Meso American Supplement ?

flameberge · Post by **flameberge** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:20 am

I'll probably start with "Aztec Warfare." I find the ways different cultures practice warfare to be very interesting.

spring · Post by **spring** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:54 am

If you don't already have them, you'll probably find those links helpfull :

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztec ... hields.pdf
"An unfinished guide to suits, shields and back banners used by the Aztecs."

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztec ... hields.pdf
" The Spanish will be covered, but not in this document."

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztecs/Primeros.pdf
"Warrior suits illustrated in the Primeros Memoriales"

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztecs/Mendoza.pdf
"The tribute lists of the Codex Mendoza"

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztecs/Davies.pdf
" Essay by Nigel Davies from the 1972 Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti"

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztec ... Rulers.xls
"Very complex family tree of the rulers of Tenochtitlan and also the cihuacoatl"

All those were gathered by chronofus, you can find more of his compilations there in
the "Aztecs" forum :
http://www.chronofus.net/php/index.php? ... 5172584485
Hope it helps.

Keydet83 · Post by **Keydet83** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:47 am

I subscribe to several forums and am in the process of building at least one (and probably more) FoG armies...this is without a doubt the most enjoyable and "history-based" thread I have read...it's refreshing to see some very knowledgeable gamers lead such a comprehensive discussion and guide several of us who are novices in the Meso-American period into a desire to expand our own knowledge of the period.

It reminds me why I pursued a degree in history in college!

Montezuma49 · Post by **Montezuma49** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:14 am

Hi Spring,
thanks very much for the links, they will be most useful.

I have a copy of the Codex Mendoza, but I have heard it is now out of print, ( at least in English), but that is another useful document if you can get hold of a second hand copy. The colour prints of the tribute lists will be especially useful in advising shield designs and battle suit colours. I know I referred to mine when painting my last Aztec army.

regards
Paul

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Sun May 18, 2008 1:20 am

I recently had a crack at making up an inca list for a friday night friendly. I classified most of the Inca foot as

Drilled average protected lightspear sling swordsmen

I'm not sure about the swordsmen, but I think its reasonably clear almost all Incas had a sling, not just specialist skirmishers. In spite of the length of some Inca spears in the late period i didn't they they fought in a style that would justify any sort of spearmen classification

The elite regiments I classified as

Drilled superior protected heavy weapon sling

My opponent suggested that no troops will be classified as Heavy weapon and missile weapon and i suspect he is correct (look at the classical indians) Perhaps they should be swordmen lightspear like the others or heavy weapon without the sling.

My main hope foir the lists is that they retain the massed sling as I think the descriptions of them in action make it clear this was a central part of their approach (the spanish seem to have considered it the most effective thing they did.)

had a great game anyway (smashed some very unlucky romans)

Martin

Rudy_Nelson · Post by **Rudy_Nelson** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:04 am

Heavy weapon, Impact foot and no sling?

i would not give them swordsmen,as you suggested, but add Impact foot instead. A rush forward after a volley of slings seems to reflect the tactics that they used. .

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Sun May 18, 2008 6:05 am

Based on a past thread that touched on Heavy Weapons, it seems unlikely they could be Impact Foot and Heavy Weapon as the latter is already an Impact and Melee POA. If their fighting style was to volley stones and then rely on a fierce charge to defeat the enemy, Impact Foot sounds right.

Reliance on Heavy Weapons would be a different fighting method. I don't know much about Inca equipment and tactics, but I believe we're talking about slings plus a variety of weapons (perhaps in different formations) including maces/clubs, spears/javelins, and some edged weapons rather than principal reliance on something with the effectiveness of a Halberd at dealing with heavy armour. Is that the case?

Swordsmen might be the appropriate POA if they were sufficiently effective with their sidearms, but this might be questionable if the sling volley was the most effective part of their tactics. What do you think?

Mike

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Sun May 18, 2008 6:25 am

I was the victim of the Inca's above ( I wish my brother had not also chosen the Tamerlane nick) - it was not just the sling and heavy weapon combo it was the fact that every bugger had a sling and was a swordsman as well! - a very generous combination for an army I would rate as poor mob in large part! I was still outnumbered and outmanouvred by Martin

Adrian

eldiablito · Post by **eldiablito** » Mon May 19, 2008 1:34 am

The Inca warrior was well armed for his technology, but let us take a strong look at what his abilities truly were...

