Poll: American and Azteks, etc. Good idea or bad idea?

Results 1 to 30 of 142

Thread: Includes America and Azteks? Huh?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #12
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: Includes America and Azteks? Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sykotyk Rampage
    Really.......yes
    Erm...no.

    The Aztecs, you see, have a little different concept of warfare than the Europeans. They'd rather capture prisoners than slaughter them all: after all, what about the Gods?

    While the Spanish simply shoots 'em all "those savages."

    And steel armor, Spanish steel armor, to be exact, CAN stop an obsidian attack. Some later armors could stop bullets, dammit.

    pyradyn: you have misconceptions about the history in this hemisphere. The natives who met the Spanish never stood a chance in realistic terms. In the best of luck, they might defeat an expedition or two by sheer overwhelming number in ambush--a luxury the Aztecs never afforded. But Spain, you see, was militarily powerful, even in European terms. So it's like "pwnage." Now, I didn't even count the dastardly genocidal germs into the equation.

    The reason the Apaches had been so successful is because of their skillful strategy and bravery, and European horses and guns--introduced first by the Spanish--and the territories which are rugged and easy for many an ambush, and their nomadic nature similar to the old days which horse archers massacred slower, lumbering armies of the civilized kingdoms of the ancient world. Besides, they knew the Americans. They knew how to fight them. The Aztecs? ... don't.

    They fought a guerrilla war. How can the Aztecs do that? Tenochtitlan was not ever-moving.

    In other words, I am absolutely wary of the possible major historical inaccuracy ala Age of Conquerors (AOK II Expansion) in which my jaguar warrior, apparently armed with stone-age weapon, beat the Spanish conquistadors with guns to death. After all, why are they in there if they stood no chance whatsoever, like it was historically?

    And if anyone want to bother use that old "we're creating our own history here" argument again, I have this to say: Hastings could've been a Saxon victory; Attila might've had Aetius' skull at Chalons; the Byzantine empire stood a chance at Manzikert, or even against the mighty Islamic tide in the early days; and even Thermopylae might've been won by some brilliant luck or strategy. But guess what? The native Americans never stood a chance. And why would I want to fight in-game someone that never stood a chance of even scratching me?

    The New World Discovery was a Renaissance event onwards, NOT a Medieval event. It's a world apart.
    Last edited by AntiochusIII; 02-11-2006 at 01:07.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO