Any Aztec armies yet?

A forum for any questions relating to army design, the army companion books and upcoming lists.

Moderators: terrys, hammy, philqw78, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

tupiboy
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:54 am

Post by tupiboy »

grahambriggs wrote:
Some of my guys already have the combat advantage of fighting in an unwieldy cayman suit so I've given them all large butterfly back banners to make them invincible on the battlefield.

Still need to stick them on. But I'm a minimalist (lazy), so I think officers only could afford so many feathers, and it would only encourage the subject states to rebel if I were showing off all the feathers thay have had to pay in tribute.

Did the aztecs have any money or were things just paid for in feathers and jaguar skins?

<JW>

I believe tribute was collected in various forms - feathers and jag suits being some of the expensive forms - but it was whatever the town or region could pay - e.g. cacoa beans, shields, headresseses, weapons etc - my memory of the lists escape me as I now escape work - 9.40pnm on Xmas Eve - I must be mad!

Have a sensational silly season everybody - be safe but have as much fun as that allows! :-)

Cheers

Jason
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Aztec lists

Post by philqw78 »

philqw78 wrote:I am using this at the club on Monday
4x6 LF Sling
6x6 Suit Wearers
4x6 Average warriors
IC, 2xTC
IC gives a chance of PBI, but more importantly protects against shooters. Protected sixes can be badly shot up.

The other version drops a BG of slingers and upgrades 2 BG of suit wearers to elite. Haven't painted the elite yet though. Maybe by Monday?
Well it beat an Early Byzantine last night. He had 3 BG of Superior lancer cav, 1 BG of LF jav, 1 BG of average LtSp legion, 1 BG Moor LH, 2 BG Hun LH and 4 BG of Roman Av Armd Bow Sw Cav.

He got agricultural terrain. Couple of small bits ended to the right, one 12MU on the left, 1 on my base line.

The Aztec waere saved by their manouverability and the average-ness of the byzantine bow cav, who once I started to split him up did not dare charge the suit wearers for an evens impact followed by evens (4@+ v's 6@- ) melee.
19-6. I lost 2 BG of Sling and 2 suit wearers. Not bad for a first time out.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Post by petedalby »

How did you find the javelins at shooting Phil?

Did they cause many tests?
Pete
expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by expendablecinc »

rbodleyscott wrote:...As for the freebie issue - we do not regard it in a negative light. The American armies are significantly disadvantaged by their poor balance - i.e. no cavalry. The freebie merely goes some way towards compensating for that.

You may of course disagree, as is your right. However, the design team is entirely happy with the overall result.
Yes I can see the design principle - and that they may be all pretty much rubbish without inflating the quality and attributes of the american armies. Whether its too much of a boost or not enough will be found over time. Hopefully we don't see a repeat of the Beja/Ugarit/Saba freaks. Only time will tell.

Every book release has been followed by a bit of a flurry of uber army claims so its good to bear that in mind.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

petedalby wrote:How did you find the javelins at shooting Phil?

Did they cause many tests?
Not earth shattering. But useful. It is, obviously, restricted by range. You need to think about how you advance to get best use from it otherwise mounted will charge before you get even one shot. They caused about 6 cohesion losses in the game. They didn't cause any base losses or rout any units by shooting alone. They always shot at even and at 4 base BG, so no surprise that they managed a few. And for free that's great.

The shooting is useful against mounted, not a battle winner. That was the manouver. This army if undrilled would really suffer to mounted. No wonder the Tlaxcallans sided with the Spanish.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Atec usefull information

Post by Jilu »

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztecs/army.htm

http://www.chronofus.net/wargames/aztecs/Mendoza.pdf

this is the most complete info i ever found....

alas my old naismith figures cannot accurately depict the Aztec Army...
Eques
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:50 am

Post by Eques »

expendablecinc wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:...As for the freebie issue - we do not regard it in a negative light. The American armies are significantly disadvantaged by their poor balance - i.e. no cavalry. The freebie merely goes some way towards compensating for that.

You may of course disagree, as is your right. However, the design team is entirely happy with the overall result.
Yes I can see the design principle - and that they may be all pretty much rubbish without inflating the quality and attributes of the american armies. elease has been followed by a bit of a flurry of uber army claims so its good to bear that in mind.
I would have taken the approach that if they were rubbish they were rubbish, which I believe was the philosophy behind some of the swifter than eagles armies. they were rubbish militarily as shown by their lack of metal, mounted and wheels and their performance against the spanish.

that doesn't mean you can't have fun with them and the points system would give you a numbers advantage.
Jilu
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Post by Jilu »

Eques wrote:
expendablecinc wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:...As for the freebie issue - we do not regard it in a negative light. The American armies are significantly disadvantaged by their poor balance - i.e. no cavalry. The freebie merely goes some way towards compensating for that.

