Huns cumans tatars all fall in to that odd category.
Also the same limitations are there in south african bantu cultures and polynesian philippine peoples.
Huns cumans tatars all fall in to that odd category.
That is easily explained: the Mapuche did not have a government organization, some Mapuche joined the Incas, others did not. The big problem that the Incas had when they arrived in the Mapuche territory is that, in addition to crossing the Atacama desert, there was no type of organization or city, that is why all the cities found in that region were built by the Incas.
In the same way it was with the Spanish: the Mapuches were made up of various tribes with their own leaders, many Mapuche leaders allied themselves with the Spanish while others decided to move away from their influence.
The fighting mass of the Arauco War was mainly Mapuches who had allied with the Spanish (Yanakuna) against independent Mapuches, that is why the Arauco War is considered as a set of Mapuche rebellions where each time a leader he was defeated, another rose to take his place.
Incorrect, those civilizations had a king (Khan) and a governmental system where gold defined the exchange of goods or services. Some leaders even made their services available as mercenaries.
No they do not. African civs are white why would they bother changing mining mechanics? As a Native American I find it offensive that they would only change a native civ but not fix other ones for them to be more accurate (and with AoE3DE I found nothing offensive with the old mechanics, and I found it offensive that they changed it for North American natives, but NO other civs got special treatment for their ‘historical inaccuracies’).
If such changes were made for a DLC I would not buy it I know that much.
(this comment is in line with Code of Conduct Section B, Line 3, located here: Age of Empires Forum Code of Conduct and Terms of Service).
Were the tatars or cumans united like the hun confederacy? You can argue the native americans would also be similar by having things like tribal counsils.
I don’t do the story
But if you ask my personal opinion, their leaders were Khan, kings or rulers of states; they also had constant contact with kingdoms or empires in Europe and Asia. Besides obviously having a government organization, so I don’t think they fall into that “odd category”.
We have a literal Duchy coming next to the game which represents mostly Lowlands people, so that’s not a point. Also the way the Celts are represented is more as a ethnic group than anything else.
See @DarthPyro4335 for the second point. There’s way more controversial topic stuff in the game than Haudenosaunee mining. It was fine for years in AOE3.
You seriously come with historical accuracy? You know that Chinese would be broken if historical accuracy was that important in the game. Huns didn’t have Galleons either, does that prevent them from having them?
Mississippians as well as Iroquois were a regional power in North America. The Mapuche had some influence in South America and still do.
Cahokia - Wikipedia. Trade was very much a thing.
I designed most of them as traditional EW civ. If Furtraded Hand canoneer bothers you too much, I can remove it, though I must say that it wouldn’t be as illogical as Gothic Hand-cannoneer. Ensemble always took some liberties on that regard.
Wonders like those I shown you. You know, if ruins and a very small grave count, so does a Mound, some statues as well as a Longhouse.
If you’re interested to read:
What century is that meant to be?
Celts? Burgundians? Tatars? Huns? They’re more an ethnic group than anything else. The Huns are just vandalizing Steppe people too which we don’t know neither their culture nor language for the most part, a thing which isn’t the case for Mapuche.
Portuguese are definitely more relevant in the context of AOE3 than AOE2 yet they are in the game.
The Battle of Tucapel was a clear Mapuche victory against Pedro de Valdivia. The Mapuche existed during the whole time frame of AOE2 too. They didn’t just magically appear. Yes, written records obviously came with the Spanish conquest but still, they’re very much present during the time frame.
The Cuman campaign is basically based on Nomadic people fleeing from danger too. There are other examples which also showcases campaign from the point of view of the defeated, like the William Wallace campaign which features a complete ahistorical scenario as well as the Aztec campaign.
We have plenty Nomadic Steppe people in the game, starting from the base game already. That’s definitely not an argument.
I disagree on that regard. They have an interesting history, could potentially offer great design as well as great campaign material.
IMO they’d be better additions than those from LOTW which are already pretty much shoehorned into a very filled area of the world.
Screenshot or link please
So the most logical thing would be to fix the historical accuracy in the AoE, instead of breaking it further?
With the Mapuches, it seems to me that you are assuming incorrect data. We South Americans see them as an indigenous people, in South America there are hundreds of indigenous peoples, all of them respectable.
Ok. And with the rest?
There were the Crimean Goths, who fought the Turks using gunpowder weapons.
The Mausoleum of Theodoric is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. And it fits in with the rest of the wonders:
Interesting, but personally, it does not satisfy the points mentioned.
Great concepts, one of the better civ concepts thread. I enjoy New World Content in AoE 3 DE but yes we do need more North American civs in the game.
Those civilizations were made up of different ethnic groups. And it was stated earlier that Huns are not historically accurate with AoE2, so don’t use that as a reference.
During the 15th and 16th centuries, Portugal was an economic power in the entire known world. In addition, there were many other Naciones Pueblo that fought against the Spanish, British, and Portuguese at that time. One of the best known were the Jíbaros or Shuar, which for me would also look great in AoE 3.
