Aztecs Overpowered

[Rhyfelwyr]

Having recently landed in the New World, I've been fighting several battles against the Aztecs. My Venetian armies match theirs in size, and are filled with Venetian Heavy Infantry, Venetian Archers, and Feudal Knights. However, Aztec armies are still overunning my forces. A line of Jaguar Warriors routed my Venetian Heavy Infantry (in one thread here claimed the best infantry in the game) in seconds. I think this is ridiculous considering they are armed with clubs and have fur for armour.

I think Aztec unit need to be significantly toned down, and perhaps give them slightly larger armies in compensation. Also, a scripted plague in their settlements when the Europeans arrive would represent the crippling effect the new diseases had on the Aztecs.

Anyone else here been frustrated when fighting them?

[RTKBarrett]

Aztecs are in no way overpowered my friend, u just need to deal with them in the proper way :-) Infantry on infantry the aztecs are superior to pretty much every unit going when it comes to 1 on 1, and with the morale boost from a priest i can understand ure frustration...

However easiest way to handle them is a simple repetative charge with heavy mounted cavalry *it doesnt even have to be in the flank* Just be careful about engaging cav with two handed units on the charge as sometimes it gets messy and hard to move out of the engagement...

I know alot of sp'ers try to limit the amount of cav in their stacks to 4-6 for realism purposes and what not but i believe if u want success ure going to have to notch that up a bit and mayb remove some of the ure heavy archer units etc...

Also iirc venetian heavy are ap units? If u can recruit late era swrdsmen or something similar i think they will fair better

[AggonyDuck]

Well the greatest strength of the Aztecs is the effect they have on the enemy's morale, while the biggest weakness of the Venetian Heavies is their morale. What should work better against Aztecs is cavalry and cav arch.

[Lacessit]

Gunpowder and cavalry are your friends! Don't try to match the aztecs in fierceness, they'll always beat you. Infantry is useless against them, except for pinning down a line. Cavalry, artillery and arquebusiers will destroy the Aztec morale though, after that, your infantry should be able to rip through them!

[Xehh II]

How do you use cavalry in the Aztec Jungles? Whenever I fight them it's endless jungles.

[Ramses II CP]

Less a problem with the quality of your troops, more a problem with their morale. Bring a standard, a high chivalry general, and some guns. Problem solved. :)

[IrishArmenian]

Missile cavalry is ideal against the Aztecs, preferably Heavy Missile Cavalry. If unavailable, just use good charger cavalry!
I utilised Boyar Sons to much effect against the Aztecs! You'd be surprised at the amount of damage a cavalry unit can do to an Aztec army. Remember, taking prisoners is far more effective than killing in combat, so chase down the routers in the case that they do muster enough strength to return to the battle!

[FactionHeir]

Heavy cavalry, even in a jungle, will easily crush an equal aztec infantry army. Actually, I had a stack composed only of Albanian cav, Mailed knights, chiv knights and serbian hussars, and the battle was over in under 5 minutes.

As for infantry tactics, you can usually beat them handily if you bring long range missile units. Archers work better than crossbows against them. So hire some free company longbows or venetian archers in your case.

Also, the best way to beat them is to take their northern city and just hold it. They'll besiege it every turn and in a sally, you can easily beat them.

[Slaists]

i understand that in the game heavy cavalry is the tool to beat aztecs. however, if we consider realism, it should not be the case that iron + sword heavy european infantry should lose to a stone-age army (aztecs)... however fierce they would be.

[Matt_Lane]

I had a similar problem during my South American vacation. I lost most of my infantry when I attacked the first northern city, I couldn't believe that English Armored Swordsman could be cut down by clubs and spears. Reinforcements were still many turns away but fortunately by this stage of the game my economy was such that I was able to hire an army of local mercenaries to supplement my meager cavalry & longbow men. These were inferior to the enemy's troops but they could be relied upon to pin them long enough for cavalry or infantry to sweep round and attack their rear. Please note this was with the game set at the default difficulty and I expect the harder settings would make the line route much quicker.

[Benandorf]

But they could and did, to some extent. In the times soon after Europeans began colonizing America, there were many instances where old technology beat out the newer weapons of the Europeans simply because their warriors were skilled and fierce. Weapon Tech hadn't changed enough to make a big enough difference to allow the Europeans to just walk through the native armies. The Natives had too many numbers, and many skilled, brave warriors.

