Latest topics
» Looking for Players in the Midlands (UK)
Yesterday at 9:57 pm by jeztodd

» Dragons de Vaires 2017
Yesterday at 10:46 am by nikko

» Basic Impetus 2 Comp, January 2018?
Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:28 am by RogerC

» Why can Longbows Fire at Point Blank Range & Not Others?
Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:10 pm by Gaius Cassius

» "Long Spear" if not in a large unit
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:35 pm by Eques

» What are the main Changes between Impetus & Baroque?
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:29 pm by Zippee

» Improving Pilum?
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:03 am by Tarty

» Help in making a errata/FAQ
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:07 pm by prapor

» What are the Benefits of being in a Group?
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:25 pm by Tankred

Basic Impetus 2 Comp, January 2018?

Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:03 am by Aurelius

Would anyone be interested in a 28mm Basic Impetus 2 tournament, Saturday …

Comments: 17

Vapnartak York Feb 2018- format options?

Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:26 am by Cyrus The Adequate

Hi everyone

I was pondering the options for the York competition and wondered …

Comments: 11

Impetus Competition Derby Worlds 2017

Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:42 pm by Cyrus The Adequate

There will be a 28mm Impetus Competition at Derby World Wargames on 7th …

Comments: 47

Impetus at Derby?

Thu Apr 27, 2017 9:29 am by Cyrus The Adequate

Anyone interested ? 7th & 8th October at a new venue - Bruntingthorpe …

Comments: 11

Wintercon '17 July 15-16th

Sat May 06, 2017 11:44 pm by Tarty

Canberra July 15th-16th

Basic Impetus 2
28mm
Game days are Saturday and Sunday


Comments: 0

BI2 tournament - 25 March 2017

Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:08 am by RogerC

Would anyone be interested in a 28mm Basic Impetus 2 tournament on 25 March …

Comments: 24

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar


Aztec - new proposal

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Aztec - new proposal

Post by jorneto on Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:01 pm

Below is a new proposal for an Aztec list. Perhaps the bigger change from the current beta is the use of heavy javelin instead of various weapons.

I’ve been working on several other lists for central and south american armies, trying to use similar criteria for all. So I’ll wait for the discussion on this one before posting the others on the forum!

The others are: Tlaxcalan, Toltec, Maya, Tarascan/Chichimec, Mixtec/Zapotec, Chanca, Mapuche and Inca.

Aztecs  1325 - 1521 AD
CS=Poor(0 Pts) or CS=average(12 Pts)
     Type Name                                          M VBU I D VD Weapon Special Pts
0-2   FL Warrior Priests_________________8 5 4 C 3 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 19
0-4   FL Cuachicqueh and Otontin*_______8 5 4 B 3 Heavy Javelin 26
2-6   FL Ocelotl & Cuauhtli* (Jaguar,Eagle)_8 5 3 B 3 Heavy Javelin 25
4-24 FL Macehualtin & Calpolli* (not CinC)_8 4 2 B 1 Heavy Javelin 20
or up to 1/2 deployed FL Tequihuahqueh (veterans) 8 4 3 B 1 Heavy Javelin 21
0-4   FL Telpochcalli (Novices)___________8 3 1 C 1 9
4-16 S Tlematatl (slingers)______________8 2 0 C 1 Sling 7
or     S Atlatl (Atlat,javelin)_____________8 2 0 C 1 Javelin 7
or     S Tlahuitolli skirmishers____________8 2 0 C 1 Short bow B 7
or     S Tlematatl (slingers)_____________8 2 0 B 1 Sling 12
or     S Atlatl (Atlat,javelin)_____________8 2 0 B 1 Javelin 12
or     S Tlahuitolli skirmishers____________8 2 0 B 1 Short bow B 12
0-2   FL Otomis_______________________8 4 4 C 2 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 15
0-8   T Tlahuitolli (archers)______________6 3 0 C 1 Short bow A 11
or up to 1/2 deployed T Tlahuitolli (archers) 6 4 0 B 1 Short bow A 18

jorneto
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 81
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-06-16
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Jim Webster on Sun Oct 04, 2015 6:21 am

I think you've double pasted your skirmishers into the list.

Also are there too many archers? Looking at the list you could field an Aztec army where the T archers outnumbered the slingers and javelin skirmishers combined.

