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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I think they look too much like chicken/tigers.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by x-dANGEr
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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)
Eagles... I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
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.
Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent.Quote:
What are they?
The first are probably jaguar wariors, but what animal does the second unit represent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl
Jaguars are black. The skin they are wearing is that of a leopard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
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?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by shifty157
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/
Yeah, that was my thought too, but after some quick Googling it looks like that's the real deal. Check out these codex drawings:Quote:
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!
Actually, most of them were defeated by deseases introduced by Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
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...?
Good point. They do look at a tad bit like pajamas.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
Grr, fear me before I take a nap in my PJs!
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul
I don't know about "massive advantage," and I hope CA doesn't overdo that aspect. It's still basically hand-to-hand combat for the most part, and the Aztecs were a very tough society. They were at war constantly with their neighbors, so their men were experienced in combat. They based military ranks on how many captives each man had taken in battle. With the combination of physical toughness, combat experience, and a huge advantage in numbers, they shouldn't be a pushover. The conquistadors were very lucky that things played out as they did, historically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom
P.S. on a different topic -- another thing I'm a little worried about is the terrain modeling. I hope most battles are in open areas, which wouldn't be a-historical for Mexico. That place isn't all jungle; in fact the jungle is only around Yucatan and the southern states like Chiapas. I hated fighting inside the "forests" in RTW due to camera problems, and I doubt that CA has been able to make that work better. Unless there is some kind of option to visually remove the tree canopy, I don't think jungle combat will be much fun with this game engine.
I forget the exact numbers or exact battle, but I remmeber reading about a battle where only about 150 Spaniards were encircled by about 2500 unarmed aztecs.
You would think that Numbers alone - whether armed or not should confer some sort of advantage :/
Roughly 10 or 15 Spaniards i think were bludgeoned to death whilst thousands of Aztecs lie dead, wounded, and routed. To get killed by a Wodden stick or a sharp piece of rock is much harder than to be killed by iron.
Besides, you could probably suffer multiple punctures by sharp wood, wheras one solid jab is all it takes via iron. All in all, I'd say Technology was a huge factor, as was disease.
It doesent matter what anybody debates; the facts are that Iron, cavalry, and guns-especially would confer the Europeans a "huge" advantage. Not only were natives very naive, (one situation they brought all of their nobles and king to a meeting with unknown spaniards, and got all nobles killed and their king captured--- Battle of Cajamarca, with Francesco Pizzaro and 168 spanish soldiers VS. 80,000 mostly lightly armed indians. Ending with 7000 dead indians and the rest fleeing from 'cavalry' and 0 dead spanish. ) but they also were scared of the gun, and its effects. The best weapons they had were obsidian and these barely even did half the damage a stab from a well placed metal sword would confer. Although the Spanish were lucky in there exploration and anihilation of the south and central american populations, they won many decisive victories against the savage aztecs, and mayans which would ultimately result with their conquering of both civizations capitals.
So if for example in Medieval Total War 2, you go to central america as the English, and bring with you armored cavalry, armored musket men, basicaly anything armored (even profesional bowmen, which the central americans lacked. The best armor they had was wooden shields, and linen) you would find it quite easy to smash the basicaly unarmored aztecs and conquer land.
This A-HISTORICAL, logical, and scientific ratio in technological strength must be represented in the game. Sure you can argue that the aztecs were fierce (which they were) and that they were organized (which they also were), in the big scheme of warfare this independent bravery would have fared well in a different time, maybe around 500 B.C. to 1000 A.D, but against guns, and armies relying more on technology, skill became less of an issue ( it doesent take much to learn to aim and fire a musket, while swords and such take years or at least months to become basicly proficent with.) No matter what way you look at it or argue about it the technology employed by most European countries of the time would leave the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, and most other native north or south american civilizations at a massive disadvantage, especially in a full scale war, which is what most people will be partaking in if they wish to be succesfull in America. Battles against the aztecs should be easy, especialy for an experieced and tacticaly mided general. It doesent matter what tactics the Aztecs employ theyl have a hard time beating armored swordsman with wooden weapons .---will wood even ountire iron armor--no.
Uuuh as I said The Maya were wiped out on the 13th century.
You are thinking of Azteks and Incas.
And as you said, the Europeans due to their cavalry and guns were conferred a huge advantage, but their biological weapons (disease) caused havoc.
