Ive been thinking latley that instead of having a Aztec faction, they should just add another to Europe, Eurasia. For example the Flemish in western Europe, or perhaps the Cumans the east.
Your thoughts?
Printable View
Ive been thinking latley that instead of having a Aztec faction, they should just add another to Europe, Eurasia. For example the Flemish in western Europe, or perhaps the Cumans the east.
Your thoughts?
As a normal faction no it wouldn't.
We will have to wait for 400 years before the spanish arrives and just sit there and do nothing would be boring.
But if CA manage to create a way so that we are busy for 400 years then yes they can work.
I think it's good that we will actually get to see another continent at last! I don't suppose they'll be playable from the get go - I imagine the game will be split into eras, and they'll only appear in the final era. It's good that this version of MTW will do new things compared to the original in my opinion.
As long is i does all the old stuff better, of course!
no, no ,no Actecs are a very bad idea. i hope the developers will change this
aztecs many piece of nonsense
big nonsense
..............................................
The map should be between The 25th and the 65th North latiudes---20th West and 75th East parallels.
I really think they will be in seperate campiagn that only has central and south america.
Also, it says they are playable in mulitplayer and custom battles. So far nobody has said they can be played in a SP campaign.
i think it will suck but they said it will be a mini campaign...so it might be separate from the european map...and it will get shipments from the home city...like in AoE 3
Bad Idea, but I guess they had to include them given the time period.
My heart sank, but if it is a mini-campaign, it won't be a biggie.
A full blown Conquistadors: Total War would be great though - focusing on the rivalry between the European Powers in the New World, say from Columbus up until the birth of the US.
I think it would be something like that if some specific conditions are met you gain option to discover America.
Then you can send some troops to conquer the Aztec (mexico show as seperate minimap) and boost your gold reserve, helping you in the endgame of medieval campaign.
Yeah, I don't think Aztecs are a good idea. But who knows, maybe CA will pull it off.
... and then I thought Colonization: Total War...Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
It could be a hint to the expansion planned, who knows though?
I hope they don't stick into the the vanilla campaign no matter what the start date. It would just make the map all weird.
What would good though is if they do a map that includes Central America, Northern South America and the Carribean. The Spanish should start off with just a couple of provinces (Cuba and Hispaniola for instance) that would bleed money from the beginning and with limited options to train more troops than the original Spanish expeditionary force, just like the Vikings in VI. However, Europe must not be included in that expansion pack.
I think we should wait until we have more info.
Yeah we should, I'd guess it's a non playbale faction in a large campaign and could be a playable faction in a mini campaign.
Yeah, I suspect that they will be in a mini campaign as CA said and the main campaign will be with Europe only....unless they cut out the main campaign and just have a series of mini campaigns...which WOULD appeal to your casual gamer....oh the speculation
I would prefer perhabs the Hungary. Okay, they havn`t play a great role at this time (except the Hungary attacks on western Europe)
will there be Denmark or sweden? If no, i also would take one of this nations, but i havn`t the list of the nations in my head
Well, as a cavalry fanatic, I can't wait to come to New World with horse archers.:laugh4:
No.
I was thrilled to see the official announcement for Medieval 2 but I really chafed when I saw the inclusion of the Aztecs as a faction (playable or non-playable). They are completely out of place in a game that spans from 1080 to 1530 and features empire building in medieval Europe, N. Africa and W. Asia. Rather than make the sensible decision and expand the map further east to include Asiatic factions/civilizations that were quite advanced for their time and who didn't get the nod in the original Medieval (Khwarazmian kingdom) it seems like CA has opted to ride the coat tails of Age of Empires 3 and give gamers some of that New World loving. :inquisitive: Including the Aztecs seems so silly when you consider that the Spanish discovery of the New World is a scant 38 years from the conclusion of the campaign game.
The Aztecs do look more than a little out of place on the faction list, and I'd also have preferred more notice being taken of the eastern nations, but I'd like to know exactly how they plan to integrate the Aztecs into the game before saying whether or not they'll work.