Yes, everyone had slings. That makes sling a reasonable choice. Based on their style of spears too, one can assume javelins for some stands.

Swordsmen... Well, their primary weapon was a two handed mace with a stone head. This is not exactly the dueling, melee weapon that one would imagine like Roman Legionaries or Anglo-Saxon Hursclars (your prototypical DBA/DBM blade unit, if I recall). I think that this clearly not going to fit. On the other time, Impact foot is very appropriate.

Light Spear... Now this weapon description fits perfectly! Unfortunately, spears are not just a weapon designation, but also a fighting style. If someone were to play around loosely and not too historically. I'd say make some of the stands spear, but not all.

Protected is very reasonable. Most had a native variation of European padded armor.

Inca empire fought using ambush strategies and in rough, mountainous terrain. Also, the entire nation was not ready to deal with Spanish cavalry. You can assume that the army was mostly light and medium foot.

But I'm sure that there are better experts than I, when it comes to South American empires, I'm just a fan who has read too much.

Trench_Raider · Post by **Trench_Raider** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:34 am

There seems to be a systemic bias against the meso-american cultures, which I have never fully understood.

Really? It has been my experience that the less than flattering DBM lists are the exception rather than the rule. Were you around for the murderous Aztec list of WRG 6th and 7th edition? Pretty much the entire list could be bought as "regular B" (the FoG version of this would be drilled superior) and "Regular A" (in Fog these being drilled elite). Everyone in the army had a missle weapon of some sort (javelin, sling, bow, or dart) and two handed cutting weapons were almost universal. Under those systems the Aztec army was universally feared and I dreaded running into one at tournies. My very first ever 7th edition tourny my nasty Medieval French army was badly mauled by one of these monstrosities. At future torunies that permitted more than one list, I always took a specailly prepared "anti-Aztec list" just in case.

Honestly, I find Aztecs and their "culture" pretty damned historically repugnant. That being said, I have always liked how the army looked on the table. It's colorful, exotic, and if well painted makes for a fine sight. (I'm particuarly fond of the Tine Soldier line) So i'm very interested in what the FoG list is going to look like.

TR

Montezuma49 · Post by **Montezuma49** » Mon May 19, 2008 7:18 am

Hi Trench Raider,
yes I really believe so. DBM has been the main set of ancient rules for at least the last 15 years and this is what I am basing that comment on.

I use the Aztec army for 6th edition, and whilst it is a strong army, it has to be used in the right way. I have seen many players try to rely on the morale and missiles without success, (Aztec armies were last and second last at Warfare last year, I believe), because it depends on supporting individual units and good deployment. I think the balance here is just right.

As for 7th edition, I never used it under those rules, but I have heard many complaints about the efficiency of the Aztecs under those rules, and they were probably overpowerful, but that is the fault of the list writers not properly play testing.

I suppose the DBM lists were an over reaction to this.

As for the culture, yes to us it is abhorrent, but they honestly believed they were appeasing their gods, but who are we to judge.

And I agree, they do look good on the table. I have a Foundry army, but the Naismith, Assault Group and Wargames Outpost ? ranges are all pretty good as well as the Tin Soldier ones.

regards
Paul

Probert · Post by **Probert** » Mon May 19, 2008 2:06 pm

One must also remember that specifically the Aztecs (and the cultures geographically close to them - Tlaxacans, Mayans) did not use the usual individual fighting techniques one might imagine. They specifically sought to wound or incapacitate rather than kill their opponents. The general idea was to capture a live opponent for use in the nasty religious rituals that prevailed at the time. Obviously in the heat of battle an Aztec would just as likely kill someone, but the idea and the training was to capture.

Rudy_Nelson · Post by **Rudy_Nelson** » Mon May 19, 2008 2:50 pm

The rating of heavy weapon, Impact Foot, sling would be for those few units armed with a halberd.

I was not refering to the one handed mace which according to guidelines would be swordsmen rated and not heavy weapons.

