"A New World" DLC suggestion

Mapuche discarded

Mapuche discarded, their first known leader is from the mid-sixteenth century.

The main registered conflicts of the Mapuches were from the middle of the XVI century to the end of the XIX century, the majority were skirmishes. (without taking into account genocidal campaigns :slightly_frowning_face:)

Mapuche discarded

That is very subjective, for example, I did not know about the existence of the Mapuches until a few years ago. And I am South American with a passion for history.

Mapuches had like 20 leaders in the 16th century. Which American civ had more than that?

Of course, their campaign would be the Arauco War.


Well, tell me the name of the 20 kings. Because if you mean tribal leaders, there are many American civilizations with many tribal leaders as well.

When did it start and when did it end?

What was the reason for the war? who started it?

Josh, if Huns get to be a “civilization” in AoE2, then almost any group in the timeframe can be one too.
The devs could even add Romans or Scythians (they actually planned to) and it would fit.

I would gladly exchange Mapuches for Tarascans, because I am a big fan of pre-Columbian metalworking peoples, but Mapuches would fit right in snuggly in AoE2.

The Gold issue is also silly. What they did in AoE3 is wrong, and actually hurt native civs a lot, who now are the only ones that have to pay to even mine, mines can take less workers (max 10) and the mine depletes anyway.

Any anerican native that actually plays these games, will not mind the Gold gathering, because it is an universal gameplay convention for all civs.

No one is complaining that the Berbers have a spanish/portuguese UU (Genitour) or that Caravels fire Scorpion bolts instead of cannon, because players tend to understand that gameplay always comes first, over historical accuracy.

If non Gold mining peoples get added, they will still mine Gold, since it is basically an universal resource that all civs gather (Huns never farmed, or mined, they raided and traded plunder or tribute for everything they needed), and the game is well balanced around it.

Gold also represents other metals and stones that were used for war, like iron, copper, jade, obsidian and silex.


I have a feeling that if a civ only became important in the 16th century and onwards that it would be too modern for AoE2 era.

1 Like

As someone with a decent-passing knowledge of history of all of the former USSR )though with emphasis on Ukraine, obviously, since that’s my home) :

Cumans seem to represent all post-Avar/pre Mongol nomads in the Black Sea steppes: be they Khazar, Pecheneg or Cumans proper; we do know that Khazars at least had a fairly developed state, since the major Slavic cities along the Dnipro (Dnieper) river were their tributaries, until the Rurikid Vikings showed up, and eventually Svyatoslav (the last great Slavic Viking) wrecked their *#%t by destroying their capital, Sarkel (the White Tower), at which point we got a power vacuum that was filled by Pechenegs, whose chieftain ended up feasting from a cup made from Svyatoslav’s skull, after the latter had his stint as liberator of Bulgaria from the Byzanteans and his short-lived kingdom on the Danube (it’s really cool stuff, I still hope someone with more talent than me makes a campaign to do the man justice)

It’s debatable how “organized” the Cumans were, but they played a huge role in Ruthenian politics: the last great Prince of all Ruthenia before the post-feudal breakdown was Yurii Dolgorukyj (Long Hands) of Vladimir-Suzdal’ (reputed to be the founder of Moscow); his son, Andriy Bogolyubskiy, was half-Cuman, and he’s the one who burned Kyyiv when he couldn’t hold it, switching the balance of power in Rus’ to the North-East; the Grand Princes of Chernihiv (whose territory abutted the steppes most directly) were also frequently inter-married with the Cumans and got them involved in Ruthenian dynastic struggles as pillaging mercenaries; the reason Kotyan Khan was able to get the Ruthenian princes to join him against the Mongols in the Battle of Kalka River was because his brother-in-law was the Prince of Kyyiv;

Tatars is a (horribly inaccurate) catch-all term for the Turkic inhabitants of Central Asia, and the large cities such as Samarkand and Khiva certainly played a huge role in the regional history in the Middle Ages and beyond. National identities were a lot more fluid back then,but Tatars still feels like a misnomer for that specific region; nevertheless, they certainly are a civilization that fits the description; and central Asia remained a significan local player until roughly late 19th century when the region was finally fully incorporated into the Russian Empire.

On the contrary, Huns are…a thing because Attila? honestly, they always felt much more “off” than Meso civs to me, but Attila got the brand power & name recognition, so can’t fault ES.


Tatars should have been renamed to timurids so they cover a lot more areas and people.
Great discussion going on here learned a lot of interesting history from these.