`
Nonsense? I may have phrased it a bit strong and made the impression that the European weaponry wasn't superior, grant you that, but it sure is no nonsense that diseases killed most of the mesoamerican people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
From Wikipedia for your education:
I wouldn't call 75% kiled by diseases a side-effect or a bonus.Quote:
Spanish conquest
Main article: Spanish conquest of Mexico
The empire reached its height during Ahuitzotl's reign. His successor was Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin (better known as Moctezuma II), who was Hueyi Tlatoani when the Spaniards arrived in 1519. After a long battle and the siege of the capital, Tenochtitlan, where much of the population died from hunger and smallpox, Cuauhtémoc surrendered to Hernán Cortés, who had an estimated 500 Spanish soldiers and thousands of allies from Tlaxcala and Texcoco, who were resisting Aztec rule. Tenochtitlan's forces were defeated on August 13, 1521.
The fall of Tenochtitlan usually is referred to as the main episode in the process of the conquest of Mesoamerica. Accounts of the Spanish conquest of Mexico often stop with the fall of Tenochtitlan and leave the reader to assume that the rest of the conquest was quick and easy. However, the process of conquering Mesoamerica was much more complex and took longer than the three years that it took Cortés to conquer Tenochtitlan. It took almost 60 years of wars for the Spaniards to conquer Mesoamerica (Chichimeca wars), a process that could have taken longer were it not for three separate epidemics that took a heavy toll on the Native American population. The Spanish conquest of Yucatán took almost 170 years.
Most of the Mesoamerican cultures were intact after the fall of Tenochtitlan. The freedom from Aztec domination may have been considered a positive development by most of the other cultures. The upper classes of the Aztec empire were considered as noblemen. They learned Spanish, and several learned to write in Roman characters. Some of their surviving writings are crucial to our knowledge of the Aztecs. In addition, the first missionaries tried to learn Nahuatl and some, like Bernardino de Sahagún, set out to learn as much as they could of the Aztec culture. All this changed rapidly and eventually, the Indians were forbidden to study by law and had the status of minors.
[edit]
Population decline
Main article: Population history of American indigenous peoples
The first epidemic, an outbreak of smallpox (cocoliztli) occurred in 1520 and 1521, decimated the population of Tenochtitlan and was decisive in the fall of the city. Two more epidemics, of smallpox (1545-1548) and typhus (1576-1581) killed up to 75% of the population of Mesoamerica. The Spaniards, trying to make more of the diminishing population, merged the survivors from small towns into the bigger ones. This broke the power of the upper classes and dissolved the coherence of the indigenous society. Collected in larger towns, the people were more susceptible to epidemics due to the higher population density.
The population before the time of the conquest is estimated at 15 million; by 1550, the estimated population was 4 million and by 1581 less than two million. Thus, the "New Spain" of the 17th century was a depopulated country and many Mesoamerican cultures were wiped out. Because of the fall of their social structure, the population had to resort to the Spanish to maintain some order. In order to have an adequate supply of labor, the Spaniards began to import black slaves; most of them eventually merged with the local population.
It was the main factor.
R'as
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Mate the Mayays around the Yucatan peninsula fought very successful battles against the spanish in the 16 the and 17th centuries. They were the first to realise the strenght in the spanish cavalry and would use terrain, forest and ambush to achieve victories. The lasy Maya stronghold did fall to the late 18th century, 1761 and tribal warriors revolted long into the 19th century.
The death total of the indians in Central America was well into the millions. Although estimates say between 5-15 million the number may have been even bigger. Some say more than 20 million
Although the spanish advantage were in armour, tactics, the horse and gunpowder don't think that 600 men conquered Mexico. There were thousands of native warriors involved on the spanish side in the final siege of technochitilan around 70 thousand and whose barbarity in the final siege was arguebaly worse than anything the spanish had did before that point.
It was the main factor in depopulating about the whole damn continent (if nothing else there simply weren't enough Europeans around to genocide everybody, and why'd they have done that to their future subjects and workforce anyway?). There's about two main factors as to why the Conquistadors were able to dismantle majoe empires with such apparent ease in such rather short time with so few men.
Weaponry and politics. The two partly go together.
