Tinto Flavour #31 - 11th of July 2025 - Aztecs

[Sebroar]

100 pixels is the bare minimum for important cases, though they prefer larger. Tenochtitlan would probably fall under the “important” label and could be 100.

I really suggest you click through and read the second Pavía post quoted here, because it directly addresses, with screenshots from the internal pixel map, the issue of Tenochtitlan and why it’s not as simple as just increasing the size a little bit.

THIS

This is what I've been saying, the reason why Tenōchtitlan can't be an island: you'd just delete lake Texcoco for that, and the lake is important. The AI couldn't handle putting navies in a navigable lake Texcoco in any case, so there would be no benefit. The AI issue was also mentioned by Aldaron, a developer:

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

I think this post too is important to understand why it's hard to implement Tenōchtitlan as an island. There has been an entire thread about this, and after days of debates and discussions, the best thing we could come up with was my proposal for adding Tlacopan (which was the #1 issue), and which apparently was actually implemented in the game.

 

[vinaxel33]

If you knew history, you wouldn't be saying all that, but I understand. We have to be tolerant with everyone on the forum.

But, as part of history, Tenochtitlan was invaded by ships (brigantines). Cortes ordered brigantines to be built in the area near Texcoco (some sources say there were 13 brigantines, others 12), and right there he built (with indigenous labor) a "ditch" from which he launched the brigantines into Lake Texcoco.

"So, they decided to begin their waterborne attacks. Cortés had ordered 12 brigantines built in Tlaxcala, which his indigenous allies transported to Texcoco, where they armed them. With them, they began their attacks on Acachinanco, near Tenochtitlan. They raised their flags, played drums, and attacked the Mexica who had their homes on the water. On the Tlatelolco side, the waterborne war also began; the Tlatelolcas fought in their canoes; the Spanish blasted the walls of the irrigation ditches with artillery, forcing their way to Huitzilan, where they also tore down the wall."
Source: Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo, “La muerte de Moctezuma”, Arqueología Mexicana, edición especial, núm. 93, pp. 46-55.
View attachment 1333950


Other picture: Construction of brigantines

View attachment 1333951


And you can find this information with a quick Google search. I know there are more sources that cover the subject.

So, YES, there were important naval battles for the conquest of Tenochtitlan. Please do some research...

Do people mind when I teach them about history?

Do they mind when I point out their mistakes?

Or do they mind being wrong and try to express their anger by using "I respectfully disagree."

And if it bothers them, why don't they do their research before commenting, so they can give their opinions with a reasoned basis, please?

Because history is there, whether you believe in it or not.

And if I see an erroneous comment, I am obligated to refute it (obviously with solid, scientifically based arguments).

Or at least if you disagree, you can provide your arguments with sources.

I can make mistakes, like everyone else, and I'm open to learning.

 

[ItalianBeanChef]

Do people mind when I teach them about history?

Do they mind when I point out their mistakes?

Or do they mind being wrong and try to express their anger by using "I respectfully disagree."

And if it bothers them, why don't they do their research before commenting, so they can give their opinions with a reasoned basis, please?

Because history is there, whether you believe in it or not.

And if I see an erroneous comment, I am obligated to refute it (obviously with solid, scientifically based arguments).

View attachment 1334439

View attachment 1334440View attachment 1334441

Or at least if you disagree, you can provide your arguments with sources.

I can make mistakes, like everyone else, and I'm open to learning.

I'm sorry I'm obliged to disagree with your comment because you called people out for disagreeing.

 

[honkajoki]

I'm sorry I'm obliged to disagree with your comment because you called people out for disagreeing.

Calling people out for disagreeing is actually something that has been suggested by a moderator.

Note: If you are really curious and genuinely have no idea why someone disagreed to your post, please feel free to call them out. If you remain polite while doing so and do not insist, this is no problem. However, if they decide to not reply to your call, please accept it.

 

[yangzilata]

Do they mind when I point out their mistakes?

People often prefer to hear what makes them feel good, not what's actually true.

Or do they mind being wrong and try to express their anger by using "I respectfully disagree."