I guess they wanted to avoid the same deal Huns had, where they are only known for 1 ruler.
Timurids references only Timur’s nation, while Tatars is actually more broad-ranged in the span History, even if it very specifically one people.


What is more respectful @Josh1Axel:

  • Including some more Native American civs showcasing their merits and exploits through great campaigns, architecture sets, unique units anf designing them in a way that they feel like they belong in the game.

  • Not including them and pretend as if nothing important happened there until the Europeans arrived and “civilized” them.

Mississippians built some of the biggest cities at the time, Haudenosaunee had advanced government practices and Mapuche were and still are tough resistants. I didn’t pick those out of nowhere. I wouldn’t mind the Shuar either, though, and I might be wrong on that regard of course, they seem me to resonate more, especially considering that they were also included in Civ VI.


Hello everyone, first of all I wish you all a happy new year :smile:

Well, I really have little time in the forum and I know that I am not a regular user but I admit that you know a lot about historical topics and your opinion is one of those that I respect the most, however, for me the Huns are not related to the game due because they had too forced an inclusion.

For me the Tarascans fit well in AoE 2 because it meets all the criteria that a civilization should have in AoE 2, however, I do not share your opinion that the Mapuches fit in AoE 2.

completely agree, I even see the renaming of the Sioux and Iroquois as a mistake, but I guess that’s not up to me, but the game developers and native communities.

It really does make historical sense, especially the Genitour who in the Spanish translation even gave it the name is Skirmisher Zenata. In the same way I agree that the first thing is the gameplay.

I reiterate that the inclusion of the Huns was forced. But I think it is extreme to think that the Huns did not work gold or that they did not cultivate.

I also saw that mod since its premiere, personally I did not like it because it had many more fictional elements than real ones.

I propose something to you: choose as civilizations American empires or kingdoms that conform to AoE 2 and its medieval essence. A good example are the Tarascan, Muiscas or Chimú

So why do you propose to civilizations with European technologies such as gunpowder and Cavalry? (Which are also anachronistic and historically imprecise):grimacing:

I think I already see the reason for the problem: asking that they not be included in AoE 2 does not mean that I do not respect or value those civilizations, I am american and I like that pre-Columbian culture is presented to the art of video games. But to be honest, the essence of the game must also be respected and AoE 2 is a medieval game.

There is also the great Colombia and Brazil, should it be included in AoE2 as well?

After debating with you on the forum (which I haven’t done in years). I want to tell you that I respect your opinion and I liked the time I spent with you. Obviously we have different ways of thinking and each one made their contribution.
Personally, I think that some middle ground could even be reached, especially with the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee), and a discarded game mechanic could be used in the development of AoE 2:

There were going to be two different “superclasses” of civilizations: Sedentary (similar to the ones in the final game) and raiding. Raiding civilizations would be immune to conversion, not advance ages, pick no relics, build no military buildings, wonders, nor houses; and trade no luxury goods. Instead, their villagers would be turned into soldiers at the Town Center. The cavalry would have the ability to steal resources from other players’s buildings and to kidnap villagers and bring them to their Town Center, where they would be converted to their side. If killed before making it to the Town Center, the stolen resources would appear as piles of resources that could be picked by any villager, like the crates in Age of Empires III.

Don’t you think it would be a cool and interesting idea and it could also encompass other civilizations on other continents?

Finally, I would like to say that I have been a fan of AoE for almost 20 years and I am pleased with the new vitality that the saga has had in recent years. I really wish that some other American empire or kingdom would be added to AoE 2 and also new American civilizations to AoE 3, however, I know that there are many more fans of the AoE saga all over the world and I can’t be selfish for now too I expect an expansion centered on the Indian sub-continent because I find it unfair that so much diversity of medieval cultures in that sub-continent is represented by a single civilization in AoE 2.

Additionally, I leave you with this recent interview with one of the designers of AoE 2. I wish you a prosperous year 2021 and I will try to connect whenever possible.

1 Like

Wish you a happy new year too :smile:

My opinion might differ in regards to inclusion of certain civs, but anyway, I hope that we’ll get more civs after LOTW and American civs are part of those.

It has been like 4 expansion packs (African Kingdoms, Rise of the Rajas, The Last Khans and now Lords of the West) since we got something related to Precolumbian America while almost every single expansion pack includes an European civ it seems. Something African again would be nice too, especially considering what a stretch those civ picks in the Portuguese campaign are.