Yes, but Cortez conquest was complete by the end of 1521, nine years before the game ends. It was an historical event of profound importance. Honestly, how could it be ignored? It will have to be part of the victory conditions of a Spanish faction, for instance.Quote:
... when you consider that the Spanish discovery of the New World is a scant 38 years from the conclusion of the campaign game.
The only part that bothers me is: Whether or not CA will modify plague rules severely enough to realisticaly model the effect on the Aztecs.
Two out of every five Aztecs in their capital city died, if memory serves, of smallpox pretty shortly after Cortez arrived. Frankly, it doesn't sound like a pleasant prospect to me to play a faction where you suffer 40 percent casualties before landing a blow.
Yes that is a very good idea. One should include some asiatic factions, so it could be a mix of Medieval and ShogunQuote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Hmm, I think Europeans at the time (especially in 1521) thought other developments much more important thant the conquest of Mexico. The main geo-political events concerning Europeans in the early 16th century mainly revolved around the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, the Habsburg-Valois rivalry and (very quickly becoming important, but not really before the German Peasant's War) the Reformation. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire was far more important in the long term then it was in the short term, and the impact on Europe was very marginal in the 9 years between 1521 and 1530.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
I hope they won't be included as a fully-fledged faction. They would be out of place.
Who says that we can only get here in 1492?
The capability to get the Americas was there since... well the Vikings to be honest. It was the will that lacked.
Sure it got easier with the compass and other inventions, but sailors were not bad at knowing which way was what even without them.
So I think it is going to be a case of certain requirements are filled for the chance to go to America is opened.
And I cincerely doubt the Aztecs will be playable in the normal sense. And I doubt that their lands are part of the main map. As they say, it is an extension of the map. That sounds like, a ship that goes [here] will end up in another map.
I respectfully disagree. A few shiploads of Aztec gold would have made any of those tasks much easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
As somebody is quoted in R:TW as saying: "They have an abundance of gold and silver, which makes war, like other things, much easier."
Also, Kraxis makes an excellent point. Columbus had been lobbying for the expedition since 1485.
As far as I know, the main economic consequence of the Spanish conquest of the America's was through the mining of silver, not by the golden treasure of the Aztecs. I have however no real idea how great the original Aztec treasure was. This would have taken a little longer to take effect. Also, if (in the game) you conquered these treasures in 1521, you would only have about 9 years (wich would be... 18 turns?) to use it, which wouldn't be very long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
Of course, I agree with the both of you that there would be no reason why a nation couldn't discover the America's before 1492 in the game (apart from the Vikings, there are several other claims, amongst which some Irish (apart from St. Brendan) and Portuguese, to have 'discovered' America before Columbus, I believe). That would however leave the problem of the Aztecs only becoming a 'nation' recognisable in history in the mid-14th century, so they would be very late-game.
I am most suspicious about the Aztecs. I will have to wait and see the end result, but at this point, I hardly think they will fit in to the game the way they should. The reasonable expansion would be, as Spino said, towards east. And it would be one that would be, IMDHO of course, far more interesting.
I doubt the game will consider that for that reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
I just think that in the 1350s or so the timerequirement is completed and then you can begin to fill the others. So around 1400, which was indeed a naval time you should be set for going to America. But it would be that time because the cultural feeling lacked substial amounts of will previously. In the late 14th and early 15th the will was suddenly there. European culture was now redy to go out and look.
I stress, that I do not think the Aztecs are playable in the main campaign. Even the most foolish PR announcer can understand they would be horribly boring if played from 1080 (which would be rather impossible, but then again time has never been a problem).
I think it's a good idea. I'm sure the faction will emergy a la BI at a certain point, and the map will be off-limits until then or something else that will be justified. CA has never put Aztecs in their games before, why not? It makes perfect sense.
To be honest I'm very concerned. Anyone read Guns, Germs and Steal?
Very, very bad idea. First off all, europeans didn`t came in contact with the aztecs until the begining of 16th century, and that is when the game ends. Also, aztec army was much weaker than any european army, so it would be impossible to balance it with other factions.