Another issue is the Macehualtin & Calpolli. You can deploy the veterans separately but there should be a larger number of compulsory non-veterans left

I'd go for something like (increasing the minimum to 8 )

8 – 24 FL Telpochcalli (Novices) ___________8 3 2 C 1 9
0 - 4 deployed FL Tequihuahqueh (veterans) 8 4 3 B 1 Heavy Javelin 21

For each base of veterans used to stiffen the novices lose one base of novices and get two bases of FL Macehualtin & Calpolli* (not CinC)_8 4 2 B 1 Heavy Javelin 20

I've increased the Impetus of the novices to 2, just out of a gut feeling that they were keen to get in
avatar
Jim Webster
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 492
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by jorneto on Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:49 pm

The skirmishers can be C or B discipline. But it’s perhaps better to remove the second group of 3 lines and add instead a notes line with the upgrade to B.

They could field a fair number of archers, but not a bad idea to reduce them a little (0-6) to avoid them being too proeminent.

The “commons”:  I agree with the increase of the minimum to 8. But not of novices. These were not yet warriors. It was part of their training to participate in battles, but were only allowed to fight when the battle was practically won and the risk was low. Ok giving them a impetus of 2 -  the wait to enter battle would surely fuel them.
On the veterans issue I’m reducing from “up to ½ deployed” to “up to ¼ deployed” to ensure a majority of commons.

I think this list should play very differently from the current beta. It has lost a lot of its shooting capability and has to get into melee to win. It has very good, but very expensive troops. The heavy javelin at 3 points…well.


Aztecs  1325 - 1521 AD
CS=Poor(0 Pts) or CS=average(12 Pts)
    Type Name                                          M VBU I D VD Weapon Special Pts
0-2   FL Warrior Priests_________________8 5 4 C 3 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 19
0-4   FL Cuachicqueh and Otontin*_______8 5 4 B 3 Heavy Javelin 26
2-6   FL Ocelotl & Cuauhtli* (Jaguar,Eagle)_8 5 3 B 3 Heavy Javelin 25
8-24 FL Macehualtin & Calpolli* (not CinC)_8 4 2 B 1 Heavy Javelin 20
or up to 1/4 deployed FL Tequihuahqueh (veterans) 8 4 3 B 1 Heavy Javelin 21
0-4   FL Telpochcalli (Novices)___________8 3 2 C 1 9
4-16 S Tlematatl (slingers)______________8 2 0 C 1 Sling 7
or     S Atlatl (Atlat,javelin)_____________8 2 0 C 1 Javelin 7
or     S Tlahuitolli skirmishers____________8 2 0 C 1 Short bow B 7
0-2   FL Otomis_______________________8 4 4 C 2 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 15
0-6   T Tlahuitolli (archers)______________6 3 0 C 1 Short bow A 11
or up to 1/2 deployed T Tlahuitolli (archers) 6 4 0 B 1 Short bow A 18

Notes and options: S troops can be upgraded to D=B for a total cost of 12 pts.

jorneto
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 81
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-06-16
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Jim Webster on Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:02 pm

But remember the commons should get worse if you pull out the veterans. Otherwise what are the veterans for?

Jim
avatar
Jim Webster
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 492
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by jorneto on Sun Oct 04, 2015 9:15 pm

I didn't like that idea at first but on the other hand it forces the player to make a "difficult" choice if getting a veteran also means getting a weaker calpolli.

I would then add to the notes the obligation to buy an equal number of veterans and downgraded commons.
The latter as: 8 4 1 C 1 Heavy Javelin 14pts

jorneto
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 81
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-06-16
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Jim Webster on Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:01 am

That's why the veterans were added to the commons, because they were weak (or even rubbish)
That's why I downgraded them as much

The Veterans should probably be VD 2 when they're separate
avatar
Jim Webster
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 492
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by jorneto on Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:01 pm

List revised:

Aztecs  1325 - 1521 AD
CS=Poor(0 Pts) or CS=average(12 Pts)
   Type Name                                          M VBU I D VD Weapon Special Pts
0-2   FL Warrior Priests_________________8 5 4 C 3 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 19
0-4   FL Cuachicqueh and Otontin*_______8 5 4 B 3 Heavy Javelin 26
2-6   FL Ocelotl & Cuauhtli* (Jaguar,Eagle)_8 5 3 B 3 Heavy Javelin 25
8-24 FL Macehualtin & Calpolli* (not CinC)_8 4 2 B 1 Heavy Javelin 20
or up to 1/4 deployed FL Tequihuahqueh (veterans) 8 4 3 B 2 Heavy Javelin 21
for each veteran: FL Macehualtin & Calpolli_8 4 1 C 1 Heavy Javelin 14
0-4   FL Telpochcalli (Novices)___________8 3 2 C 1 9
4-16 S Tlematatl (slingers)______________8 2 0 C 1 Sling 7
or     S Atlatl (Atlat,javelin)_____________8 2 0 C 1 Javelin 7
or     S Tlahuitolli skirmishers____________8 2 0 C 1 Short bow B 7
0-2   FL Otomis_______________________8 4 4 C 2 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 15
0-6   T Tlahuitolli (archers)______________6 3 0 C 1 Short bow A 11
or up to 1/2 deployed T Tlahuitolli (archers) 6 4 0 B 1 Short bow A 18

Notes and options: S troops can be upgraded to D=B for a total cost of 12 pts. Tequihuahqueh and "C" discipline Macehualtin/Calpolli must be bought in equal numbers.

jorneto
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 81
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-06-16
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Jim Webster on Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:41 am

It sort of works, it's just a struggle to handle it with the elegant simplicity I'd like Embarassed

I think that it ought to be possible for the player to have more C grade Macehualtin & Calpolli
After all, from what I've read, some of the 'veterans' were actually men who could be Jaguar or Eagle knights and the decision could be taken to put them all back in their proper units

So let's say that we start off from the situation that the Macehualtin & Calpolli were poorly disciplined and trained militia and 4/1 C does cover them nicely

I'm just wondering. What happens if we scrap the veterans altogether but add another four or six Eagle knights and have all the Macehualtin & Calpolli as C

But for each Knight you 'lose' you can convert two Macehualtin & Calpolli C into three Macehualtin & Calpolli B

So if you give them another 4 knights instead of veterans, they can add these to 8 Macehualtin & Calpolli and get 12 B discipline Macehualtin & Calpolli

This gives the player the same options as the original Aztec commander
avatar
Jim Webster
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 492
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by jorneto on Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:08 pm

Yes, many of the knights also fought as part of the macehualtin (meaning commoners) regiments, many being officers. The veterans are still commoners but higher up the trophy (i.e. captives) ladder. As the units were generally based on the calpolli (some sort of local districts) the same men tended to serve together. So my view for the veterans is more for a unit that as a whole becomes progressively more skilled and disciplined than of a unit composed of picked men taken from the line.

When choosing the grade of the average macehualtin I considered 4-1 to 4-2 and C or B discipline. I chose to have them more aggressive as 4-2 but agree that C is preferable.


Aztecs  1325 - 1521 AD
CS=Poor(0 Pts) or CS=average(12 Pts)
  Type Name                                          M VBU I D VD Weapon Special Pts
0-2   FL Warrior Priests_________________8 5 4 C 3 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 19
0-4   FL Cuachicqueh and Otontin*_______8 5 4 B 3 Heavy Javelin 26
2-6   FL Ocelotl & Cuauhtli* (Jaguar,Eagle)_8 5 3 B 3 Heavy Javelin 25
8-24 FL Macehualtin & Calpolli* (not CinC)_8 4 2 C 1 Heavy Javelin 15
or up to 1/4 deployed FL Tequihuahqueh (veterans) 8 4 3 B 2 Heavy Javelin 21
for each veteran: FL Macehualtin & Calpolli_8 4 1 C 1 Heavy Javelin 14
0-4   FL Telpochcalli (Novices)___________8 3 2 C 1 10
4-16 S Tlematatl (slingers)______________8 2 0 C 1 Sling 7
or     S Atlatl (Atlat,javelin)_____________8 2 0 C 1 Javelin 7
or     S Tlahuitolli skirmishers____________8 2 0 C 1 Short bow B 7
0-2   FL Otomis_______________________8 4 4 C 2 Heavy Javelin Impetuous 15
0-6   T Tlahuitolli (archers)______________6 3 0 C 1 Short bow A 11

Notes and options: S troops can be upgraded to D=B for a total cost of 12 pts. Tequihuahqueh and "C" discipline Macehualtin/Calpolli must be bought in equal numbers. Up to 1/2 of deployed T Tlahuitolli can be upgraded to 6 4 0 B 1 Short bow A for 18 pts.


