rumor of being trustworthy. With 21 factions it's difficult to find out who is a backstabber, and difficult to use diplomacy and internal wars to turn opponents against each others, and alliances don't mean that much.
I think they look too much like chicken/tigers.
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr:
:laugh4:
I think they look too much like chicken/tigers.
Seriously, they indeed look weird. But they are historically correct, so nobody can argue. :book:
They certainly look detailed.
My only concern is this (and someone can correct me if I am wrong):
The warfare of the azteks was not in tight european-style formations in the open field. I would imagine thick jungles with complicated terrain. In fact, this should be the major strength of the natives.
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma:
They certainly look detailed.
My only concern is this (and someone can correct me if I am wrong):
The warfare of the azteks was not in tight european-style formations in the open field. I would imagine thick jungles with complicated terrain. In fact, this should be the major strength of the natives.
That should definetly be the case for the Incas or Mayas who fought in jungle and mountainous terrain but the Aztecs fought mainly on open terrain and rolling country which would later prove there undoing when fighting the cavalry of the Spanish conquistadors
What are they?
The first are probably jaguar wariors, but what animal does the second unit represent?
they look nice! and when we got to see their city as well that looked great... they are definately gonna be a faction i'm gonna enjoy playing (or destroying for that matter)
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill:
Eagles... I think.
What are they?
The first are probably jaguar wariors, but what animal does the second unit represent?
The blokes in the top picture seem to have atlatls
I think the second picture might be coyote costume, infact i'm sure of it. The warriors would often have coyote, eagle or Jaguar costume in battle.
Originally Posted by :
Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent.
What are they?
The first are probably jaguar wariors, but what animal does the second unit represent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill:
Jaguars are black. The skin they are wearing is that of a leopard.
What are they?
The first are probably jaguar wariors, but what animal does the second unit represent?
The second ones i believe are supposed to represent eagles. Eagles played a huge role in aztec mythology. The founder of the Aztec capital (present day Mexico City) was told by a god to found the city where he saw an eagle perched upon a cactus and eating a snake. My memory is a bit sketchy though so itd be nice if someone else could confirm or deny this.
My only concern is that i believe the Aztecs wore their skins more as a cape (the head of the animal on top of their own head, the forearms draped over their shoulders or tied to their own arms, the rest of the skin hanging down their back). I dont know how possible it would have been to make a bodysuit out of a single skin to fit human proportions or how if they did this the warriors would have been able to take the skin on and off. But whatever. Historical evidence is sketchy as is to be expected. I think they look pretty impressive.
As to the Mayans, even they still lived in present day Mexico. The Yucatan penninsula if i remmeber correctly. So while there was more in the way of jungle than the Aztecs it was far from a predominant feature in this area. Of the three empires (aztec, mayan, incan) the Aztecs were by far the most war oriented. Indeed much of their society was based around it. It seemed they were always in perpetual war with some minor tribe or other.
EDIT: looking back at the second unit i notice that they arent eagle warriors at all. The head is clearly (although unclearly because of the poor quality of the picture) that of some kind of dog. Most likely a coyote. The body however clearly has feathers. This leaves me lost as to what it is.
I think that the player should be able to land only a small number of troops in the New World and should be able to train only native auxiliaries. There should also be big penalties for wearing heavy armour, fighting in pike hedges or from horseback and using missile weapons in jungle. This would prevent the Aztecs simply being steam rollered by thousands of musketeers, cannon, pikemen, armoured knights etcetera.
As far as pelts go jaguars can be both black and speckled.
As far as the Aztec armies and military units: http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/742717
There was no Aztec standing army, rather warriors were called up for specific campaigns. A basic large army consisted of around 8,000 men, but depending on requirements the Aztecs could field up to 200,000 warriors for a campaign.
The army was based on units organised from local calpulli. In Tenochtitlan each calpulli was requited to contribute about 400 men, marching under their own standard with their own leaders. There were probably several divisions below this, of 100 or 200 men.
A supreme council of four noblemen governed the army: the Tlacochcalcatl, the Tlacatecatl, the Ezhuahuancatl and the Tillancalqui. At Tenochtitlan they would all usually be close relatives of the tlatoani, and one, usually the tlacochcalcatl, would be heir apparent.