Technology didn't change a whole lot for a long time. In fact, in the 1400 years between RTW and M2:TW, there historically was not that much change. Better armor, the Crossbow, better lances, and better siege equipment, but nothing compared to, say, early 1900s vs. modern weapons.

[Mr Frost]

In reality , Caledonian Rhyfelwyrs' army would have slaughtered huge numbers the Aztec warriors .

The Aztecs' best and favorite weapons were obsidian edged wooden swords {imagine a thin cricket bat with slots on the leading edges which shards of carefully knapped obsidian were inserted} . Obsidian is glass . When glass {volcanic or otherwise} impacts hard steel , the glass shatters .

The only weapons they had even remotely suitable for combating foes who wear steel plate were stone headed maces {depending on what type of stone was used , some would also shatter on steel} which would still have been much inferior to the steel headed ones plate armour was designed to resist .

There has been suggested that Atlatl launched darts were good against plate , however the projectiles were still tipped with stone or bone which is again likely to shatter on steel and if they truely were all that lethal to plate , the Spanish Conquistidores would have been wipped out by massed volleys of them , which history shows did not happen . Likely , the weapon could sometimes penetrate with a perfect strike from a perfect angle and this was blown out of proportion by the Spaniards whom were by then used to being nigh invunerable to native weapons .



Personally , I think the Aztecs need a reverse of the ap function , where armour has twice its' value and to ballance this give them larger numbers plus atlatls {javlin mechanics with longer range would do , but still double armour verses them} in good numbers .

[Husar]

Since Patch 1.2 I found it quite a bit easier to beat the aztecs, even with armoured swordsmen and the likes. Just remember to bring more than one army, two or three full stacks should do the trick. Oh and I think artillery and ranged units can be very effective, the Aztecs like to start with a ranged duel after which my arquebusiers and cannons have sometimes wiped out half their army or more. When they then charge my infantry, they're easily routed by a few cavalry units on the flanks or in their back. Making sure your units have armour and especially weapon upgrades also helps a lot.

[Iavorios]

After all you must know that spanish did not wear full plate armors. They used brest plates, helments, and sometimes a shield. This not only does not protect the hall body, but in the hot, wet whether tires the warrior to fast. So it is not a big problem to cut these man's leg or arm and just let him bleed to dead.

[Ramses II CP]

It's also worth considering that if you sailed across the sea and found the equivilent of 6 stacks of peasants, you'd be pretty disappointed. It's a good thing that they present some challenge, even if unrealistic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I just think that it would be more realistic if the challenge was being swarmed by their numbers, rather than an Italian City State depending on numbers against the Aztecs. I shouldn't have to match them man for man really. It would be a lot more interesting having to find a good defensive position and holding of swarms of the crazed natives!

[Slaists]

But they could and did, to some extent. In the times soon after Europeans began colonizing America, there were many instances where old technology beat out the newer weapons of the Europeans simply because their warriors were skilled and fierce. Weapon Tech hadn't changed enough to make a big enough difference to allow the Europeans to just walk through the native armies. The Natives had too many numbers, and many skilled, brave warriors.

Technology didn't change a whole lot for a long time. In fact, in the 1400 years between RTW and M2:TW, there historically was not that much change. Better armor, the Crossbow, better lances, and better siege equipment, but nothing compared to, say, early 1900s vs. modern weapons.

well, even Rome's armies should beat Aztecs head on and man on man, the former having steel weapons and armor while the latter having STONE and GLASS weapons and LEATHER armor (if any). if anything, the advantage the natives should have (if going by historical accuracy) should be numbers (make their units maybe 3x the size of european units or even bigger).

[FactionHeir]

There is a design limitation with that though. There is a max size a unit can have in M2TW I believe. So unless you force everyone to play under small unit size (with aztecs getting the max unit size), only the stat boost could represent the aztec's numbers.

[Furious Mental]

Take out their coyote priests.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've just finished another battle against the Aztecs, and what a turnaround in my fortunes against them! I took the advice of someone here and this time added 3x Merc Arquibusiers in front of my Venetian Archers. The Aztecs were mostly "shaken" by the time they reached my army, and quickly routed when they hit my Venetian Heavy Infantry, with the aid of a couple of cavalry at the flanks. In the end, I had 9% casualties against 100% of theirs. We both had 20 stack armies BTW.

I remember making a thread complaining about gunpowder units, but I take it back, I didn't realise their morale effect was so devastating.