You may of course disagree, as is your right. However, the design team is entirely happy with the overall result.
Yes I can see the design principle - and that they may be all pretty much rubbish without inflating the quality and attributes of the american armies. elease has been followed by a bit of a flurry of uber army claims so its good to bear that in mind.
I would have taken the approach that if they were rubbish they were rubbish, which I believe was the philosophy behind some of the swifter than eagles armies. they were rubbish militarily as shown by their lack of metal, mounted and wheels and their performance against the spanish.

that doesn't mean you can't have fun with them and the points system would give you a numbers advantage.
my very humble opinion :

Well as usual you have to see the context of the geographical area.

Against all local oponents, and the Otomi and Talaxans were the most dangereous, the Aztec organisation was the most effective.

Of course against Europeans with their different way of making war, firearms, crossbows, and of course desease things were more difficult.
The Spaniards in the begining won by the surprise of their "unethical warfare" as local customs were totaly different.
After that the spaniards took allies that jumped on the oportunity to rebel against the Aztecs or finaly saw a way to get rid of the Aztecs.


There is little known on how the Aztec fought in a battle line, and how the armies were organised.
Roughly the armies were made of Nobles, Priests and "free men" (euphimism), and all these had within their social status different ranks depending on the number of prisoners they had taken and from wich nation these prisoners belonged and on the heroic feats they did during battle.
The main purpose of the warriors was to take prisoners so they could climb up the social ladder.
The battlelines might have been screened or flanked by bowmen, slingers or atl-atl, but also a battleline would probably have no uniform armement, and consist of swordmen, archers, slingers, javeliners and every type of weapon the Aztecs might have used.

The army was probably devided into divisions along the district lines of the city, and the nobles might have formed units depending on their warrior caste but nothing is sure.
Last edited by Jilu on Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

Eques wrote:
expendablecinc wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:...As for the freebie issue - we do not regard it in a negative light. The American armies are significantly disadvantaged by their poor balance - i.e. no cavalry. The freebie merely goes some way towards compensating for that.

You may of course disagree, as is your right. However, the design team is entirely happy with the overall result.
Yes I can see the design principle - and that they may be all pretty much rubbish without inflating the quality and attributes of the american armies. elease has been followed by a bit of a flurry of uber army claims so its good to bear that in mind.
I would have taken the approach that if they were rubbish they were rubbish, which I believe was the philosophy behind some of the swifter than eagles armies. they were rubbish militarily as shown by their lack of metal, mounted and wheels and their performance against the spanish.

that doesn't mean you can't have fun with them and the points system would give you a numbers advantage.
Not sure what your point is. We looked at the evidence and it was clear that some armies used showers of atlatl missiles before a hard charge. so we put it in the lists. We did stop and consider whether it would be unbalancing - given that 'javelins' is a free capability - but when we tested it it seemed quite minor.

I gave my Aztecs a run out for the first time this year last week. I think the atlatl got off three shots, one of which caused a test, which was passed. The problem with them is that they don't cause enoug casualties on 'proper infantry to cause tests (and the range often means they don't get to shoot anyway). also, they don't really want to get that close to 'proper' mounted.

I'm glad to report that the cauciqueh elites died to enemy MF in comedy cicumstances, while the eagle and Jaguar societies did great execution. The calpolli were, as expected, something of a 'impact or bust' rollercoaster.

Regards

Graham
SirGarnet
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:13 am

Post by SirGarnet »

What do you see as the influence on Aztec battle formations and tactics of the desire to capture the enemy as prisoners in preference to them being slain or driven off the field? (I ask as I recall some reference to warriors retiring from the front line to replace cutting edges or to secure prisoners.)

----
added: Attrition Points are a decent default, but thought on scoring victory in a Flower Wars battle is treating bases removed by close combat providing capture points, and those in pursuit counting for more.
expendablecinc
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm

Post by expendablecinc »

MikeK wrote:What do you see as the influence on Aztec battle formations and tactics of the desire to capture the enemy as prisoners in preference to them being slain or driven off the field? (I ask as I recall some reference to warriors retiring from the front line to replace cutting edges or to secure prisoners.)