Being medium foot, having the impact foot makes them more effective. But if this does not reflect the fighting style of the light spear weapon, then keeping light spear rather than an Impact foot sounds like it represents the troops better.
Inca warriors with sling and light spear: Protected, Medium Foot, Drillled/ undrilled, sling, Impact Foot OR Light Spear.
Inca Warriors armed with one-hand mace, sling, + light spear or not. sling, Swordsmen, Impact Foot OR Light Spear.
Inca Guard with Haliberd and sling: MF, Pro, Drilled, sling, heavy Weapons, Imapct Foot.

Montezuma49 · Post by **Montezuma49** » Tue May 20, 2008 6:53 am

Personally Rudy, I think that sounds just about right for Inca classifications.

regards
Paul

Keef · Post by **Keef** » Tue May 20, 2008 9:06 am

"Azteca" list.

In order to open a debate, hows about:

Jaguar or Eagle 'suits': MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Impact Foot, Skilled Swordsmen in BG's of 4-8, total bases 8-24.

"Arrow" 'suits': MF, Protected, Superior, Drilled, Bow*, Impact Foot, Skilled Swordsmen in BG of 4, total bases 0-4.

Other 'suits': MF, Protected, Average, Un/drilled, Impact Foot, Swordsmen in BG's of 6-8, total bases 8-24.

Other 'veterans' (as upgrade for 'other suits'): MF, Protected, Superior, Undrilled, Impact Foot, Skilled Swordsmen in BG's of 4-8, total bases 0-8.

Warriors: MF, Unprotected, Average, Undrilled, Swordsmen in BG's of 8-12, total bases 24-64.

Skirmishers: LF, Unprotected, Average or Poor, Undrilled, Bow or Sling in BG's of 6-8 total bases 6-32.

Chicimec: MF, Unprotected, Average, Drilled, Bow in BG of 4-6 total bases 0-6.

Otomi: MF, Un/Protected, Superior, Undrilled, Heavy Weapon in a single BG of 6-8.

Some rationale: while ignoring the western-centric perspective as much as possible, almost everything we know comes through a fairly heavy filter . . .

No HF cos it doesn't seem at all likely in context/definition.

Impact Foot cos of various Spanish accounts relating the absolute savagery of their charge. Drilled for at least some cos of army deployment and engagement accounts. Skilled swords for some of the 'suits' cos of a number of 'fencing' accounts of captured prisoners being able to use wooden unedged swords to beat off other suited attackers (then choosing to be sacrificed anyhows !); that, and the pretty clear focus on gaining prisoners (at least in 'later' azteca times) must have lead to higher-order 'fencing' skills against contemporaries (?). Plus, there seems to be little doubt that at least some of the 'suits' spent a fair chunk of their time training in the martial arts.

Have ignored 'Light Spear' for the atatl cos it seems to have left a considerably lesser impression than the charge itself.

Not overly convinced about the "arrow" 'suits', but some 'suited' warriors did spend some time shooting bows (at least according to the Spanish) so WTF for a weeney BG of same ? Ditto the old DBM "priests", but these could be fielded either within another BG or as part of a 'veteran' BG. Ditto the "Otomi", excepting they definitely existed as a separate grouping; but could leave open an alternative of fielding them as a 2nd "veteran" undrilled BG rather than the heavy weapon version above.

The main bulk of 'warrior's seems to have been overly harshly treated under DBM, but maybe these could be fielded as Mob rather than MF if inclined, in which case Swords could be dropped also ? Could also allow a small number (say 1 BG) to be protected.

Maximums and minimums are completely fabricated to give a minimum mix (shape) to the 'army'; but giving the suited superiors an option of BG's of 4 to allow them to operate as smaller assault groups, and allowing the main bulk of warriors to get into larger BGs.

Whatdya reckon ??

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Tue May 20, 2008 1:10 pm

Rudy_Nelson wrote:.
Inca Guard with Haliberd and sling: MF, Pro, Drilled, sling, heavy Weapons, Imapct Foot.

I think you need to pick HW or Impact - that's stacking 2 Impact capabilities. My guess is HW, that being a natural response to dealing with enemy armored enough to defeat sidearms, and something different from the other lines in the list.

Trench_Raider · Post by **Trench_Raider** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:28 pm

I use the Aztec army for 6th edition, and whilst it is a strong army, it has to be used in the right way

Fair enough.
Even in 7th edition, were Aztecs were more effective, one had to watch their flanks and play a tight game to do well. But when a skilled Aztec player was on top of his game, the army did extremely well even when it faced armies it had no business beating.