Vikings discovered America long before spain, but they only discovered greenland and some lands abit further south. They didn`t come in contact with any significant nation. There ships, although they were the best ships in the world at that time, couldn`t establish a constant link with america.
So, discovering of america by the vikings didn`t have any impact on the course of history.
The possibility for colonization of such a distant land came with the invention of a new type of ship, the caravel, and that was in 15th century. So, including aztecs would be a mistake by my humble opinion.
I think in gameplay terms for the battle side of the game it will add a new twist to the game and will make a great challenge to play as the Aztecs who will have no cavalry and no gunpowder weapons so will struggle with the technologically superior forces...
However, on the strategic map I'm curious to see how they intend to fit them in and make them useful, it labels them as a playable faction but I can only realistically see them being used for multiplayer battles anyway. Unless this game is going to be EVEN bigger then we're hoping for...
They weren't labeled as playable faction. There were just listed in list of 21 factions that will surely aprear in M2TW.
They also said that which factions will be playable with be decided later.
Even if they are not playble fro the start, I would think it dosen't take long untill you have a mod that unlock the Aztecs (among others) for single player.
Depends.
If they technicly don't exist as faction until mid of 14th century, then it can make problems.
(look all those how to unlock Romano-British threads for RTW:BI).
Heh, I come back to the org and look what I find! The peoples' general attitude regarding realism/gameplay/involvement etc. has not changed. I don't see any reason why this is a bad idea. It isn't inaccurate, it isn't a definite sign that the game will be inaccurate, and this feature can only mean added fun, enjoyment and extra life to the game.
It's a shame that many of the most hardcore total war fans still do not really understand what the game is about; the games in the total war series are about changing history, not about following strict historical rules. I wholeheartedly agree with Kraxis here, why does Columbus have to go to the Caribbean in 1492? Someone could arrive a lot earlier and a huge colonial warfare system could develop long before the end of the campaign. I think this feature will add huge new areas to the later stages of the campaign when it will be boring, just about huge powers fighting for control. In fact, I may will even look into modding the game to extend this feature even wider. Colonisation is one of the things I have always wanted to do in a Total War game, and I am not just talking about creating huge mediterrannean empires with the Italians.
I have to admit though that I am quite worried that CA will not pull it off properly (but that's only because I am looking forwards to this feature). But then again, they are CA and they have done things more quality-important than this before.
the aztecs should work hopefully i really want to play them because i want to know more info about them and stuff.
Discovering the America's may be useful for rejuvenating interest in the late campaign.
I don't think making the Aztecs playable would work, unless it was only as a mini-campaign.
Books are quite helpful... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by littlegannon
It's all about making games educational nowadays.
Yes, I can already next type of games CA is going to make: Total Algebra :laugh4: . Including a faction in the game just because samoone want to know more about them is really stupid, expecially when you can find more data about aztecs on the internet within a few minutes. I`m really interested in the history of eskimos but doesn`t mean I want eskimos as a faction in mtw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
Don't you think it may be the case that they were added too make MTW II different from MTW? Personally I don't like the idea
......Orda
Of course then we'll all be arguing what fractions to include...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Brilliant. :medievalcheers: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by lanky316
The idea that aztecs could stand up to European technology is very ahistorical. Not only were the Americans totally outclassed technologically, Eurasian diseases devastated them. It was a completely unbalanced conflict.
The idea of having a campaign in mexico with american factions could totaly work however. The Spanish could maybe be like a mongol horde but it still wouldn't be too historical since they would have to be balanced. It totally depends how they do it, CA could pull it off well.
Well, I am not sure if they will impliment it well or not but when you get down to it...
The game is from 1080-1530.
Columbus "discovered" the Americas in 1492 (possibly 1485).
The Spainish had conquored the Aztech by 1522.
Therefore the conquest of the Aztech by a european faction within the (late)time period of the game is entriely historically correct...
While all manner of other places were "discovered" during this time, they were not conquored and would not really be part of the Total War concept...
It is all in the excution, how they make it work will determine whether it is cool or not...
And rather than build churches you build human sacrifice temples, with little cut scenes of hearts being ripped out from living sacrifices.