[ixidor]

Yeah, not good idea to use VHI against them, especially due to moral issues. Put a carrocio standart close to them this may helps.

Anyway, cavalry and gunpowder is the way to beat them. Without cavarly they are incredible weak against charges from heavy infantry, and especially, missile cavalry. About gunpowder, well, it's use is simple, put your gunpowder units between heavy infantry, but slightly on front. Fire at them. When they come after them, retreat for the space you left between your heavy infantry units (but slightly behind it), and they will came after you. Then your heavy infantry will attack them from their sides and they will start fighting. Then, while you come for behind and charge to their rear with heavy cavalry (they have no armor so the results will be awesome for you), you continue to shot at them since you will still have a clear sight of them, with no friendly units between you and them. While fighting heavy infantry from their left and right side, being charged from behind with heavy cavalry and being food cannon from musketers on their front, carnificine is inevitable.To avoid massive routs, put some carrocio and your general close to your units. Then zoom in and enjoy the show. This tactic works so well, i love it

[Rhyfelwyr]

Apparently Aztecs do get cavalry. When I took their last city their remaining General went Rebel. And now they get a European Feudal Knight-style Generals Bodyguard unit. Bizarre.

[ixidor]

Well, it seems you will need to bring piques for the New World after all

[Eng]

Use heavy infantry and a very high chivalry general even better when he has traits like brave. ohh and I almost forgot anti units cannons.

[HoreTore]

i understand that in the game heavy cavalry is the tool to beat aztecs. however, if we consider realism, it should not be the case that iron + sword heavy european infantry should lose to a stone-age army (aztecs)... however fierce they would be.

It would be VERY bad for gameplay if the aztecs were depicted realistically. They would pose NO challenge, and as such be boring and completely pointless.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I notice every here says use high chivalry Generals for the morale boost. I thought was what Command was for, and Chivalry was just for boosting settlements happiness and growth.

[Nelson]

The Meso-Americans were bound to be problematic in Total War.

What do we know for sure?

Well, the Spanish were way outnumbered. They used guile where possible but when capturing the local boss couldn’t fill rooms with gold they needed allies to help in a fight. These they could seemingly always find.

Regarding technology, it is difficult to know how often the Spanish wore their armor. Certainly sometimes; quite likely not always. There is evidence both ways. Gunfire and horses were big plusses at first but these advantages disappeared over a period of years as their shock value wore off. Unfortunately for the natives though, it was disease and their own particularly fatalistic worldview that went on to make European domination a certainty, neither of which is a particularly fun circumstance to model in the game.

I would like the game to severely limit the number of European troops that can be sent to the New World while at the same time making local allied mercenaries plentiful. A large European army would have been invincible IF one could have ever arrived and been maintained. I’m not sure feeding and equipping such a large force from across the Atlantic was practical in the early 16th century.

[GFX707]

Technology didn't change a whole lot for a long time. In fact, in the 1400 years between RTW and M2:TW, there historically was not that much change. Better armor, the Crossbow, better lances, and better siege equipment, but nothing compared to, say, early 1900s vs. modern weapons.

Actually as far as I know the crossbow was around before even Rome....

[GFX707]

I would like the game to severely limit the number of European troops that can be sent to the New World while at the same time making local allied mercenaries plentiful. A large European army would have been invincible IF one could have ever arrived and been maintained. I’m not sure feeding and equipping such a large force from across the Atlantic was practical in the early 16th century.

All of what you say is already pretty much modelled in the game....it takes 10+ turns to get an army over to the Aztecs, plus you can never really seem to retrain anything from captured cities, especially not after about 4 Aztec stacks attack your armies over a couple of turns, and when you compare the amount of (very cheap) native mercs on offer over there to what you'd get in any European zone, it's a massive amount....as the Moors I recruited enough in one turn for a stack and a half upon landing.

[Benandorf]

Actually as far as I know the crossbow was around before even Rome....

Well, it was, but I believe it was expensive so wasn't used much, and it was much improved between Rome and Medieval times.

But that simply reinforces the point. There wasn't a HUGE difference in technology over the years. A club with very sharp rocks and primitive bows weren't legions behind armor, swords, and slightly less primitive bows.

I'm actually fairly disappointed that disease didn't come into play in the new world once you get a bunch of people over there. Apparently the Black Plauge is okay to put in the game, but Europeans diseases against American immune systems is not?