Bad design coming though:
Give Aztec a card to let them revolt into Mexico. 4th age, 1000 food, wood, gold. Make a full revolution so changes their deck cards.
If for nothing else it would be funny
6 Likes
They could give a Tupac revolt type card to aztec. It would Make sense as an all or nothing Last push
3 Likes
But the Aztecs never revolted, they were politically and culturally destroyed, unlike the Incas, which survived for longer, enough to rebel.
What the Azecs need, is a Temple and Mercenaries, specially Lilâ Bombards, which would solve a lot of their issues.
2 Likes
A revolt is an uprising against the mother country, in the case of the Aztecs it could be a rebellion against Tenochtitlan which had many Mesoamerican cities under its control, an example of them They are the Cholultecas, so it can be done perfectly, you could put the option to reveal yourself as Tlaxcala, it would be great.
The defeat of the Aztecs itself comes hand in hand with the rebellion of many of the peoples under their control. Many of the revolutions of the European nations actually marked their end as great powers.
1 Like
I think you are getting confused ⊠the revolt are against the home nation, not against those who attack them hahaha
But there was no more home nation to revolt against, in this timeframe. The Aztecs are literally wiped out as a political entity, by the Spanish-Tlaxcala alliance.
It does not make sense they become Mexico, or that they get a revolt. It would if they were the Mayans instead, which actually did have a revolt.
I do not even think Aztecs should have een in teh game, in the first place, though they are cool, to be honest.
1 Like
I am not saying that they become Mexico, that would not be historically correct, I wrote that it would be good if they became one of the peoples that rebelled against them, please read my comment, the nation against which to rebel is themselves, all revolts work like this!
Why do you bring up the fact that they shouldnât be in the game? that is not even discussed as they are already here, why do you have to mention that? It is something that is not in discussion because they have been in the game since 2006.
1 Like
I repeat:
A revolt is an uprising against the mother country, in the case of the Aztecs it could be a rebellion against Tenochtitlan which had many Mesoamerican cities under its control, an example of them They are the Cholultecas, so it can be done perfectly, you could put the option to reveal yourself as Tlaxcala, it would be great.
The defeat of the Aztecs itself comes hand in hand with the rebellion of many of the peoples under their control. Many of the revolutions of the European nations actually marked their end as great powers.
But Cholula literally had the same army types as the Aztecs, they would not get European troops, like the Tupac Rebellion, for example.
Cortez, the same conquistador that destroyed the Aztecs, executed the Cholula Massacre.
" In 1517, Cholula seceded from the Tlaxcala Triple Alliance, opting to join the far more powerful Aztec equivalent. In 1519, the Tlaxcalans lead CortĂ©s and his troops to Cholula to facilitate an act of retribution against the city for its betrayal. Cholula, which was south of Tlaxcala and farther southeast of Tenochtitlan, was out of the way to the Aztec capital, so its visit was a Tlaxcalan machination, not a Spanish one.[6] After a Cholulan welcoming ceremony made up of speeches and feasts, conquistador Bernal Diaz accounts that the Spanish soon became suspicious of the Cholulansâ true intentions. According to Diaz, the Spanish were taken aback by Cholulaâs supposed trenches and dugouts with anti-cavalry spikes, alongside conspicuous piles of rocks found on Cholulan rooftops. Modern-day revisionist historians such as Matthew Restall agree that the Tlaxcalans, successfully executing a plan to use the Spanish as a tool of political advancement, persuaded CortĂ©s into believing that the Cholulans were conspiring against him. Diaz alleges that, after feigning a Spanish departure in the cityâs central plaza to attract a large crowd of onlookers, CortĂ©s suddenly announced that the Cholulans had committed treason, and thus had to be put to the sword. Blocking the exits of Cholulaâs great plaza, the conquistadors proceeded to massacre the unarmed crowd, purportedly leaving no survivors. Simultaneously, Tlaxcala warriors who had previously been stationed outside of Cholula swiftly rushed through the city gates to sack it. Over the next four days, both Spaniards and Tlaxcalans alike raped, killed, pillaged, and burned in the city of Cholula, during which the Great Pyramid of Cholula was largely reduced to an earthy hill. No conquistadors died in the process, and Cholula consequently re-entered the Tlaxcala Triple Alliance as its previous leadership was executed.[6]
Along with the rest of Tlaxcala territory, Cholula was peacefully transferred to Spanish hands after the Spanish-Aztec Warâs conclusion. A few years later, CortĂ©s vowed that the city would be rebuilt with a Christian church to replace each of the old pagan temples; fewer than 50 new churches were actually built, but the Spanish colonial churches are unusually numerous for a city of its size. There is a common saying in Cholula that there is a church for every day of the year.