The two highest military orders were the Otontin ("Otomis" - warriors who have taken five or six captives) and the Cuachicqueh ("Scalped heads" or "Shorn Ones" - taken more than six captives). The highest military commanders such as the tlacochcalcatl and the tlaccatecatl were members of these two orders. Depending on the situation Cuachicqueh and Otontin were fielded in independent units, or as captains of 100 lesser warriors, or interspersed with the lesser warriors to bolster their morale.
Four-captive warriors were the Tequihuahqueh, which literally means "Tribute Owners" (in the sense they have a share of the tribute by being maintained by the state), but is usually translated "Veteran" or "Valiant Warrior".
Cuauhtlocelome ("Eagle-Jaguars") were members of the elite religious warrior societies - either Cuauhtli ("Eagle Warrior") or Ocelotl ("Jaguar Warrior"). Only four-captive warriors could enter these societies. Pictorial evidence suggests Jaguars were more common than Eagles, and in fact Eagle suits are only depicted worn by rulers. The Eagle and Jaguar military orders fought in their own separate units. Cuauheuhueh ("Eagle Elders") were Eagle-Jaguars who were too old to fight but still accompanied military expedition to act as marshals.
Tiachcauh ("Teacher of youths") were three-captive warriors, and a Cuextecatl was a warrior who had captured two enemies. A warrior who had taken one captive, even with the help of up to six companions, was a Telpochyahqui ("Leading Youth").
Tlamani ("Captor") was a general term covering all warriors who had taken captives, and Cuexpalchicacpo ("Youth with a baby's tuft") was a derogative term for a warrior who had taken no captives after three or four campaigns.
The army would also be accompanied by tlamemes, professional porters.
They kinda grow on ya. It'll be interesting to see their settlements.
I really think they costumes are silly.. I can't believe someone actually wore that to fight 0-o
Heh, needs to be more dirty. The costumes look like they just got out of the dryer and were ironed. Some rips, dirt, maybe a little blood would make it seem more realistic.
Other then that there awsome. And remember...the azteks,mayans, and whoever else WERE steamrolled by a few hundred spaniards.
Their clothes look like some sort of one-piece...is that right? I was expecting more half-naked types running around...
The actual shots themselves look a lot less polished than other MTWII screenies....are we sure these are not RTW mods?
Originally Posted by shifty157:
There is a black (melanistic) color phase in some parts of the jaguar range, but I believe the standard pattern is more common in Mexico:
Jaguars are black. The skin they are wearing is that of a leopard.
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/jaguar.htm
Also, just to nitpick, I think they got the pattern colors wrong. The background color is way too orange, it should be more of a light tan. Here's a closeup. I've seen live jaguars (in zoos) and this is more what they look like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neguinh...ana/116106079/
Originally Posted by :
Yeah, that was my thought too, but after some quick Googling it looks like that's the real deal. Check out these codex drawings:
My only concern is that i believe the Aztecs wore their skins more as a cape (the head of the animal on top of their own head, the forearms draped over their shoulders or tied to their own arms, the rest of the skin hanging down their back). I dont know how possible it would have been to make a bodysuit out of a single skin to fit human proportions or how if they did this the warriors would have been able to take the skin on and off. But whatever. Historical evidence is sketchy as is to be expected. I think they look pretty impressive.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztec-warfare.htm
It most have been HOT wearing those full body suits in that climate, but maybe it added a small amount of armor protection vs. bare skin. Or maybe it's purely status display. Those guys were big on ornamental status displays.
My only concern is that these jaguar guys should probably be elite units, and somewhat rare. There is evidence that they did fight together as a unit, so that part fits into the TW battle engine. But there should probably be a lot more "peasant" types like the white-clothed and half-naked warriors shown on that page.
Aztec Eagle and Jaguar warriors look very good.Thanks BKB!
Originally Posted by holybandit:
Actually, most of them were defeated by deseases introduced by Europeans.
Other then that there awsome. And remember...the azteks,mayans, and whoever else WERE steamrolled by a few hundred spaniards.
It wasn't the fighting skill of the Spanish or Portuguese, nor superior weapons.
Ahh
Weren't the Maya wiped out in the 13th century by famine?