They were civilizations that managed to conquer entire kingdoms or empires …
With all due respect, that is perhaps because you don’t know much about American history, especially South American history. I am not saying that the Mapuches do not have an interesting history, but it does not fit in AoE2, I reiterate that I am also a lover of the Shuar civilization (Jibaros) and I could also use those arguments so that they are added in AoE 2, but by historical ethics I know that are best located in AoE 3.
What kind of data I’m assuming wrong in your eyes?
With which rest? I answered all your criterias in regards to what you consider to be important as inclusion factor for AOE2.
So would the ones I’m suggesting.
You clearly didn’t read the post I’ve linked you it seems. The civs I’m suggesting have their heights for the most part in the AOE2 time frame or at the upper border of it.
The reply I gave you answered every single point you gave me. Honestly, some of the civs in the game we have already barely fit some of your points too. The time period of AOE2 is from the 4th century (Frumentius († roughly 383 CE) is one of the leaders of the Ethiopians and Huns are barely relevant outside of the 5th century) up to the 16th century BC with the Bayinnaung campaign.
The expansions never stopped expanding the time line. Also it’s not like the civs I’m suggesting magically appeared out of nowhere during the AOE3 time frame.
The earliest estimate for the Foundation of the Haudenosaunee League are in the 11th century, Cahokia had it’s peak in the 11th century roughly and the Mapuche fought before the Spanish contact with the Inca too.
I could alternativelly suggest the Hitsatsonim/Pueblo too which were also important in the time frame of AOE2 on the West Coast.
This would also be enough argument for AoE 3 to go back to mining gold?
Nope, you just answered that the Mississipians traded on a small scale
Well, you must be more explicit, it seemed to me that you were belittling a structure over 1500 years old in perfect condition built by a world-renowned character.
Ok, I get your point; however, I do not share it. Finally I am not part of the AoE STAFF, I am a simple fan who shares their point of view. And as I said before, you can design in a game what the mind is capable of imagining, you could even put Gondor or Winterfell in AoE 2 alongside the British, Mongols and Incas and you would still win a fan base, but I also reiterate that I am a lover of history. Regards.
So you admit they’re ethnic groups too. Cahokia consisted of multiple ethnic groups too if that matters for you, though the way the Chinese or alternativelly Vietnamese are represented it’s mostly Han Chinese/Vietnamese.
Portuguese fought mostly against their neighbours within the AOE2 time frame, like any other civ in this game. It’s a Medieval game, of course most fighting happens on a local scale. The British within the AOE2 time frame fought mostly against the Scots and Franks, this would be the same for any newly added Native American civ.
Talking about colonial “achievements” is not the aim of AOE2, that’s a thing for AOE3.
So are my civ suggestion local power houses. The Haudenosaunee were feared all around. Mississippi culture covered an impressive surface of what is present day USA:
The Mapuche would be more a resistor addition like the Vietnamese or Cumans mostly are.
There are more than just 3 American civs fitting in the game, definitely. Especially if you look at the AOE2 time frame which is already quite vast. It’s not also that we already have some quite late time frame additions like Portuguese, Aztecs and Spanish, which get relevant more at the end than at the beginning of the time frame.
The Cumans and Huns get a ruin as a wonder. That’s more belittling than a long house IMO Would be an addition maybe like the Great Tents whose trace cannot be found either.
If a trade network from the Great Lakes in the North down to the Gulf of Mexico isn’t big to you, then I don’t know.
Haven’t heard of Cuman or Hun trade networks either shrugs
They were civilizations, with governmental organization, which are made up of various ethnic groups.
The Portuguese already existed as a kingdom before being a world power, however they reached their splendor in the 15th and 16th centuries.
How to conquer a kingdom or empire, if you have not yet developed one?
And yet the Spanish, Portuguese and Aztecs already had several centuries of recorded history before the end of the AoE 2 era, that is why the Cid Campaign exists.
Why need to be all of your designs even more insane than the civs the devs have just presented. I guess you are very eager in breaking the game a huge bit more than the devs want to. And since they only seem to perceive the part of the community active in their forums they jump on the train of actively destroying the base game is what people want to see.
Their largest settlement had at best 15,000 people, so hey, I don’t dispute that the trade routes were long.
Some suggest that Monks Mound was the residence of the Paramount Chief. It’s a Chiefdom yes, but a very impressive one. The paramount chief of Caohkia could have called himself a King. Would that make any difference in regards to the inclusion as a civ? That’s kinda a stupid argument IMO.
Attila was the chief of a tribal empire too. We have Khanates, Kingdoms, Duchies, Empires etc. Political organization never disqualified a civ.
See my point before. Portugal was kinda small during the AOE2 time frame, smaller than the area the civs I’m suggesting would cover.
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire as some other people state.
Malian campaign is based on oral history. The Huns haven’t left any written artifacts either.