"A New World" DLC suggestion

Some native peoples come to mind. There were few native peoples that the Spanish never managed to subdue, in South America the best known were the Jíbaro (Shuar) and Araucanos (Mapuche). Both would be a good addition in AoE 3, I imagine the Shuar specialized in archers and Blowgun with different types of poisons with complement of firearms and the Mapuche with specialization of light cavalry and warriors with boleadoras.

Shuar con rifles

1 Like

Happy new year! I think these are essential points too.

I don’t know enough about north American history to make claims, but from the Wikipedia page it seems at least the Mississippi people meet a lot of those, but of course historical accuracy/controversy could be an issue.

That said, there’s already a lot of historical inaccuracies regarding existing meso civs in the game, namely in them having siege weapons and advanced blacksmith upgrades, when at most meso civs had some knowledge about copper and bronze, but not yet iron.

That said, here’s my basic analysis on which meso civs not currently included in the game could fit in. It’s not that many, and I based this off of a chronology which only includes Mesoamerica. If you know of such a chronology for South America and North America proper, please let me know :slight_smile:

Civs I think could be included, mentions the two I previously posted:

  • Zapotecs
  • Tarascans/Purepecha
  • Huastecs/Totonacs - this civ ruled mostly El Tajin and Cempoala, a rather important city state in that time.

Civs that are close, but probably should not be included for various reasons:

  • Guachimontones/Teuchitlan - although they held a large territory in western Mexico, and built a lakeside city, they pretty much declined and disappeared too early. Btw, I’ve been to this archeological site since I used to live close by.
  • Chalchihuites - they apparently built a large city state too, but too little is known about them so their addition would be too speculative.
  • Toltecs - these guys were quite important and built large cities, from which they asserted dominance. The issue with them I think, is they’re too similar to the Aztecs, having pretty much the same religion and language. Indeed, the Aztecs recognized them as their predecessors. Having been to the archeological site, I can say the vibe is a bit different but I wouldn’t know how to transmit that into a game civ.
  • Teotihuacans - they were a great power contemporary to the Mayans, who they traded with, battled and even conquered them in some instances. The issue with them is not that much is known about their identity, we don’t even know which ethnic group built their great city, whether Totonac, Nahua or Otomi. Their city was overtaken by the Toltecs and later the Aztecs. I’ve also been to this archeological site.
  • Mixtecs - as with the Toltecs, I would say these are also too similar to the Aztecs. At least they had a different language, but visually their art and architecture was extremely Aztec looking.

This chronology includes mostly civs that were at least somewhat empire-like, there are hundreds of ethnic groups not mentioned here which in some way were part of the “ecosystem” and might have affected the status quo in various ways.

Edit: I do find it strange that the chronology doesn’t mention the Otomi though.


Happy New Year for you to!
The timeline of Prehispanic Mesoamerica is very interesting.
In South America we have a system of “Horizons” to qualify the pre-Hispanic Andean civilizations.

For this you have to understand some details:

  • There were many other civilizations, but those named are the most important.

  • To understand the Tahuantinsuyo (Inca empire) it must be analyzed as the Roman Empire or the Kingdom of Macedonia in its maximum extension, and this is due to the fact that the Cusco Kingdom managed to conquer most of the kingdoms or empires of South America, some of these kingdoms or Andean empires even managed to trade with Mesoamerica by sea (initially having the Muiscas as intermediaries).

  • As with the Roman Empire or the Kingdom of Macedonia, all the Andean civilizations that were annexed to the Tahuantinsuyo had their own customs, language, religion, technologies, etc. And this is precisely one of the reasons why the Inca Empire collapsed: due to the many cultural differences, many of these civilizations rebelled during the government of Huayna Capac (which is known as the “quencher of rebellions”), the most famous rebellions They are that of the Chimú Empire and the Chachapoyas Kingdom, whose capitals were left in ruins after their rebellions were put down. Upon the death of Huayna Capac (some believe that by smallpox and others believe that he was poisoned by the Chachapoyas) the empire was left headless and there were a series of wars for the throne which led to bloody civil wars in Tawantisuyo, the bloodiest being the civil war between the brothers Huascar and Atahualpa. It is difficult to imagine the magnitude of the civil war, but basically it was a group of kingdoms and empires fighting warlike against another group of kingdoms and empires, according to the chronicles, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were mobilized.