As for 7th edition, I never used it under those rules, but I have heard many complaints about the efficiency of the Aztecs under those rules, and they were probably overpowerful, but that is the fault of the list writers not properly play testing.

Given that both 6th and 7th edition used the same lists for most of those game's existance, I would put it of more to the characteristic of regular mobile missle armies being extremely effective in 7th more than anything else.

As for the culture, yes to us it is abhorrent, but they honestly believed they were appeasing their gods, but who are we to judge.

Actually I think we are free to judge anyone and anything we want...but must expect that right to be extended to ourselves as well. Personally, I've always been puzzled by the tendency for many people to lionize American Indians in general and the murderous meso-American Indians specificly. I'll catch hell from the more PC out there for saying this , but while the Spanish were ceratinly no angels, I shed no tears for what they did to the Aztecs. They pretty much deserved what they got and the world is no worse for their being gone. But that's a whole other subject, right?

Anyway, if I have time later this week I may sit down and do a conversion of the New World Warrior Aztec list and see how it turns out.

TR

Montezuma49 · Post by **Montezuma49** » Wed May 21, 2008 6:52 am

Fair points all Trench Raider.

I look forward to seeing your ideas regarding the Warrior list.

regards
Paul

Trench_Raider · Post by **Trench_Raider** » Thu May 22, 2008 1:25 am

Montezuma49 wrote:Fair points all Trench Raider.

I look forward to seeing your ideas regarding the Warrior list.

regards
Paul

And here they are.
hopfully you will be able to read the plain text version I'm cutting a pasting below. Tell me what you all think.
TR

Design Notes:

The above list draft is a close conversion of the Warrior Aztec list. http://www.nasamw.org/NWW7x85.pdf Most of the content is as close a conversion
as I have been able to manage. However I have made a few changes to avoid repetition and give each major troop type
it's own "character".

Like the earlier list authors I have decided that regular loose order is the best way to depict the combination of rapid
manuver with close order fighting while retaining the characteristic of being vunerable to mounted troops in the open.
I have decided that the light spear/swordsman combination is the best representation of the one handed "macuahuitl" combined
with javelins or atlatl launched darts. However a strong case could be made that the charge of Atzec infantry was fierce and dangerous
enough to warrent "impact foot" classification. this may very well change in future drafts of the list. As it stands now, I
prefer to restrict the "impact foot" class to those troops that were known to be exceptionally fierce (those classed as
"irregular A" under Warrior for example). Likewise the combination of smallish shields and textile armour is enough for me to
classify most non-skirmishers as "protected". Finally, the "heavy weapon" option for some of the better Aztec troops represents
use of both the two handed version of the macuahuitl and the polearm-like tepoztopilli. I agree with the Warrior list author's conclusion
that there is no justification to classify the latter as a spear due to both it's cut and thrust construction and the fact that it
was an individual's weapon rather than being employed in massed formations as is implied by the "spear" catagory in FoG.

Due to there not being a provision for detatchments under FoG, I have chosen to leave out the "novice Warrior" troop type and thus assume
that Novices make up the rear ranks of Warrior and Knight formations, much in the same manner that Sergeants are assumed to be
comprising part of Medieval knight elements. I have chosen to arm the Otomi and other subject warriors with bows for two reasons.
First, this is the most commonly seen option under other game systems for these troops. But this was also done to help keep them
distinct from other troops in the list. Like anything else in this first draft, i am open to discussion and may change this classification
in future versions.

Thanks for your consideration, and let me know what you think!

Rudy_Nelson · Post by **Rudy_Nelson** » Thu May 22, 2008 2:30 am

According to the guidelines that I have seen, Medium Foot armed with atlatl launching darts can be given javelin shooting capability.

I am not sure about MF armed with javelins. They may can only count as light spear.

Peasants poor (agree) but Drilled ( I would not rate a poor levy troop type as drilled)

The warrior Priest maxima seems high. Their numbers were so small, I am not sure about a seperate troop class. Maybe a bullet stating that they are mixed with specified other troop types on leader stands for that battle group.

Meso American Supplement ?

Your Inca were too good.