----
added: Attrition Points are a decent default, but thought on scoring victory in a Flower Wars battle is treating bases removed by close combat providing capture points, and those in pursuit counting for more.
Maybe if you win with aztecs you should be allowed to keep all of your opponents surviving miniatures so long as you take them home and sacrifice them to ensure more victories.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

MikeK wrote:What do you see as the influence on Aztec battle formations and tactics of the desire to capture the enemy as prisoners in preference to them being slain or driven off the field? (I ask as I recall some reference to warriors retiring from the front line to replace cutting edges or to secure prisoners.)

----
added: Attrition Points are a decent default, but thought on scoring victory in a Flower Wars battle is treating bases removed by close combat providing capture points, and those in pursuit counting for more.
I think you need to differentiate between 'full on' war and flower wars (i.e. wars which were more ritualistic and less committed). The latter are not currently modelled by the FoG system. The rest of this relates to 'full on' wars.

We know that advancement for the individual required brave deeds or captives. A lot of focus has gone on the latter with the aztecs, partly because of the gory fate of the captives. However, many 'old world' systems were similar and we don't wonder if that influenced their formations and tactics. For example, Caesar's capture and public execution of Vercingetorix after Alesia. Another is Agincourt, the French noble prisoners being slaughtered by Henry V. Capture was common in old world battles too.

Reading Diaz' Conquest of New Spain the pitched battles were bloody, hard battles. The Aztecs would seek to take prisoners, particularly Cortes, when the time was right but it wasn't much different to English men at arms taking the surrender of a French Duke in the hundred years war.

The mechanism for surrender was to grab the fallen foe by the hair. Presumably they were then passed to the apprentices in the rear for safe keeping.
Weapons did need cutting edges replacing (the blades wrere glued in) but it's unlikely that this could be done in the het of battle - the glue would need to set.[/i]
tupiboy
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:54 am

Post by tupiboy »

Hi guys,

Well my Aztecs finished 5th at Cancon out of 40 odd players (feel free to take that both ways) :) I will post my list and battle reports soonish. They were small at 11 Bgs but fought very well with all the rerolls.

Cheers

Jason
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

tupiboy wrote:Hi guys,

Well my Aztecs finished 5th at Cancon out of 40 odd players (feel free to take that both ways) :) I will post my list and battle reports soonish. They were small at 11 Bgs but fought very well with all the rerolls.

Cheers

Jason
Good result Jason. Have been dithering with mine between having 11BGs or 12 so looking forward to seeing your list.

Graham
tupiboy
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:54 am

Post by tupiboy »

Hi,

My list was IC, 3*TC, 2*6 Elite, 3*8 Superior, 3*6 Average, 1*6 LF Bow, 1*8 LF Sling, 1*6 LF Sling.

Results were 21-4 Alexandrian Macedonian, 4-21 Dominate Roman (the eventual winner on 120), 8-12 EAP, 18-7 Late Republican Roman, 18-2 Early Medieval German, 20-5 Later Carthage for 89 & 5th - 1st was 120, 2nd-4th 98.

I will try to do proper battle reports soon.

Cheers

Jason
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8835
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 »

tupiboy wrote:My list was IC, 3*TC, 2*6 Elite, 3*8 Superior, 3*6 Average, 1*6 LF Bow, 1*8 LF Sling, 1*6 LF Sling.
Jason
Sorry, am at work, but is only 18 of the average blokes legal. Can't remember, thought the minimum was 24
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Post by kevinj »

The minimum is 16 of the Average drilled foot. I was planning on 2x8s and using the Superiors in 6s so I'm also looking forward to the reports to see how this worked out. I still don't think I'd have the nerve to take this in an Open comp though so full credit and congratulations to Jason.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3071
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

tupiboy wrote:Hi,

My list was IC, 3*TC, 2*6 Elite, 3*8 Superior, 3*6 Average, 1*6 LF Bow, 1*8 LF Sling, 1*6 LF Sling.

Results were 21-4 Alexandrian Macedonian, 4-21 Dominate Roman (the eventual winner on 120), 8-12 EAP, 18-7 Late Republican Roman, 18-2 Early Medieval German, 20-5 Later Carthage for 89 & 5th - 1st was 120, 2nd-4th 98.

I will try to do proper battle reports soon.

Cheers

Jason
Oh, I see. Yes that's a nice way to do it. And it's a way to get all four of my outpost 28mm generals on the table!

11BGs is scary but 5BGs that fight as elite is a good thing! Looks from your results that you had a fun competition - that was my worry with the army that it would be dull to play but experience so far suggests not.

Regards

Graham
Post Reply

Return to “Army Design”