I leave you this referential image of the most important civilizations according to historical periods.

If we were to analyze each of the interesting and amazing pre-Columbian civilizations, it would probably take hours or days.


Thanks! That’s quite informative and I think it covers South America quite well. I was only aware of half of those mentioned in the latest three “horizons”, or so!

1 Like

it’s a really cool work

1 Like

for mississippians I would give as an exclusive unit, warrior priest, infantry unit with melee attack with the ability to heal units (attack enemy units and heal friendly units). or with the ability to give extra attack to units in a given adjacent area (example: +3 attack to adjacent units).

a civ with both eagles and cav, nice, u love to see it

A very neat idea! I made a template for a potential Woodslands architecture and Iroquois wonder here, if you’d like to check it out!


Nice artwork indeed. Hopefully we’ll get them one day.

1 Like


I created this last year, if you need this units graphics to make some mod, let me know.


For me this is the main issue. The Iroquois and Mapuche were iconic powerhouses in the 1500s and later but entirely unremarkable in the era of AoE2.

Civs like this belong in AoE3, and AoE2 should focus on civs that were actually prominent during that time, of which there are plenty in the Americas. Mississippians, Muisca, Tarascans, Puebloans, and a representative for Skraelings (Algonquins, Anishinaabe, Innu, Mi’kmaq, etc) would all be excellent options. Chimu and Zapotecs would also be good but may be a little too close to existing civs. A more speculative option could be Tupis. Recent and future archeology coming out of the Amazon that might shed more light on them in this period.

Well… you are really making (in my opinion) some mistakes:

  1. They were iconic only for their regions, the Mapuches are only known in Chile and in some parts of Argentina, the rest of the South American countries we only knew about them in the internet age. Even in the books that some countries have, the version of the Mapuches is very different from what has been told in the forum: the Mapuches were defeated militarily by the Viceroyalty of Peru and for this reason they agreed to submit to the Parliament of Quilín (1641) where swore allegiance to the Spanish Empire and this is the reason whymany of these Mapuches decided to cross the Andes mountain range to get away from the “Spanish yoke” and reach the territories that are currently Patagonia. I do not want to generate debate (I have already come across many people who have more nationalism than common sense in Spanish forums), but in the same way I leave some basic evidence:

a) The “realist Araucanians” who fought for the Spanish Empire in the wars of independence (even when Spain lost these wars many Mapuches were persecuted for which they were also forced to cross the Andes mountain range to Patagonia).

b) The map of the southern zone of South America from 1671 recognizes the existence and autonomy of the Tehuelches (Patagonians) but not of the Mapuches (since they were considered a conquered ethnic group), there are even Argentines who accuse the Mapuches of having been sent to assassinate the Tehuelches.

c) Worldview of the current Mapuches with respect to their territory: The Mapuches were never a “nation”, they were a group of dispersed tribes and there were even Mapuche tribes that were conquered by the Incas (as Felipe Huaman Poma narrates), However, from what I understand, they consider the signing of the Parliament of Quilín (1641) as an “honorable capitulation” where they agree to live in a delimited territory that we would currently consider “Indian reservation”, there are records of that from the Spanish diplomats who intervened in Parliament and even a "Real Cédula" signed by King Felipe IV himself where he is informed that the “Mapuches have submitted to be ####### (1 haha censored word) of His majesty”


As an extra piece of information, I see that “historically inaccurate” data has been spread that borders on “nationalist lies” such as:

  • The Mapuches were never defeated by the Spanish: that is a lie, although the Mapuches were never a “nation”, a good part of their tribes submitted to the Spanish Empire (other tribes fled across the Andes).
  • The Mapuches defeated the Incas: as already explained, many of the Incas defeated a good part of the Mapuche tribes and there are even books that mention that they had difficulties in “organizing these tribes” because they could not raise a leader influential enough to govern all the Mapuches. On the subject of the Battle of Maule, I will only mention that it is not known what the result is, the date, the place, it is even suspected if the battle actually occurred.
  • The Mapuches were the first Native Americans to use cavalry and firearms: any Latin American with a basic knowledge of history would see this almost as a joke, from the arrival of Columbus to the start of the “Arauco war” nearly half a century had passed with cultural contact, the Spaniards had come across Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Huancas, Chimú, etc.; much more developed civilizations than the Mapuches and there are innumerable historical records that mention the easy adaptability of the Native Americans to European technology, not to mention that the Mapuches did not possess basic elements such as stirrups (riding a horse without stirrups is like riding a bicycle without rudder, it happened to me) and his inability to make his own gunpowder.

Perhaps it is because I was already “hardened” with knowledge about indigenous resistance, that is, I already knew about the history of the Jíbaros before delving into the history of the Mapuches, so I already knew some basic concepts and conflicting elements that contradicted the “history of the Mapuches” that is told in the forum such as: they consider the Parliament of Quilín (1641) as a Mapuche victory when “generally” if a Tribal Organization accepts to sign an agreement with a European country it is taken as a sign of defeat, for example (and at the risk of being wrong) the Mayans in their almost 2 centuries of coexistence with the viceroyalties of Spain never agreed to sign a treaty.

Now excuse me if I’ve been a little effusive but what I don’t like are people who “tamper with history” or who make serious claims without any real, reasonable or credible source (especially if they affect several countries). If someone wants to add a “forced civilization” in AoE 2 that’s fine, they’re within their rights, but what I ask of them is to be honest: you don’t have to lie or rely completely on assumptions or disparage other civilizations , just say “I want this civilization because I want fanservice, motivated by my particular interests of affiliation, nationalism or personal tastes”.

Greetings and peace :v:

1 Like

Just to be clear, I am against an AoE2 Mapuche. I think they’re only a good fit for AoE3 which would make events after the 1600s also relevant.

This is even more true for Jivaro. And in their case the main reason they were never conquered is because they lived in desolate jungle and it wasn’t worth the effort to fight them for it.

You can’t have it both ways. You need to be a centralized nation to be bound by a treaty. If they’re a disorganized tribe then there is no one with the authority to make all the tribes submit to the Spanish. One chief might submit, but the rest would just keep on raiding the Spanish.

My understanding is that a large component of Mapuche expansion was cultural and linguistic. A large component of a “Mapuche” civ would actually be Tehuelches and other peoples who had adopted some elements of Mapuche culture. And this may have not yet happened on a large scale by the 1670s.

This is true, although those who say it don’t mean they never lost a battle. The Spanish never fully conquered the Mapuche territories before they lost their South American colonies. It was the Argentines and Chileans who finally defeated them.

Actually they were one of the main reasons why the border between the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire in South America was delimited, but hey, currently that only affects the countries of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and a bit of Venezuela ( and historical past of Spain, Portugal and indirectly of the United Kingdom).

I explain it in a better way: A group of Mapuche tribes had already submitted to the Inca Empire (which were later inherited to the Spanish Empire), another group of tribes formed an alliance to resist the Spanish colonies, little by little those tribes were defeated and disintegrated until that alliance agreed to submit to the Spanish empire, still many tribes refused to submit and fled across the Andes.

Not really, the Spanish had differentiated the Mapuches from the Telhuelches, even the Portuguese under the command of Ferdinand Magellan had already met the Telhuelches and had described them as “giants”, there is talk of the “Araucanization of Patagonia” in the time of the Republics, even in the book “In Search of the Castaways” by Jules Verne it establishes that they had contacted the Telhuelches (distinguishing them from the Mapuches), even in the glossary of the book it establishes “Tehuelche: Group of Indigenous Peoples of Argentine Patagonia who, in historical times, were nomads and hunters. Defeated by the Araucanians of Chile in the mid-19th century, they were subjected to this people and gradually adopted their language and customs.” (obviously the book is fiction but it was based on real facts)
Tierra de Patagones