Sounds tremendous
We should remember that "world maps" in the 1400's were mostly based on nautical observation, and 2nd century AD speculation. The globe was thought to be only 3-quarters the size we in the 21st century know it is. The Indian Ocean was described as an 'inland sea'.
Columbus pitched (to the Portugese, then the Spanish) the idea that Japan was a mere 2,400 miles WEST of Spain, and that he could, therefore arrive in India MUCH sooner, and with less peril, than caravels that had to round the Horn of Africa. The caveat being that he would possibly be out of sight of land for several days.
To implement the New World in Medieval2, with the 1400's mindset, NOT our 2006 satellite-imaged minset, CA merely needs to offset 'False India' (nowadays known as Carib/Mexico) a couple of sea provinces west of Lisbon.
To me, it's not that huge a mental leap, especially considering how in MTW1, you could travel overland, on foot, over unimproved medieval "roads" from Kiev to Moscow in 3-4 years.
And as people above have pointed out: why wait 'til Columbus and 1492? The Portugese were probing/exploring in the 14-teens.
I'm 100% against american indians being included for the obvious reason that about a half of the European states will most probably be ommited from the game.
Sorry, Czechian mates, Norwegians, Serbians, Swedes, Lithuanians, Bulgarians, Romanians etc, but your nations' territories, territories upon which your states existed in this period will be "controlled by rebels" in this game. But hey, cheer up - you get to play with the Aztecs!!!
IMO - trading the first Slavic christian civilisation, which brought Byzantium's cultural achievements and christianity to the slavic world, for ... the Aztecs can only be classified as cynical.
I used Bulgaria just as an example. Your nations by no means less important or anything.
Aztecs would seem like a hilarious choice. I mean, how would you expect realisticly barbarians, armed with flint tipped clubs, almost naked, to fare against steel swords, armour and gunpowder??:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
Besides, the aztecs would be a super boring put off for the game, and including them in the main campaign would probably ruin it. Mini-campaign, ok (doesnt mean ill be playing it), but please keep them out of the game.
By using arrows and outnumbering the guys with steel swords, armor and gunpowder by about 1,000 to 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Munqidh
By all indications, the capital of the Aztecs was one of the largest, possibly the largest, city in the world when the Spanish found it.
Come on, folks. The history of what happened is available in any library. Cortez' small army with their steel swords, armor gunpowder and horses — somebody should mention horses — barely escaped the Aztecs at one point. Cortez only lived because the Aztec emperor gave orders that he be taken alive. Aztec warriors had him trapped at one point and would have killed him, but he managed to slip away and escape by running over the bodies of native allies, which had conveniently filled a ditch.
============
As I understand the game from summaries of interviews with developers, you have to make a definite decision to research the appropriate techs to get across the ocean. Then you have to make the decision to cross the ocean, too.
So if you want to build buildings to research techs like artillery, for instance, instead of ports to research navigation, do so. If you want to stop other factions from crossing the seas and getting the gold, beat them in the 200 years we'll have before the Americas can possibly be discoveredd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-hero
This is probably the best argument yet against the Aztecs. However, I'd have to argue that the vast wealth obtained from the Americas still justifies including them over other European possibilities. That vast wealth wasn't just gold and silver looted from the Americas, but tobacco and other trade items, which will be included in the game according to developer interviews.
Yeah, that is the best argument against the Aztecs have heard til yetQuote:
Originally Posted by Anti-hero
I think it is pretty well the only decent argument you could have against the Aztecs. As I said before, there is no reason not to include the aztecs except that you could say the manpower could be better spent (I don't believe this is true anyway, I love the idea of travelling to America)
Besides, with the extra faction slots that have been mentioned in another thread will mean that most of the factions in that list will probably be modded in anyway pretty soon after release, so if your home nation got left out its nothing to worry about really (except that you might have to wait a while)
It's nice to see people supporting my point. Even if just by recognising it as the best argument against the Aztecs.
On second thought, maybe the inclusion of the Aztecs can be best seen as another evidence that CA is focusing the game (for a second time) on Western European factions. Also, it gets really hard to depict Europe in the 16th century without mentionig America in one way or another.