During the Spanish colonial period, Cholula was overtaken in importance by the nearby newly-founded Spanish city of Puebla."
1 Like
I do not care if they receive European weapons or not, I am writing that a revolt with the Aztecs is perfectly possible and would work the same as they work with the rest of civilizations, please, do not share the quoted texts from wikipedia. , I will not read, I know the history of cholula, it was just an example.
The Tlaxcalans themselves could be considered a revolt of the Aztecs, I put Cholula as an example of a city controlled by the Aztecs not as an option for the game.
I would love to see Tlaxcala as an option for revolt, I am from Tlaxcala.
Taking into account that the Aztec word encompasses all those who came from Aztlan including the Tlaxcalans and that Tlaxcala was dominated by Tenochtitlan for a time until their uprising, it would be perfectly possible.
2 Likes
The Tlaxcalans would at least offer something else, such as Spanish Guns and Cannon.
Having a revolution that does not give you new units and mechanics, is pointless.
The whole gameplay purpose of a Revolt is that it gives you stuff you usually do not have have, like Argentinian Granaderos or Rosior Dragoons in Romania (neither Russians nor Ottomans have Dragoons).
The revolt is against the home nation, not against the nations that attack them, you are focusing only on how they applied it with the Incas, what I am proposing is not that they become Mexico, that would be wrong, what I propose is that they be some of the many peoples that were part of the empire until the uprising against them.
Tell me, wouldnât you love to see Tlaxcala as an option for revolt? or Otomi peoples? that is what I propose, in addition, they survived for a long time afterwards, so it makes them even more historically correct and it will allow us to see nations that perhaps do not deserve to be brought through a DLC
The aztecs (1300 to 1521 AD from wikipedia) fit the time frame of game (1492 and 1876 AD from Wikipedia). By the end of the game period mexico was a nation free from spainish rule with Porfirio DĂaz as president. The people of Mexico are a Creole nation made up a mix of spainish and native americans.
The Mexican War of Independence is probably what the spainish revolt is based off and the idea would be the same here. âAztec culture and history has been central to the formation of a Mexican national identityâ (quote from wikipedia, legacy section).
How this could work in game would be say loss of some Aztec units, replaced by revoltionary units and cards. Half revolt/half assimilation
1 Like
Bur why?
What would be the actual difference, in gameplay?
The peoples that rebelled against them can use gunpowder weapons (Well, they used them), even horses, and if you use one that did not reach this point, you can give them Aztec units but stronger.
Not the Cholulas, they had no gunpowder, which is why the Spanish massacred them without a single loss.
Makes no sense to have Imperial Age Aztecs then.
Also this isnt a serious game suggestion at all. just a laugh. The developers should not listen to any of the â â â â ideas on this forum. None of us seem to understand game design or balance
1 Like
I did not mention the Cholultecas in my last comment ⊠in Mexico there were more than Tlaxcaltecas and Cholultecas.
And again I do not understand the point of mentioning that there was no loss on the part of the Spanish ⊠considering that the attack on Cholula was carried out by thousands of Tlaxcalans as well.
wtf?!The Aztecs in imperial age are perfectly compatible, you would decide (if my idea was heard lol) in the game whether to be part of those who rebelled against TenochtitlĂĄn or like the Aztec empire that fought against Spain.
I remind you that most of the nations from revolt fought to the death against their home nation
I think we might need to clarify what we think imperial age means to people. Does it mean an actual year? like imperial is 1876 AD or is it just a late stage of a civ. Or is it just a game mechanic to show progress and provide a platform for gameplay
1 Like