For example, when Cortez and his merry men first came into Aztec lands they numbered something like 100-150 close-combat infantry (mainly sword-and-buckler men; neither their numbers, background nor the campaign conditions were too conductive for pikemen), some arquebusieurs and crossbowmen (mainly useful as officer-hunting "snipers" - their weapons were total overkill against the lightly equipped natives as well as too slow firing and too few in number to have any real impact on the actual rank-and-file), a handful of cavalry (extremely useful, both for their speed and their combat power), and a few cannons which actually had enough psychological impact to be useful in open battles and were quite valuable for sieges. Gunpowder supply as well as remounts were naturally problematic.
These few hundred men were able to fight off full Aztec armies a few times with minimal casualties. After that the Azzies' local opposition and disgruntled vassals were suitably impressed to revolt and cheerfully reinforce them with their own armies. Things were somewhat similar with the Incas who had internal dynastic disputes (as well as general anarchy and social distruptions brought about by the new plagues running amuck), which Pizarro and crew were only too happy to exploit. The Mayas were long past their prime at the time; IIRC they were reduced to a confederation of city-states - which actually made them a pain to conquer, as they had no "head" to decapitate like the more centralized empires.
The fact is, in hand to hand the Conquistador swordsmen were practically invincible against the native line infantry. The armour helped of course; volcanic glass isn't exactly the prime material to try to penetrate good steel cuirasses and helmets with. But the big difference was in the weapon. Given their background and constraints imposed by the materials the local weapons were actually very good - after all, the locals had been fighting each other with them for a long time and had naturally developed them to a high degree of functionality. They just plain couldn't measure up against the Early Modern cut-and-thrust steel swords in about anything. The Euro swords were simply too fast, agile and lethal for the somewhat clumsy sword-clubs to compete aghainst (native officers who aquired metal swords, either as loot or as gifts from allies, were noted to be able to fight as well as the Conquistadors). The glass-edged weapons weren't all that good at actually quickly taking out enemies either, being saddled with the usual issues of slashing weapons as well as having their ability to cut deep limited by the necessities of their construction and materials, and tending to have some trouble getting through the thick quilt armour commonly worn by local warriors. In comparision the metal cut-and-thrust blades could drop a man with a single quick thrust that simply went right through the textile armour like it wasn't there.
By this time European tactics had also developed to the point where true small-unit cohesion was the norm. Although few of the Conquistadors actually had military background, they nonetheless drew from the same corpus of know-how and seem to have been able to operate as extremely well-knit groups in combat.
The armoured lancers were simply unfair. Not only were they faster than the best runners and messengers the natives had, they could also simply plow through the infantry lines with virtual impunity. So long as they kept in formation so that a single rider could not be swarmed and overwhelmed by numerous enemies they were essentially untouchable, and could penetrate the lines of the native armies practically at will. The psychological effect of this alone would have more than made up for their vanishingly small numbers. Had the Conquests taken longer the native armies would no doubt have figured out the tactics and tools required to stop heavy shock cavalry (read as massed spearmen and pikes) and indeed displayed considerable ingenuity in improvising countermeasures; as it was they collapsed before the tide could be turned.
There's some pretty interesting and detailed discussions online on just how the Heck the apparent miracles of the Conquistadors' exploits worked in practice. I can dig them up if someone wants to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I read into the spanish conquest of the Inca emipre and the arrogance of the cavalry was extraordinary. I read one account during the revolt of Manco Inca where an Inca warband numbering in the hundreds was attacked by three mounted spaniards and held them off till reinforcements arrived.
Although i do not discount the conquistadors bravery there brutality was beyond belief in their conquest of the americas. Yes we know the Aztecs were a brutal people, subjected the native tribes to pain and torment but the Inca and Maya civilisations should not be compared to the Aztec one as it differed in culture and religion practise.
I also believe they grossly overstimated indian numbers once battle was joined
Hello Watchman,
thanks for all the info. It's appreciated and afaik all valid.
I don't want to engage into any major dispute here.
My initial post was a reaction to post #20 where the impression was made by a patron, that a few hundred conquistadores "steamrolled" millions of Indios in open battle, which is clearly wrong. I felt compelled to adjust this view.
We also seem to agree on the point that, if it weren't for the diseases, the Indios might have sooner or later defeated the conquistadores with their sheer mass of people and perhaps the one or other new tactic.
~:cheers:
R'as
Oops?
Didn´t read the whole thread, but my German magazine from the beginning of March says what units they are.
