Aztec: Tactical Conquest

Share Collapse

Author Comments

Are you ready to face the Mexican jungle full of hostile savages and ancient armies? Then take the role of the Spanish conquistador on his way to conquer the Aztec empire! This turn-based strategy is featuring over 30 animated unit types, historical as well as fictional ones. Designed to be many times replayable.

Log in / sign up to vote & review!

Newgrounds accounts are free and registered users see fewer ads!

Equal parts wonderful and awful.

I adore it for it is very tactically inclined indeed, and a very good strategy game through and through; however, the harder difficulties you play on, the more and more a single battle (that you cannot restart) can hinge on a single movement, and time after time I lost the opportunity to wipe out an enemy force because instead of attacking, my soldiers just meandered on closer to them, for I happened to click the square next to them by accident, and couldn't undo it.

I find this incredibly odd; for you had the foresight to realize that losing in the major battles meant you lost entirely; so you allowed for players to leave those and restart as if they didn't happen; yet for battles wherein you could gain gold and experience, you did no such thing.

So your options, as a player, are: "Win every battle, and gain more experience and upgrades thereby" or "Lose, and with every battle you lose, the game becomes more and more frustrating".

The 'oops' is another awful thing. Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic idea; because blunders naturally happen in real battles. However, there ought to be a likelihood of that sort of thing. For example, you have a greater chance of missing a turn if your men are walking on ground that doesn't suit them (I.E, heavy swordsmen, in full armour, would have a harder time walking through a jungle than, say, the light infantry). And again, on the harder difficulty you play, the more awful it becomes; since the less and less troops you have, the MORE and more vital each of their attacks and movements becomes; so when you have your men missing out on attack after attack (usually after bringing themselves right next to the enemy and within range of their arrows), you're more likely to lose; more likely to lose means less money and exp; less money and exp means worse troops; and worse troops means more likely to lose. It is a vicious circle that continues until you simply CANNOT win, for the enemy's forces are so great and elite that you get completely wiped away with them.

My verdict: High difficulties don't make the game more challenging, just more frustrating. Do yourself a favour and play on Normal.

Really like the game, except for the part where you can win a battle by killing the leader. Perhaps there should be a option to choose whether you should kill every last enemy or only the leader.

urnam04 already covered a decent bit, few things to add:

Randomly losing unit movement is kind of pointless. You don't really notice when you're not missing turns or when your opponent is (i.e. you don't feel like you're getting lucky even if you are), but when you do miss a turn, especially if you miss a string of 5 or more in a row you feel unlucky even if over time it balances out. I don't see what it adds to the game.

The terrain tiles should be more gradually introduced since a few of them have potentially confusing properties and it slows down the pace of gameplay when I need to figure out why my units can't stand on top of a certain tile or move to a certain spot.

I have finally played this game enough to write a review. I beat both the Conquistador and Aztec campaigns on Normal difficulty.

1. Tactics- good depth of strategies involving unit synergy, terrain, range, and a wide variety of different units on both sides that are different enough from each other
2. Graphics and animation are adequate
3. Replayability- not a lot of games let you play on both sides, and with varying difficulty levels

1. Music loops and game sounds got annoying after a while and lacked variety (maybe make different sounds in each level?)
2. Small playing field- a lot of times I had trouble clicking on a unit or square because the mouse kept switching from one square to another, or I clicked the wrong square or unit by accident because the areas are so small. When there were a lot of units, it was also hard to see who was where, especially in regards to straight line of sight. The playing field should have twice the number of pixels as it does now.
3. Computer AI was stupid. Most of my victories came when the opponent's leader charged to the front lines and got ganged up on by my units. Also, the computer's archers ignored friendly fire risks and killed as many of their own troops as they did mine by shooting their own units in the back. In fact, both of my campaign Final Victories came when the opponent's ranged units fatally shot their own leaders in the back (archers on Aztec Leader in the first campaign, and a cannon on Conquistador Leader in the second campaign, where the cannon was two spaces from my unit and in the middle was their Leader, and the cannon aimed at my unit and killed their Leader lol) Maybe the AI should be able to protect their leader and keep it in the back and hesitate to friendly fire.

1. Lack of thorough instructions. For example, I didn't know you could knock an opposing unit into the Pit and kill them instantly until the enemy did it to me. There was no mention of this anywhere in the instructions. Every potential gameplay mechanic should be described and explained in the instructions of a game.
2. I would rather have had the Aztec campaign start in Tenochtitlan and have the final battle end at the coast at Cempoala, pushing the Spaniards back to their first and final stronghold, rather than use the same geography movement as the Conquistador campaign and end in Tenochtitlan.
3. There was no way to tell which levels were easier or harder in a particular region- smaller villages were often harder battles than larger ones, and named villages weren't always harder than unnamed villages. Often times, I would start a region with a very hard battle and lose the battle permanently, and then click on another battle and crush them. The levels should be guided so that easier levels always come first and harder levels come later, after my units have leveled up.
4. It was also impossible to win a campaign without beating the "optional" stages in each region. When I advanced farther into the game without winning those "optional" stages, I found that my units were too weak to kill enough enemy units to win the game.

Overall, a promising game with several flaws that keep it from being higher than 3.5. Other suggestions I have for the game include hovering status boxes that appear only when you hover your mouse over a unit and disappear when you move the mouse away from the unit instead of the awkward Unit Info system there currently is, letting us customize our own armies or maybe even our own units, and maybe a live multiplayer version.

Thunder-Hawk responds:

Thank you for the thorough review! You found out both AI issues which won't be easily solved. The leader is important force and if you are getting weak, it's sometimes better (hard to define when) to let him involve in the slaughter personally, albeit exposing him to the enemy attacks, rather than hiding him in the back and letting the enemy prevail in numbers inevitably.
I decided to leave some features hidden until the player discovers them. Isn't it a shocking surprise to find out that you may push someone (or be pushed) to the pit and make the whole unit fall to death, or slay a horse instead of a man?
Why do you care which one of the villages is harder to conquer? Just do your best and watch the outcome - this is war! The order of attacking them almost doesn't matter anyway.
I win the game on hard difficulty almost every time I try, usually not even need to conquer the "optional" villages.

I think it would be great if you could zoom out to see what you're actually doing.
I liked the gameplay, though it took a little while to figure out. Overall i found it okay, but it turned a little boring after some time, it's the same over and over again. That might just be me though.

Credits & Info

3.66 / 5.00

Jun 18, 2015
2:07 PM EDT
Strategy - Other