If someone doesn’t want to hear the truth, everything you say will just sound like noise.

Do people mind when I teach them about history?

Speak the truth — but don’t burn yourself out doing it.

And if it bothers them, why don't they do their research before commenting

I appreciate your passion for historical accuracy, unlike some...

Because history is there, whether you believe in it or not.

this is provocative and shuts down conversation.

 

[EneaBako]

What happened to the balkans do we have a Serbian fragmentation in 1355, historically speaking?

 

[ItalianBeanChef]

Calling people out for disagreeing is actually something that has been suggested by a moderator.

It's a joke, "you complained about being disagreed, so I disagreed for the laughs" and all that.

 

[vinaxel33]

I'm sorry I'm obliged to disagree with your comment because you called people out for disagreeing.

Well, let them present their arguments, let them provide bibliography on the subject. Maybe I'm wrong, but saying "respectfully disagree" and not presenting any arguments doesn't help at all.

As I said, maybe I'm wrong about the information I'm presenting.

Or is it just a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum and they don't want to accept being told the truth?

Because in the case I presented, for example, about the battles at Lake Texcoco, they DID happen. It's not my invention. There's a lot of bibliography on the subject in English and Spanish.

 

[ItalianBeanChef]

Well, let them present their arguments, let them provide bibliography on the subject. Maybe I'm wrong, but saying "respectfully disagree" and not presenting any arguments doesn't help at all.

As I said, maybe I'm wrong about the information I'm presenting.

Or is it just a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum and they don't want to accept being told the truth?

Because in the case I presented, for example, about the battles at Lake Texcoco, they DID happen. It's not my invention. There's a lot of bibliography on the subject in English and Spanish.

I am the master baiter, rage baiter that is

 

[GamesBasket]

Deus Vult

 

[Brynjar]

If you knew history, you wouldn't be saying all that, but I understand. We have to be tolerant with everyone on the forum.

I asked you why it was important for the game. You claim it is, but have provided no proof for why it would be. At no point in time has Tinto claimed they are trying to make a perfect simulation of history. Funnily enough, I just so happens to have read (translations of) large parts of one the primary source for the Spanish side of the siege over the years, and at no point does it give any indication that ships were the primary means of the invasion. There certainly is nothing to indicate that invading the city should be impossible in the game without using ships.

Cortes ordered brigantines to be built in the area near Texcoco (some sources say there were 13 brigantines, others 12)

Actually, those numbers refers to different things. Bernal Diaz del Castillo's description of the situation is quite clear. 13 were built, but only 12 of them were used:

Cortes, our officers, and the whole of the troops were now convinced that it was impossible to fight our way to the city along the causeways, unless we were covered on each side by a couple of the brigantines. Our general therefore joined four of these to Alvarado's division, he himself retaining six others near his head-quarters, which he had taken up where Oli was stationed; the remaining two he sent to Sandoval, for the smallest brigantine was not considered of sufficient bulk to make head against the large canoes, and was taken out of the service altogether, and the men distributed among the crews of the other twelve.

Tenochtitlan was invaded by ships (brigantines).

No. Those were an important tool used in the invasion, but the city was not invaded by ships. In the successful invasion they provided support for the land invasion, but were not the primary way the city was invaded. Here are some more quotes from Bernal Diaz del Castillo's memoirs:

This Lopez was not only an excellent soldier, but also a very clever man in his profession, and subsequently built the thirteen brigantines which were of the most valuable assistance to us in the conquest of Mexico, as will be seen in the proper place.

After Cortes had maturely considered this plan, he sent word by means of brigantines to Alvarado and Sandoval to desist from the daily attacks upon the town. This new method of conducting the siege was greatly favoured by the circumstance that our brigantines stood no longer in fear of the stakes which the enemy had driven into the lake, for if there was a stiffish breeze and the men vigorously plied their oars, the brigantines were sure each time to break through them. By this means we became complete masters of the lake, and all the detached buildings which stood in the water. When the Mexicans saw the great advantage we gained over them in this way they became considerably disheartened.

