Is the name of the only South American civ ingame still censored? Lfmao
3 Likes
No, they shouldnāt.
If people were just dislike with the Native American men owning and operating Mortars, they could simply switch their uniforms back to Europeans and change the name to Renegade Mortar.
When itās acceptable for people to recruit outlaws with guns and ship Renegade units from HC, Renegade Mortars should be acceptable too.
4 Likes
Iām unsure - the Aztecs I had always assumed were meant to portray the Empire, or rather the Triple Alliance which would have included Tlaxcala and Tenochca.
I think if thereās a shipment or button that suggests a (abstract) split/rebellion or focus that would allow something like that, then fine. Otherwise nope.
They should reverse the nosense pop cost for a unit with the same stats
The Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans were fierce rivals and they deeply hated each other. The latters helped the Spanish in defeating the Aztecs. They were not the same. And some experts use the āaztecā term only to define the triple-alliance or the Mexicas themselves. The current civ we have doesnāt include every nahua people.
The card is named āchichimeca rebellionā. These people were not of nahua origin, therefore this card makes no sense.
1 Like
The triple alliance was formed by the Mexicas, Tepanecas and acolhuas.
1 Like
Ah my mistake - thank you!
(was thinking of Tlacopan)
1 Like
Iām sorry, but what?
First of all, the term aztec itself is outdated and any scholar worth his salt would not use it nowadays; unless they are referencing a source from the 90ās about the āaztec empireā. Which wasnāt even an empire. Now they call it Triple Alliance or Nahua Confederation. Second, they are the same: same culture, same language, same religion, same history, same ethnicity, same organization, etc. They are only different from a political perspective: Tlaxcala wasnāt part of the Triple Alliance, and were enemies. It was its own polity. Nothing less and nothing more. Itās funny how you try to dub them as not the same just for being enemies, when they were actually in good terms with each other until the Triple alliance was formed. According to āaztecsā, Tlaxcalans were never invited to join them. According to Tlaxcalans, they were invited but refused because they wanted the first wey tlatoani to be from their side. And so, their feud started. Anyway, being enemies is not justification to treat them as foreign people. Look at indians, italians, incas and chinese who represent groups of people that were enemies with each other or were independent polities at some point in aoe3 timeframe.
It was an empire actually. I donāt get you.
I know all of this, I may not have been clear enough. They are the same from an origin and cultural perspective, but they arenāt the same nation.
Please quote me on this. I never said they were foreign people.
Yeah, but that doesnāt mean itās a good thing. In the recent patches, the devs have taken a route toward more historically accurate representation of the civs (at least for europeans right now). If they choose to continue with this approach, thereās no way the Aztecs should have access to cannons.
The Triple Alliance was the union of the Mexicas, Tepanecs, Acolhuas. Each altepetl ruled by their own tlatoani and seconded by their own cuauh tlatoani. All 3 represented by the wey tlatoani. Thatās a confederation by the book.
Like it or not, aztecs = Nahuas. As long as the civ has that name, it covers Tlaxcalans.
Foreign as in not being part of the same people group.
Not city-state. Itās clear that Tlaxcala wasnāt part of the Triple Alliance.
1 Like
I know thisā¦
Yes, but you donāt seem to know that the Mexica were the dominant group and their capital Tenochtitlan was the center of power.
And what about all these tributary city states? Were they a part of your confederation too? No. The confederation (triple-alliance) have built an empire and the Mexica were dominants.
Like I sais, not all experts agree on this. But this isnāt the point Iām trying to make.
Read my other post.
Thatās irrelevant. There is a reason why scholars stopped using āaztec empireā. Itās a wrong term.
CONFEDERATION | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
Confederation | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
Confederation definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)
EMPIRE | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
Empire Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Mind you it was from a time when they would call anything an empire. i.e. tarascan empire, zapotec empire, even maya empire. All of those no longer used.
Now back on topic: American civs should get cannons.
Plus Aztecs should get falconets somehow. Anyway, this civ is under picked and underwhelming.
2 Likes
I know what a confederation isā¦
Now I suggest you research what is the definition of āempireā. Interestingly enough, youāll notice that both confederation and empire can apply. Confederation if you refer only to the triple-alliance, or empire if you include all subjugated territories.
I still disagree. The Aztecs (Mexica) never used cannons. Giving them access to cannons would go against all recent efforts the devs have made to make the game more historically accurate.
4 Likes
True, and regardless of what you called the empire/confederacy/whatever, Mexica were calling the shots due to being the strongest of them.
1 Like
Why dont go back to main topic?? Just saying
Ayy lmao. Thatās not how it works.
How so, if Tlaxcalans are also aztecs.
If you want to make the game more historically accurate, how about getting rid of the fictional aztec flag and instead use a real native emblem. Like a quetzatcoatl head from the main temple or something like that. You know, something that actually represents their culture. The same for the other american natives.
For example, incas never had a flag. But for some reason, in game they use a wiphala. A flag that was adopted by the aymaras and the opposing quechuas during the viceroyalty period, who were their enemies. Groups like the tiwanakus, chankas and huancas that joined the Spanish and persecuted the survivors of the inca empire and killed those loyal to the sapa inca. Itās like having israel using the SS flag. Incas should have something like the unancha instead.
-
Whether the tlaxcalan people are considered aztec or not is still subject to debate among experts, like it or not.
-
I know for a fact that tlaxcalans were allowed to mount horses and carry firearms after the spanish conquest. I also know theyāve fought for the spanish at several occasions afterward. But Iāve never read any source mentionning the use of cannons by Tlaxcalan people.
-
EVEN if they did use cannons at some point, theyād still be better as an exclusive ally/mercenary shipment for the Spanish and Mexican civs.
Fair enough.
I originally was referring to Tlaxcalans in Philippines where they were ordered to defend an outpost using stationay cannons. But I guess representing that as falconets in game was a stretch.
And yeah, giving that to the Spanish would make more sense.
natives donāt having artillery is fine but stealth should be like before the nerf (only spies and explorers could seeing them) or at least not having a movement penalty to deal with enemy artillery.
Helped is an understatement. They made up the bulk of Cortesās army.
3 Likes