First are Jaguar warriors and second are Coyote-priests it says...
Haha...that`s the silliest units I`ve ever seen; but since they`re (or supposed to be) historically accurate, noone will complain. :laugh4:
It does look like a fancy dress party but they do look awesome. ~:)
The Landsknechts could take the Native Americans on in equal terms over the title of Most Garishly Dressed To Kill Ever, but otherwise I suspect there's few serious competitors. The standard aristocratic gaudiness just doesn't cut it in comparision.
I think that's the critical point in the argument; it wasn't just a few Spaniards wandering around alone. The allied tribes were hugely important. Which raises a question. Will this be modeled in the game? Or will whatever faction reaches Mesoamerica first, be fighting alone with no local allies?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
I hope there are severe logistical limitations on the number of Europeans who can be transported to America (and no recruitment of said troops there). The TW system for hiring mercs could handle the allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
yes they represent eagles and are special units. they did reconnaisance behind enemy lines and you need to capture atleast 4 men in battle to become part of this eliteQuote:
Originally Posted by Galagros
That looks really cool, i hope you can play as them MTW 2. But i wonder, where did they find that many feathers. It would of been easier just to run around naked like all the other indians.
Remember that in MII TW units will get bloodier and more battered as the battle goes on...Quote:
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.
This is my main concern with stretching the game past the fall of Constantinople and into the New World era.
How can they possibly model, gameplay-wise, the massive upheavals caused by the Europeans invasion of the Americas?
First, you have the biological disruption with the introduction of European diseases.
Second, you have the significant technological disparity.
Third, you have the political turmoil with many protectorates/allies/subjugated tribes siding with the Europeans against their former masters.
As a medieval era fan I would greatly prefer that the focus be kept on the European/Middle Eastern region. Not getting that wish, comon mods:idea2: , hopefully CA will be able to implement this without having to lead my faction through dozens of battles where I do nothing but slaughter.
I do not want to spend hours slaughtering all of their reinforcements piecemeal since there is a limit on how many soldiers can be "fighting" at the same time no matter how many stacks they have me surrounded with.
It is estimated that more than 1/4 to 1/3 of all American Indians died due to disease. Numbers are hard to come by, but this is not some random quess. Plus, when the spanish attacked the Aztec, they had literally TENS of THOUSANDS of native allies like the tlaxcala who were more than eager to throw off the oppressive Aztec leadership. When battles took place at first, the Aztec usually ran away b/c of the noise and horses, but they (like all humans) adapted, and learned to stand apart from each other to minimize the effects of cannon, and to carry spears into battle to stop the horses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom
*Maybe CA could have the armies of europe be in a constant state of 'winded' for any battle fought in America for a few turns, and maybe that would encourage the use of Native allies who would not be 'winded'. they would provide the skirmish help that they historically did, and i think this would help add a little realism to the conquest of America.
Ok we are all pretty much aware that disease killed the most Native Americans. However, on the battlefield the Europeans cleaned house.
And to the guy who quoted Wikipedia, it's not the bible...very far from it. Be sure to cross-reference stuff you read on Wikipedia because it's not the most reliable site.
Well, you could just as well argue that you won´t see a siege of Constantinople if the egyptian player wipes out the Turks and in the end, you will be watching a movie instead of playing a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Robin
It's not? :rolleyes: What a complete and utter surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
My complaint is that I would not include them in a Mediaeval game.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
Correction, Panthers are black. Both Jaguar and Leopard are similarly coloured though the Jaguar has a central spot in the rosette markings of its coat and it is also a heavier built animalQuote:
Jaguars are black. The skin they are wearing is that of a leopard.
.........Orda
Jaguars definitely look like that. Leopards are an indigenous animal of Africa, and can be either spotted or black (actually the blacks one have spots too, but they're less visible). Jaguars are more strongly built and have slightly different spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by shifty157
EDIT: didn't notice Orda's post :-/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
i totally agree with this otherwise the aztecs will just be another push over faction and i wouldnt like that:no:
Coyotes? :inquisitive: Aren't those from Australia?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
Anyhow, the Jaguar and Eagle warriors were the two most prestigious warrior groups.
They are kind of full time as well, as they regularly provoked wars with the neighbouring states, to capture enemies to be sacrificed to the Sun (forgot its name) who demanded that others sacrificed themselves if they wanted him to move. That caused many of the other natives to ally with the Spaniards, as the Aztecs were hated for the short period of time that they were in power.