In the meantime we continued the combat on the causeways, and in the space of four days we had with great difficulty and labour filled up the wide opening in front of our camp. Two companies repelling the attacks of the enemy, while the third was occupied in filling up the aperture. Cortes did the same with his division, and himself assisted in dragging along beams and planks to make the causeway more safe. Sandoval was similarly engaged on his causeway, and now the brigantines were able to lend us considerable assistance, since they no longer feared the stakes.

In this way we continually kept advancing nearer and nearer to the city, though the enemy constantly renewed their attacks upon us, and that with so much fury and intrepidity that it was often with difficulty we could repulse them. But the Almighty had strengthened our arms, and our crossbow-men and musketeers did great execution among the crowded ranks of the enemy; yet we had still every evening to retreat along the causeway to our encampment, which was not the easiest part of the day's work, as the enemy, still big with the recent victory they had gained over us, fought with great confidence. At one time they fell upon us from three sides, and wounded two horses, but thank heavens we cut our way through, slaughtered a considerable number of them and made many prisoners. On our side we had likewise several wounded, but this did not discourage us, we each day returned to the conflict, dressed our wounds at night with bandages steeped in warm oil, supped off vegetables, maize-cakes, and figs, and then posted our watches for the night.

Cortes, finding that day after day passed away without the Mexicans seeming any way inclined to sue for peace, determined to try if he could not gain some decisive victory over them by suddenly falling upon them from an ambush. For this purpose he selected thirty horse and one hundred of the most active foot soldiers from the three divisions; these troops were ordered to conceal themselves with 3000 Tlascallans very early one morning in some extensive buildings which belonged to one of the Mexican grandees. Cortes then marched as usual with the remaining troops along the causeway into the city, the cavalry clearing the streets in advance, followed by the musketeers and crossbow-men. When he had arrived at a bridge which lay across a broad canal, and was defended by a vast body of the enemy, he ordered his men to make a sudden retreat, and our allies to move off the causeway. The Mexicans, who imagined Cortes was retreating from fear, fell upon his rear with great impetuosity; but as soon as he saw the enemy had passed the houses in which we lay concealed, he fired a cannon, which was the signal previously agreed upon; and we rushed forth from our ambush with the cavalry at our head, and fell in our turn upon the enemy's rear. Cortes then faced about with his men and our Tlascallan friends, and attacked the enemy in front. A terrible slaughter now ensued in the ranks of the Mexicans, and they never after showed any inclination to molest us when we marched back to our encampments in the evening.

There happened to be in Cortes' division a soldier named Sotelo, who had served in Italy under the great captain,[26] and who had fought at Garayana,[27] and in other famous battles. This man was always talking about the different battering engines which had been used in that war, and said, he would himself engage to construct a species of catapult on the Tlatelulco, and batter down the houses in which the enemy still held out, and this so effectually that the Mexicans would soon find themselves obliged to sue for peace.

Cortes allowed himself to be persuaded by the great things which this man promised, and issued the necessary orders for the construction of such a machine; and the stone, wood, lime, and iron, which this man required for his wonderful machine were soon provided for him. Two of these catapults were soon finished, by which large stones, of the size of buckets, were to be cast upon the houses. But these machines proved a complete failure, and the stones which they were to throw to a distance fell at the foot of the engine itself. Cortes was excessively annoyed with this soldier for having persuaded him to listen to his schemes, and ordered the machines to be destroyed. Cortes then determined that an attack should be made with the brigantines on that quarter of the town where Quauhtemoctzin had retreated. The manner in which this was done I will relate in the following chapter.

Cortes finding the catapult of no manner of use, and that the Mexicans still refused to sue for peace, ordered Sandoval to penetrate with our twelve brigantines into that quarter of the city where Quauhtemoctzin had retreated with the flower of his army and the principal personages of Mexico. He at the same time gave orders to the men not to kill nor wound any Mexican, if it were at all possible to avoid it, and that they should not be the first to attack, but to level the houses to the ground, and destroy the numerous breastworks that had been constructed on the lake.

Cortes then mounted to the summit of the chief temple on the Tlatelulco, in order from thence to view Sandoval's manœuvres, and was accompanied by Alvarado, Luis Marin, Lugo, and other soldiers.