So, you see - there are also pro-Aztec ponits. It's just very unfortunate that, once again, the proper depicting of West Europe will happen at the expense of East Europe.
As the saying goes - whoever pays for the show, decides the songs played. We're a weaker market. So we'll have to mod our way into East Europe looking like it should. That's the bitter truth as I see it. :(
I can’t wait for the Aztecs.
The “discovery” (like it was lost and needed finding but that is history written by the white European for the white European) of the “Americas” was the most important thing to ever happen to the Europeans. It gave them a brave new world to conquer and extinguish other civilizations in the name of trade, cultural achievements and Christian determinisms.
Go west young man. For it is there that you will find your destiny. This game does not include the American Aboriginals (Indians) but only the Central American Aboriginal Civilizations. Notice I use civilization because that is what they were, a very advanced culture no different than the eastern Europeans.
CA can not include all of the societies and important achievements, but only give an “overview” of them. The Aztecs were not the only Aboriginal culture in the Americas encountered by the Spanish as the Bulgarians are not the only eastern culture in Eastern Europe. At the beginning of the 16th century the discovery of the Americas would change the eastern world forever. I believe that is CA’s point. The great civilizations of Europe would clash for the riches and land of the Americas over the next hundreds of years ending the medieval age. The renaissance was the great re-working of man and his place in the world.
Welcome the new world with open arms for it is your destiny written by you for you. And if you don’t like it rewrite it!
The idea that the Aztecs/Mexica will take a slot the Serbs or other could possibly have, is not certain. The next game could allow possible 200 factions. I think it gives the game something of a Civ 4 tech race to see who can reach the Americas first. I would certainly love to see how Tenochtitlan will be depicted. I wonder how many factions will be able to play on the Americas map. This map will provide a ready made surface for the first American themed mods.
That is an excellent point ready made for further n american developement...eventually the mankind mod of the whole world!
Aztecs have no place in the Medieval world. The date that changed the Middle ages was 1453 (according to some scientists the Ottoman Turks forced European monarchs to look for a new route to the East) or 1492-1493 (when Columbus discovered America). After these dates the Medieval world was not Medieval anymore- the society, the economy and the policy were very different from what they used to be. But when there is the year 1530 the Aztecs should be there but not in the SP campaign (only in a separate campaign). Otherwise... well, I don't want to think about it...
I know, but allow me to be just a teensy bit frustrated by the fact tha CA tends to give a much more thorough "overview" in some areas and no overview at all in others ;)Quote:
CA can not include all of the societies and important achievements, but only give an “overview” of them. The Aztecs were not the only Aboriginal culture in the Americas encountered by the Spanish as the Bulgarians are not the only eastern culture in Eastern Europe.
yes your right, no overview, but at least they try, and what they don't do, the best modders in the world sure do a great job of putting in a new view.
As others have said, the Aztecs do not belong in the game. I am thoroughly fascinated by Tenochtitlan, is willing to sack it some day in some other game, preferably a Total War, but I...as I've said before...would go for a better polished Constantinople anyday. Besides, CA has never been really that good at depicting civilization as-is. Their game is about War, War, and War. I mean, look at all those bland factions of RTW! Constantinople of BI looks absolutely no different, either!
The Aztecs are outclassed. Cortez may had barely succeeded, but he had with him like no more than fifteen thousand Spaniards, at most, and an army larger than that--typical of the Later Middle Ages anyway to carry larger armies than the earlier days--could thoroughly trounce Tenochtitlan's millions of inhabitants, who would be plagued, as well as weakly-armed with no proper weaponry in a Eurasian sense. The Mongols could do something like that, why not the Conquistadors?
Anti-Hero's argument is, indeed, strong. And it extend beyond Eastern Europe, if you wish to look at it like that. What's a stronger influence in 14-15th century Europe? Serbia, Islam (-ic threat), Mongols, or Aztecs?
