Originally Posted by holybandit
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will) but it really wasn't that simple. Cortes had to use a fair old bit of diplomacy to survive in the americas, ally with the tlaxcallan and other tribes (who were the aztecs enemies) and was repulsed on his first jaunt to Tenochtitlan. It really wasn't tens of thousands of aztecs against just three hundred spaniards. That would be silly in the real world not just a game.
I must say I am somewhat concerned about the 'gimmick' factor in this though. Some representation of the new world effect is pretty important, given the time period we're looking at. However, South/Central america is such a different proposition to Europe, and the Atlantic is so big, (compared with the med/north sea) that it is going to take some pretty creative ideas from CA to make it work well. What might have been a better idea would be the possibility of setting up 'trade' routes to the americas once these were discovered, and having to set aside ships to do the transporting of captured gold, silver and gems. Rival factions could then send ships to disrupt your gold fleets as privateers.
In this way, we don't need an American land mass. It just seems a little simplistic from what we've heard so far (Aztecs mentioned but no other powers in the Americas?), only south and central america?
What is the point in having just south and central america? Because historically they were the land masses exploited by then?
How much historical accuracy do we want (especially by the end of the game era?)
Why not the possibility of further african/eastern exploration? If we have additional land mass in the campaign, these make just as much sense - you could choose where you go to explore.
Bookmarks