@Favre: They don't stab the Spaniards with wood like you say. They had obsidian blades on their weapons, which are incredibly sharp, smooth black rocks. Also, it's not that the Aztecs as a whole were stupid. You can blame Moctezuma. Also, it would be like having Jesus come back again for Christians. According to their religion, the god Quetzalcotl (spelling?) had left after teaching their civilisation the basics, such as farming and writing, and then had sailed off, to return much later. Hernan Cortez seemed to fit the description, being white, having a mount (Aztecs wouldn't know what dragons looked like, and Quetzalcotl could change mounts I guess) and having funny things that they've never seen before. The horses were not just important due to their military role, they had no horses in America, so these inspired awe. They also didn't have much metal apart from Gold, and these here Europeans come dressed up in steel and led by what seemed to be a god. You can't just say they were stupid because they had no clue. Also, that massacre was a cheap tactic. The Aztecs and Spaniards had met for a discussion, and then they Spaniards had just pulled out their weapons and butchered them. The Aztecs were ordered not to attack by Moctezuma himself, so they had no choice. Steel wasn't always in the favour of the Spaniards though, since one time, when they were attacked at night, stranded on the island-city of Tenochtitlan, and the bridges partly dismantled, many Spaniards drowned because of the heavy armour. It was also the first occurence of a person pole-vaulting :tongue:
Another major thing was smallpox. If I'm correct, it wiped out most of the Aztec population.
DISCLAIMER: This is all from my memory from books I have read years ago, so it might not be entirely correct, especially my last fact.
I have to agree. The battles of the wellarmored Spaniards against Indians of a all kind usually turned into a bloodbath. I will try to find some historic sources, I already have some in mind.
Heavily armored lancers with pistols against stone-axe wielding warriors :no:
They're more swords than axes. The Spaniards also tended to use pistols/riles/cannons more than lances. If they used melee weapons, it tended to be swords.
i cant imagine there will be limitations on the transport of troops to the new world. i imagine you'll just be swamed with stacks of native troops.
I think pistols were luxury items back then I doubt many conquistadors used them.
BTW when was the wheellock invented? I cant imagine the matchlock used for pistols
As I understand it was invented in the 16th century, so yeah I guess you could have conquistadors galloping about with wheel lock pistols. In gameplay terms, probably not much use but still, cool.
If IIRC lances where used very successfully by the Spanish when they raided in Mexico and in the south of North America - a territory often ideal of cavalry. Maybe I will able to get the original text of which I'm thinking.
Lances where the matter of choice of all European powers until the heavy cavalry started to use increasingly pistols against the everpresent pikemen.
Given that I can not see the most distant parent of the stout and hardy european landsknecht/pikemen walking around in America I wonder why the lancers should have discarded their lances which proved themselves in over twothousend years of cavalry warfare :inquisitive:
I think it is important to state that however good the quality of the aztec obsidion weapons, were they not used more to mame and injure. Were they not more non lethal so they could take prisoners?
i like those jaguar warriors.
Yes. In fact, they managed to capture Cortez himself after wounding him I think, but they had to bring him to Tenochitlan's temple (to the Sun god) for sacrifice, and so gave him more time, which eventually allowed him to escape due conquistadors saving their leader's life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithradates
I hope it includes the factions from Viking Invasion! I just played it and I like the Irish, no, not just becuase I'm part Irish, its becuase you start out in danger. You have England and the Vikings right next to you and you have to get tough quick!Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
There probally putting more factions in this mod. I don't think there will be a 21 faction limit like RTWQuote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I wonder if Inca's will be availble?
You are talking about Dingos - Coyotes are native only to North and Central America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
A blurb from some site selling a replica Coyote Guard statue:
LinkQuote:
A deity of powerful influence, the plumed coyote was once hailed by the Aztec people as the guardian of artisans. Angel Ceron crafts this extraordinary replica of the original pre-Hispanic piece. The Aztecs also regarded this feathered coyote as the loyal companion of Tezcatlipoca, Lord of Night and of Wars, inspiring the formation of the coyote-warrior batallion.