The brigantines largely served as support and siege equipment, but should under no circumstances be strictly necessary the way it should with in game islands. Mere numbers and equipment should be able to do the job without any ships. Hence my claim that it historically being on an island could just as well be modelled similar to other defensive features in the game.

So, YES, there were important naval battles for the conquest of Tenochtitlan. Please do some research...

There being naval battles (calling it "naval battles" may give some people the wrong impression. They were fighting against canoes and pirogues) does not equate to naval battles being a necessity to take a city.

You can access free translations of Bernal Diaz del Castillo's "History of the conquest of New Spainin various formats here (part 2 is the one most relevant for the siege and fall of Tenochtitlan and the use of brigantines, causeways etc.):

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32474

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32475

You will also be able to find support for my argument in Cortes' third letter:

Having thus made my arrangements, I sallied forth in the morning from the camp, and marched on foot toward the city. We soon found the enemy in defense of a breach that had been made in the road, as wide as the length of a lance, and of the same depth, where they had formed an entrenchment. Here an action ensued, in which valor was shown on both sides. At length we prevailed, and pursued our route along the causeway until we arrived at the entrance of the city, where stood a tower of idols, and near its base a very large bridge that was raised, under which a broad street of water passed, defended by a strong entrenchment. As soon as we reached this place, the enemy began to attack us; but as the brigantines were on both sides of the road, we carried the entrenchment without loss, which we could not have done unless aided by the brigantines. When the enemy began to abandon the ground, the people in the brigantines disembarked, and we passed over the water by means of them, together with the allies from Tlaxcala, Guajocingo, Calco, and Tesaico, in all more than eighty thousand men. While we were employed in filling up with stone and brick the breach made by the destruction of the bridge, the Spaniards gained another entrenchment on the principal and widest street in the whole city.

Spaniards Assault Tenochtitlan – AHA

A primary source from "The Conquest of Mexico."

www.historians.org

Again I see no reason why the difficulties described related to it being an island could not be modelled similar to other defensive features, be it walls, hills, mountains or rivers.

 

[Ekyman]

When the enemy began to abandon the ground, the people in the brigantines disembarked, and we passed over the water by means of them, together with the allies from Tlaxcala, Guajocingo, Calco, and Tesaico, in all more than eighty thousand men.

I'm on the side of saying it shouldn't be made an island, but this sounds pretty much exactly like the city being invaded by ships. Maybe not required considering it sounds like he was using the causeways as well, I have no idea, but still.

It's irrelevant anyway because there's not a good way to make it an island in the first place, and if there was I think forcing a navy on it would make for bad gameplay.

 

[vinaxel33]

@Pavía, could we include something like this? Or does it already exist?

If it doesn't exist, I'd like it to be included, given its importance to all of Mesoamerica.

This is not just for the Aztecs, it's for all of Mesoamerica.
Calpolli/Calpulli

The calpolli were the constituent parts of the Altepetl, defined as a kinship group with a fixed territory defined based on a common ancestor.
Each of these units (Calpolli) had its own leader, called a teuctocaitl, and each calpolli administered a portion of the altepetl's territory, for the exclusive use of its members. The leader (Teuctocaitl) was also responsible for allocating land and collecting taxes. In times of war, each calpolli contributed a battle unit under the command of its own local leaders (calpampilli).


Characteristics:

1. The land is a common possession.
2. The right to cultivate a portion of it belongs to the entire family, and within this family, it is only granted to those who make it productive, and only to the extent necessary.
3. Transfer of land rights by inheritance
4. Ownership of plots or fixed territorial areas
5. Obviously, each calpulli contributed to the army levies

This is just a suggestion, and if anyone has a better idea on how to represent it or what to improve/add, then they're welcome.

 

[Tahami Tsunami]

I'm glad to see the progress that the visuals are making here too, Tenoch is looking great! I'm also thrilled to see Tlacopan on the map and an event for Tlacaelel!

By the way, will we be able to build amoxcalli (library) and totocalli (Montezuma's Zoo)?