The argument about rewriting history is null and void: it is, to me, a rather cheap shot. None of us wants to play a strictly linear campaign, but I bet none would welcome, say, Sukotai (which 99% of you don't know, but, until Columbus' discovery when it's probably the last legs of a campaign in our game, as relevant as Central America was) fighting European knights...
There is a limit to which history and fantasy seperates...
Sorry, I may have lost track of the discussion at this time but Cortez had no where near that number of Spaniards. My (cough) impeccable source tells me that he set off with 500 and 15 horses.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s
He probably had thousands of native American allies, but even then I doubt they reached 15,000.
Reading some of Cortez's exploits with his small band of Spaniards, I sometimes feel it is more suited to a Total Warrior game than a Total War one. I don't think one side ever appeared to have such a staggering superiority over the other until the Europeans took the maxim gun to Africa.
Cortez' numbers fluctuated as he recieved reinforcements, even had to fight the governor of Cuba (then added his troops to his own). In all some 3-4000 Spaniards were involved in the fight.
The allied indians grew in numbers as the army advanced as more and more suppressed tribes joined in. Eventually there were more people in Cortez' army than in the Aztec army defending Tenochtitlan.
3-4000 Spanish? With Cortez? At Tenochtitlan?
naa maybe 3 to 400 Spanish....with 1000's of native tribesmen.
All the history I was taught in university, never placed 3-4000 Spanish Soldiers in the fight for all of Central America. The Spanish just out Tech'd, Out thought, Out lasted, the natives. The Aztecs lost because of their dominance over other tribes ...it was rebellion with a big R, the Spanish just happened to be along for the Ride!
I believe it was like 160 destroyed the Incas civilization, captured and put to death their king, just to prove a point. Submit to the our king or you will all die.
But we have hashed this topic to death: disease, tech, rebellion..the great down fall and rise of a new civilization, mixing of the races, Spanish, the native tribes, and Africans to create a brand new master race....the Mexicans, Jamacians, Cubans, etc, etc,
Have a great snowy day, 2 more months of winter, I am moving to the Carribean....I am sick of snow! Any one down there need a project manager?
MTW II was a good choice but I will not be rushing to discover America
......Orda
No, you didn't read my post.
There were not 3-4000 with Cortez at any point, it was the total number of Spaniards involved. I do hope that you do not think that Spanish never suffeerd losses, or even very heavy losses (relative to their size). Remember La Noche Triste (or whatever it called)?
The very reason Cortez had to have a small civil war was because he was draining the Spanish manpower in the Americas. Some wanted to stop him, he would of course not do that as he had nothing to return to (much like Pizarro in Inca lands).
Pizarro was a bright man. Unlike Cortez he didn't go to war against the Incas. He sneaked in because he was deemed to weak to be any threat. Rightfully so. 50,000 Inca warriors were encamped around the Spanish, no matter the advantage in weapons, they would never get out alive if it came to that.
But the emperor was too important, so when Pizarro captured him he could have had 5 or 5 million men, it made no difference.
After this the Spanish did have to fight the empire in bits and pieces, and it was not too easy always. But that was because the Inca empire was more integrated in it's own sphere unlike the Aztecs who were 'merely' masters of a whole range of subjugated tribes.
According to Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who was one of the original members of Cortez' expedition, the original force consisted indeed of about 500 men (excluding the ship captains and sailors, who amounted to about 109) and 16 horses (Del Castillo is nice enough to give a description of every single horse and who it belonged to). Apparently within these 500 men were included only 32 bowmen and 13 musketeers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Many of these men seem to have been killed or wounded at one of the first major battles they had, hardly any horses survived the first weeks. However, Cortez cleverly got the men the governor of Cuba sent to take him prisoner to work with him.
Source: Bernal Diaz del Castillo, The true history of the conquest of New Spain.
I reckon it could work, i'm gonna hold judgement until i play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigJon
That's my opinion in a nutshell...
I think the developers debated this among themselves. I have faith in CA. I hope it will be possible to see Tenochtitlan and its pyramids with their blood spattered steps with M2TW. If they have Tenochtitlan - and how could they not? - I wonder whether its canals and insular situation will be depticted. What I look forward in particular are the various types of new terrain.