And are we sure those pictures are M2TW?
They look like RTW 1.5 dudes...?
Originally Posted by holybandit:
Good point. They do look at a tad bit like pajamas.
Heh, needs to be more dirty. The costumes look like they just got out of the dryer and were ironed. Some rips, dirt, maybe a little blood would make it seem more realistic.
Grr, fear me before I take a nap in my PJs!
Originally Posted by :
Don't talk nonsense. The Conquistadors were on several occasions able to see off whole armies by their lonesomes, and made tremendously effective shock troops for their native allies. The plague effect was just a bonus.
Actually, most of them were defeated by deseases introduced by Europeans.
It wasn't the fighting skill of the Spanish or Portuguese, nor superior weapons.
The native warriors typically wore vest-like padded cotton armour (ie. quilted) cuirasses, which were apparently strong enough to offer meaningful protection from the local stone- and glass-edged weaponry (the Conquistadors apprently sometimes swapped their ironmongery for native quirasses too, finding them much more comfortable and rather sufficient). The "warrior orders" and similar elites would wear their trademark jumpsuits (normally closed at the back) over those, although one would imagine the leather, fur, cotton and/or feathers also added some measure of protection.
'Course, slingers and archers and the like often went pretty lightly clad.
Incidentally, assuming the assorted Osprey books on the topic I've read have any idea of what they're talking about (and are illustrated with), the guys in the pics aren't even close to the amazingly high degree of sheer baroque gaudiness the Native American armies could reach. For example, officers often carried quite large and elaborate standards on their backs as marks of rank and means of battlefield identification (to the considerable glee of the few musketeers and crossbowmen the Conquistadors brought along), and some of the clotch-colour and/or warpaint schemes used could get rather lurid.
But hey, any psychological edge is good psychological edge.
Jungles are funny in that they have insane amounts of biomass, and about zero in the way of useful natural resources (such as farmland) not counting wood. I'm under the strong impression that genuinely jungle-dwelling cultures have tended to show a marked habit of getting stuck at the tribal stone-age hunter-gatherer-horticuluralist level as a result.
Originally Posted by :
The Aztecs fought as close-order heavy infantry usually in a single long line, and tried to make a point of turning the enemy flanks if possible (partly as this was a good way to actually win the battle without a really drawn-out attrition slugging match, and partly as it was helpful for taking captives). AFAIK so did the Incas, but they weren't particularly interested in captives and instead had much the same "slaughter thine enemy and scatter him into the winds" attitude as the Europeans did. I seem to recall the Mayas were rather more into hit-and-run type tactics, no doubt owing n large part to geography, and apparently as a result wiped out the first Conquistador venture into their territory (a second attempt came a few years later, and succeeded not a little thanks to the ravages of diseases). Many other native cultures also practiced quite elaborate and sophisticated tactical schemes.
The warfare of the azteks was not in tight european-style formations in the open field. I would imagine thick jungles with complicated terrain. In fact, this should be the major strength of the natives.
Also Cortez wasnt the most trustworthy person. The Aztecs would give the Spanish gold and other such things in agreement that the Spanish would leave and instead Cortez would take the gold and continue his conquest without a second thought. He wasnt a very nice person.
The aztecs were not smart, they thought cortez was a god, let all the spaniards into their city heavily armed, thousnads of unarmed aztecs came to see, aztecs get slaughtered. You could say that Cortez wasnt nice, but the Aztecs werent the sharpest tool in the shed/
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul:
Are you kidding me? Although disease did take the greatest toll on native life, The battles that did take place were utter slaugters. The Aztecs, and Mayans had never seen Horses before, add to that the fact that The Spanish had noisy, and smoky guns, along with heavy metal armor, and iron swords in comparison to the mainly wooden and obsidian weapons of the aztecs and mayans and you see that they were ata n extreme diadvantage. To say that the superior weapons of the spanish had no effect it lunacy, it had the utmost greatest efect in battle, and I hope CA demonstrates this in battle as any European country of the time should have a massive advantage in atach power ratio.
Actually, most of them were defeated by deseases introduced by Europeans.
It wasn't the fighting skill of the Spanish or Portuguese, nor superior weapons.