Except for coastal Mexico, there aren't jungles, and the Spanish didn't fight them there for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Even though this is exactly what happened? What happened to historical accuracy? How else did a few hundred Spanish conquer an empire amassing thousands of warriors except by steamrolling them with musketeers, pikemen, cannon and heavy cavalry? Have your read anything about the Conquest?Quote:
This would prevent the Aztecs simply being steam rollered by thousands of musketeers, cannon, pikemen, armoured knights etcetera.
Duhhhh haven't you read anything about the conquest of the Aztec empire? Cortez required native auxiliaries to beat the Aztec forces, even with them having been severely depleted by disease. And if CA has decided to put the conquest of Mesoamerica in the game they may as well make it a worthwhile challenge.
Aztecs are south of that, the Mayans are the ones who fought at Mexico.Quote:
Except for coastal Mexico, there aren't jungles, and the Spanish didn't fight them there for the most part.
Historically way off. The Spanish Conquistadors were only a few hundred in number, they relied as much on their many native friends as they did on their superior weapons and armour. The Tlaxcala especially wanted to be saved from Aztec domination.Quote:
Even though this is exactly what happened? What happened to historical accuracy? How else did a few hundred Spanish conquer an empire amassing thousands of warriors except by steamrolling them with musketeers, pikemen, cannon and heavy cavalry? Have your read anything about the Conquest?
I thought the suggestion you critiqued was a great one, it would be both historically accurate and make the game challenging but not too challenging. The Conquistadors although a minority in their own armies made the difference between victory and defeat with their horses and weaponry, and that is what would happen in Mental's suggestion, since you would have some musketeers and cannons etc etc in your army, you just won't win easily with thousands of them.
Imagine how easy a time Cortez would have had if he had thousands rather then hundreds of men.
No, Coyotes are from America - e.g. Wiley Coyote ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Maybe you're thinking of dingos.
And the bible is a source of accurate information? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Casmin
well the history in the bible is as credible as any ancient text as for the message, if you think that it (the message) is incorrect your view is more a matter of faith then an accepted historical fact
Once this comes out if its moddable then im going to write an aar on the atzecsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Blind King of Bohemia
Really, i think the people complaining that they look wierd or silly dont realize just how different the style of fighting these warriors used. Their fighting was a ritualized, spiritual affair. Not the true blood and guts, kill em all, scorched earth empires of Europe. In Europe, warfare was strictly about killing the other guy and listening to the lamentations of their women. There the art of war progressed more rapidly and logically. Spiritual matters follow their own logic.
I can imagine some of these warriors having the same outlook as jihadist bombers of today. Maybe they didnt plan on living through the battle, at least a portion of them. These were people who willingly sacrificed themselves in ritual ceremonies, it doesnt seem out of the realm of possiblity. Perhaps someone more versed in their psychology could add to what ive said.
Besides, as some have pointed out already, a lightly armored, nimble and fast, warrior moving silently through a steamy jungle would have an easier time than knight stumbling around in full plate.
All i can say is they look about a million times better than the pajama-soldiers of RTW.
That is my impression from the little I've read about the victories of the Conquistadors. People have put it down to technology etc, but to me it seems a lot to do with fighting styles. It's like if you had a few Special Forces guys in a bar room brawl - they'd probably rip through your average civilians. Maybe I am doing the Aztecs a great injustice, but accounts of battles with them remind me a little of the ritual tribal wars you hear about in Papua New Guinea etc. They just seemed to have been playing a whole different game to that practiced in Europe since Alexander and even before.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostcamel
European shock cavalry had yet to convert to using pistols instead of lances as the main shiock weapon (that developement took until late 1500s, AFAIK, and required a fair bit of refining on the wheellock system). Anyway, cavalry pistols of the period wouldn't have survived all that well in the logistical conditions the Conquistadors operated in - gunpowder supply was ever a pain and hence chiefly restricted to the few cannon they had, and wheellocks need specialist craftsmen to repair if something breaks as all too often happened - and moreover the simple lance was perfectly sufficient for tearing holes in the practically defenseless lines of native infantry. Muzzle-loader pistols are only marginally faster to reload than comparable long-arms (ie. you can bet on spending a minut or half with each) and Conquistador cavalry was altogether too few in number to be able to produce effective volley fire. Lances and swords, however, took no reloading and as long as they didn't break were always ready to kill the next guy in line.
Plus of course cavalry cold-steel shock action is just plain bloody scary to receive, especially if you have nothing to counter it with.