2 new civs? native north americans come!

play vindlandsaga scenario please you can see that north america and greenland They were not celts of course!

Now you are just making stuff up :person_facepalming:

1 Like

Good point

Sure. Vikings got to Newfoundland, we have evidence,. I’m just questioning the other people you said they had contact

1 Like

Cherokee didn’t start using horses until the 1700s so making them a horse archer civ doesn’t make sense IMO. A North American civ would need to be more like the meso civs without a stable. Then they’d need some sort of fast infantry to compensate.

3 Likes

Isn’t that the norm now?

Now that is a Turkic term

back in the days, TC needs stone for repair now, It’s not but, If developers might change with updates in future so They need to ‘‘fix’’ it on their properties.

Secondly, Yeah Their big tents like central/east asia nomad culture-turkic/mnogols tents. They used sheep fur like mongols/huns on their tents and similiar looking with turkic tribes’ tent.

No, Mesoamerica literally means “Middle America”, as in between North and South America. Also, geography doesn’t matter that much in this discussion imo, cultural differences are much more relevant rather than “this civ is too close/too far away from other” in terms of design.

The only thing I don’t like about this comment is the insinuation that North American cultures don’t count as civilizations, which is kind of derogatory.

Im not saying they are not civilizations but for a game civilization a wonder is a must.

Mississippians are a better contender than what op suggestes.

No, don’t claim that’s my vision. I never said that. I even strictly contrast the Inuit (and such) with other American civilizations:

You’re just repeating my own argument at me but stop one step earlier in the thought process.

Entirely aside: I had never heard of the idea of Celts in America before the Vikings, but a quick Google reveals it is pretty much unfounded speculation, not to say nonsense built on impossible arguments revolving around writings supposedly having been found from 13 centuries before the writing system used was actually invented and supposed loan words that couldn’t have been loaned because the language they were supposedly loaning from hadn’t incorporated those words themselves yet. The whole theory seems to be roughly on the level of the idea that the Trojan war took place in the Netherlands

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of this proposal, but the Cherokees alone demonstrate major misunderstandings about native North American culture.

First, the Apache and Cheyenne are distinct peoples entirely unrelated to the Cherokee, are actually closer to Aztecs linguistically. Having Cheyenne and Apache units for the Cherokee would be like giving the Franks Janissaries.

Yurts are a Central Asian attribute that suited a nomadic lifestyle. Cherokee lived in permanent settlements built of wood.

Game wise, Mounted Hand Cannoneer exists, it’s Spain’s Conquistador. Likewise with the Shaman, the Spanish have a mounted monk, the Missionary.

The premise of needing to capture or convert stables and universities is contrived and difficult to execute during gameplay. Universities are especially located deep in players’ bases, so you’re not going to grab that and use it without first defeating the entire enemy.

2 Likes

Yeah It can be possible, maybe cheerokees are not best option for all north indians. We can change the name for north american indians. Otherwise, converted university idea is not the main part of civ It’s only a trick option This is so ‘‘extra’’ for this civ. In history, They had very hard access to gunpowder It took many many years after europeans invasions. so I thought It’II hard option maybe post-imperial/late game option for them.

A North American DLC would be a dream come true.

They should be designed without Cav though.

3 Likes

Wonders and architecture aren’t really a constraint for including new civs. Huns and Cumans don’t have an actual wonder, but rather rubbles of a conquered enemy. There are many nomadic civilizations in the game that have been easily included as well (it isn’t like the game is trying to be realistic or accurate anyway). Mississippians are a better fit I would agree.

1 Like

They conquered something and we have records but what did the inuits or cherokee conquer?
Even op is suggesting to use a dead whale bone structure as a wonder if that can be a wonder why not some natural thing like a mountain?

I think the most suitable North American is the Skræling or Iroquois.
The former were basically Inuit, which is fascinating because of the interactions and battles with the Vikings. But they have been represented in the game by the Iroquois (only in name, since they are actually represented by the Celts). The Iroquois can therefore also interact with the Vikings, and the legend of their establishment of the Confederacy is easier to make into a scenario.

However I still think that maybe the North America continent in AoE2 should keep as mysterious as the Antarctic continent. They are better, more detailed, and more interesting in AoE3.

3 Likes

In fact, Inuit is the plural – the singular is Inuk. (You probably shouldn’t use the other word.)

Oh my word… this would be hilarious if it wasn’t so entangled with ideas of racial superiority – although the author of that blog seems (generously, in my view) to attribute it to lack of relevant expertise rather than anything more sinister.

I haven’t heard that one – but similarly, a Trojan called Brutus became the first King of Britain, after defeating the giants that lived there. I suppose this story is more plausible if Troy was in the Netherlands.

I probably misremembered it. It seems Troy was in Britain. The version I heard in school ones (as an example of a ridiculous theory, mind you) had I think the Netherlands as Greece maybe if I’m not just misremembering further, now that I think about it? But even that isn’t actually the case in the original theory (or “theory”). “We” only get the encounters with Circe and Hades, according to the Dutch-language version of the article, with other events of the Odyssey happening as far away as in the Caribbean. I’m pretty sure that the book this article is about is indeed the source of the story I heard because it’s by a Dutch author and old enough that it could have been reasonably well known but not yet forgotten by the time I was in school.

Funnily enough the actual theory here also seems to be based around “Celts were awesome and did everything”. Apparently that’s a genre in archeology. Who knew, right? Now I’m kind of curious if Celts actually built Atlantis. Well, I’m getting some results that go a little in that direction…

1 Like

@TommoChocolate @PanCalvus I can’t find any dedictated paged right now, but apparently there’s a theory that the US is ancient egypt. :joy:

Edit: Found it: Ancient Egypt was in the Americas - America is the Old World

2 Likes

I didn’t know, but it doesn’t surprise me. What I do find surprising is that Iman Jacob Wilkens doesn’t seem to make any claim to being “Celtic” (at least, not that I could find). He does just seem to be an economist who mistakenly thought archaeology would be easy.

This is a parody, right? The location of Egypt is pretty difficult to disagree about, what with it still being there.

1 Like