This is a sensitive issue for Latin Americans, the Spanish Empire had claimed a large part of the territory in America, but not all of it had been effectively conquered: many of these territories were inhabited by autonomous indigenous peoples, although the black legend against Spain has spread ( and I am not going to romanticize the pink legend either, abuses were also committed) the truth is that the Spanish also sent missionaries to “convert the infidels” as happened with the Guarani and the Ashánincas (among many others), however, at the time of that the South American countries became independent, they fought to annex the territories of the old Spanish Empire (such as the Amazon and Patagonia) as if they were “children fighting over the inheritance of a recently deceased father”, to make the annexation of some Territories In some cases (as in the occupation of Auracanía) Native Americans were murdered (not very different from what happened in North America) , so, what happened is that the Mapuches were ####### (censored word haha) of the Spanish Empire and when the South American countries became independent they attacked the Mapuches to formally annex their territories.

Map 1776

I doubt they had a big impact on that. The border in that region changed many times over the years.

I don’t think they warrant being more than a minor tribe. Unlike the Mapuche they didn’t conquer outside of their home territory or adopt any military technology like cavalry, firearms/artillery, fortifications, and tactics. It would be a struggle to give them much more than a couple infantry units.

Well, that is precisely because the Jíbaros prevented a good part of the exploration by Spain; although it is admitted that the Amazon, the green hell, was and is a dangerous area. There were exploration stories that have been recorded in the history and myths of some countries such as Francisco de Orellana exploration, introduced in AoE 2 HD in the “El Dorado” campaign and also introduced in the Cinema with films like Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (excuse my lousy German). The legend of the Jíbaros also transcended borders, showing himself directly or indirectly in many countries of the world as seen in the horror movie Cannibal Holocaust and in Blizzard games.

As I have already mentioned on some occasion, I do not like to compare American tribal organizations… but it is also necessary to understand the geographical environment where some of these ethnic groups developed, for example: it is known that in the Vietnam War the " technologically superior US soldier" was less effective (cost-benefit ratio) than the common Vietnamese soldier, the weaponry used by US Marines (M16 rifle) was easily jammed by jungle elements plus they were forced to discard their vests bulletproof because they were impractical for navigating through the jungle, even rudimentary Vietnamese traps were very effective in the jungle environment.

With that in mind, the Amazon jungle is a very hostile environment with extreme temperatures, heavy rains and wild animals. It is known that the jíbaros murdered thousands of Spaniards, however their technology was of little use in their territory: armor rusted, gunpowder got wet and taking a horse into the jungle is attracting carnivorous animals (in addition to protecting them from snakes and poisonous insects, and unfavorable geographical aspects).
Obviously the Spanish also faced the jungles of Mesoamerica when they faced the Aztecs, but the big difference is that in the Amazon there were no (known) cities to resupply or defend themselves from the wild environment (in Mesoamerica they could take refuge in the cities of the Aztecs, Tlaxcaltecas, etc.), even the only cities that the Spanish managed to found in the Amazon were destroyed by the Jíbaros at the end of the 16th century (where between 25,000 to 50,000 Spanish lives were lost).

So, although the Jíbaros did learn to use some of the European technologies such as firearms, some elements such as cavalry were not useful to them in their territory. So the Jíbaron did not use cavalry, not because they were “dumb or incapable of learning to ride”, they simply did not use cavalry because it was of no use to them. (Did anyone else remember the movie “Avatar” by James Cameron? :laughing:)

I’m not faulting them for not adopting more advanced technologies because they don’t function in the jungle. But I do think that discounts them as a full civ option. You need at least enough variety to make a unit roster and at least be plausible on different maps. Jivaros just don’t have that the same way Mapuches do. Peoples like that are strongly tied to their environment like Jivaro or Inuit simply make more sense as minor tribes.

Well, it’s your opinion and I respect it.

My opinion is that the Jibaros can bring a lot to AoE 3, although I admit that I know more about the Jibaros from my geographical environment. I just hope that the developers do a good job and that the fans, despite our differences, we all focus on a common goal which is to keep the AoE saga alive.

Bye :smile:

1 Like