One thing I hope too is that Sicilians and Burgundians won’t be lazy additions. They definitely should have unique voice lines. Otherwise we end up with voice lines used by a grand total of 3 civs. I suggest those civ speaking their namesake Romance language (Sicilian respectively Burgundian)

I would love if they would fix that for the original civs.

Huns could speak Chuvash, Goth Gothic, Byzantines Greek, Italians either keep their voice lines or speak Genuese or Venetian and finally the Aztec could actually speak Nahuatl instead of Quiché.

On another regard,people telling that AOE4 is going to kill AOE2 don’t know exactly what AOE2 resisted already (years in community hiatus).

AOE2 will live forever. I don’t see myself switching definitely to another game (with maybe Empire Earth 4 as sole exception if that ever will be a thing)

Sorry for my wall of text.


We must acknowledge yet not embrace the mistakes made in the past.

This is a topic I like and love to debate with my friends, where is the line drawn between cumans and tatars.
From my point of view every turkic people before the mongol conquest is covered by cumans until they adopt islam as the majority (or the state) religion, then they become tatars. That means that in my imaginarium gokturks are also cumans, even when one of their leaders is one of the tatars AI characters. I also like your POV though, where cumans cover only people from the pontic-caspian steppe, so uyghurs and gokturks are tatars. I think that’s gonna be my new canon. ty.

But timurids is a more restrictive name than tatars. Isn’t it? If we guide only buy its a “timurids” civ wouldn’t cover the white and golden hordes, or the khazar khanate.

So true. Despite our differences in how we see the game these threads ignite my love for history. Some people here truly know their history, they really inspire me to keep learning.

God hears you, my friend.


The problem is, this neat system fall apart when you’re looking at post-Mongol Black Sea Steppes- the Golden Horde, the Crimean and Kazan Khanates that eventually branch off from it and adopt the “Tatar” name- where do we draw the line? Which of the many in-game civs is the most accurate representation of the Kazan’ Khanate, that was quite literally built on the ruins of the Volga Bulgar state?

Still, injecting some more variety into the Steppe civs was definitely a good move. Hopefully more non-European regions get similar treatment in the future.

1 Like

Btw what is the civ the Dev of AoC was refering to in the video but could not remember the name. The civ that has been rivals to the Incan and was resisting the spanish for even longer?


The Mapuches/Auracans.
I believe they fought until 1881, against Chile in their last war.


Indeed. It is hard to define precise limits between such umbrella terms as cumans (as treated in the game) and tatars. But I would say that the mongol conquest marks the end of the ‘cumans’ civilization, since mongol and eastern turkic culture and organization were exported west. Also, soon after the mongol split islam began to spread more extensively than before in the new khanates of central asia (as a result of the pax mongolica, I would say), so religion could be another criteria to differentiate the two civs.

Sorry for the off-topic, OP. But history related AOE conversations are stronger than me.

I also found out about the Otomi in my research, I was quite surprised. Their city-state of Xaltocan exerted influence around it (i.e. tribute), and stood for 300 years before they were defeated by the Aztecs (technically, the Tripple Alliance – edit: alhough interestingly, one of the members of this alliance was an Otomi city, Tacuba), after which they resetled, this was shortly before the arrival of the Spanish. The Otomi were also mercenaries, hence the military rank of “Otomi” in the Aztec army, which is inspired by them. Later, the Otomi are among the groups that joined the Spanish against the Aztecs… So, at least they got some instant gratification (oh cold, sweet revenge) before their cities were burnt down and their lands were colonized :slight_smile:

1 Like

Half of the boni and UT are stolen from Realms Mod

Not that the devs cared in earlier expansion as they stole a lot of boni there too, but just sayin

Mods have no intellectual property, since they are modifications of the base product, which is already illegal in many cases, so they get no claims to anything they did, except that they did it on someone else’s platform.

Trying to claim that mod content can be “stolen” is extremely foolish of any community, as all it will achieve is the developer cracking down on mods and erasing them with legal action.

If you mod any game, the devs can just take it away from you, and even sell it if they wish, as you are modding THEIR IP, not your own.
Companies know this, and MS has been kind enough to hire a modding team to expand their product, because they liked what they saw (show of good faith), but they could have just cracked down on it and killed the project off, and they would be on their legal right.

As it is, Modding as a whole exists in a legal gray area, and it is convenient for both parties that it stays that way.
Trying to claim mod content as your own, will just make the industry destroy modding for good.