Last edited by jorneto on Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:03 pm; edited 2 times in total

jorneto
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 81
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-06-16
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Jim Webster on Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:51 am


Looking at the dynamics of the army you can have nearly 300 points of decent infantry (292 points in the first three lines)
But you do have a minimum of 120 points of Macehualtin and 28 points of slingers to buy before you get to play with the pretty stuff :-) So that's overall pretty reasonable.

In the literature some Aztec armies we have had described to us are large with a lot of mediocre stuff in them and I thought it'd be nice to give players the option

Now if you have your veterans as 0-4 and your unstiffened Macehualtin as pretty much the same as the novices that means they're 9 points a unit which means you get those compulsories for 72, saving 48 points for players who want to be able to afford the glamorous stuff Very Happy

But If you say that one veteran and three unstiffened (rubbish) Macehualtin make four stiffened Macehualtin & Calpolli this means that you can get your minimum of 8 for 72 plus 42, a grand total of 114.
So the cost is about the same
But you've given the player the option of picking between two different interpretations of the Aztecs without 'breaking' the army or making it too wonderful

Jim
avatar
Jim Webster
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 492
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by frazer on Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:23 am

hi

the heavy javelin is a hot topic these days. . whether a weapon is "various weapons" "javelin" or "heavy javelin" i think mainly depends on HOW it was used.

guys carrying a few javelins and throwing them just before contact is "heavy javelin" effect, standing back a couple of dozen meters and sniping with them implies ranged combat and thus "javelin"to me.

so what to make of the atlatl, it was designed to give longer range so i think it should be a ranged effect (missile) type weapon. lorenzo has graded it as "various weapons" which suggest IMHO that it wasnt that good but you could still use it as a sniping distance weapon.

is there any mileage in trying to differentiate between the elites (Eagle Jaguar etc) and the mysterious Arrow knights?? do they exist (with bows probable Short bow B) like Highlanders.

the appeal of Aztec is strong, as they are so colourful and different.

how do you plan to make Aztec different from other Mexican armies, there isnt much scope in troop types.

keep up the good work

frazer
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 76
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by jorneto on Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:49 pm

I thought that making army lists would be easier... but some of you already know that!
It needs to make sense in game terms, allow people with existing armies to use them with a minimum of changes whenever possible and of course use "some" historical accuracy.

I usually have the lists maximum numbers calculated for a total of about 1000pts. With the minimuns it is a more "seems about right" approach. Perhaps a more "scientific" aim is to have them always within the 100-150 pts.

I played with the army as per the beta version and in several situations I was able to sit back and simply shoot away the enemy with the various weapon VBU 5 units. It didn't seem right. That's probably one of the reasons why it is considered a super-list.

I didn't find anything that suggested a prolonged barrage or duel of fire. They throwed or fired whatever weapon they had and then charged. That's why I opted for the heavy javelin.

No solid data about arrow knights. However for those that like the idea they might fit into the T4-0 option in the list.

I already have drafts for some of the other lists. Apart from the Tlaxcalans which seem to be very much like the aztecs, I think there are enough differences to make each list interesting.

jorneto
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 81
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-06-16
Location : Portugal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Jim Webster on Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:06 pm

Given that quite a few people seem to play 300 points in 28mm I think you're probably not that far adrift with your minimums at about 120 to 150 points
Also isn't there something about halving minima if the army is under a certain size (I'm vague on that one, we often use 500 points in 15mm)

Jim
avatar
Jim Webster
VBU 7 h.c.
VBU 7 h.c.

Posts : 492
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by SteveI42 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:44 am

jorneto wrote:

I played with the army as per the beta version and in several situations I was able to sit back and simply shoot away the enemy with the various weapon VBU 5 units. It didn't seem right. That's probably one of the reasons why it is considered a super-list.

I didn't find anything that suggested a prolonged barrage or duel of fire. They throwed or fired whatever weapon they had and then charged. That's why I opted for the heavy javelin.

That was my original suggestion when I wrote the list. The combined wisdom at the time was "we don't need another weapon type"

No solid data about arrow knights.
There is no data at all about them unless something new has come to light in the last couple of years.

Have fun putting it together Cool

SteveI42
VBU 2
VBU 2

Posts : 54
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aztec - new proposal

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum