The fact that all the peoples of America generally have European infantry units is incredibly ridiculous. They could not look like ordinary militias and did not have metal weapons.
But at the same time, there IS an unused unit in the game - the Iroquois warrior - which could simply replace the militia in the barracks. He is represented in some scenarios, then why not in all the content? Yes, he could use a balance change and he doesn’t have 5 stages of development, but I seriously believe that devs need to work in this direction.
This omission is especially strange given the fact that the American peoples in the game really do not have cavalry for historical reasons and only they have a unique “monk” skin, but at the same time the developers seemed to stop halfway and did nothing regarding the infantry, although they literally have a ready-made unit that can be inserted there.
As for their “evolution” - you can leave one model at all stages, but strengthen the unit with upgrades. For example, upgrades in the forge could cost more, but include the evolution of the Iroquois warriors. Or temples could have a special option of offering to the gods, which would strengthen the unit.
Please no. You and voidpointer keep trying to introduce radically different mechanics for civs which fundamentally affect how the game is played. The game simply doesn’t work that way; all civs are 90% identical, with civ bonuses, unique units and techs, and unit and tech inclusions and omissions being the main way of differentiating them. This is not AoE3 or 4. If you want asymmetry in civs, go play those.
actually the Inca did have Bronze weapons and tools. From Wikipedia
" Only with the Inca would metals really come into practical use. At Machu Picchu and other sites, metal was used for bolas, plumb bobs, chisels, gravers, pry bars, tweezers, needles, plates, fish hooks, spatulas, ladles, knives (tumi), bells, breastplates, lime spoons, mace heads, ear spools, bowls, cloak pins (tupus), axes, and foot plow adzes."
please no. The iroquios warrior is representative of the North American Iroquois people. it would be just as wrong.
But yes, to your main point, i wish they would at least reskin the crossbow and militia line,
For Aztec i would like to see Jaguar warrior available at barracks and give them a new UU.
On this forum I often see a situation: there is an obvious problem, people see it and want to change things. BUT they are so idealistic that they always demand the best solution and do not agree anything else. In the end everybody wants each civ to be 100% historically accurate and unique, everything must be remade and serving their people ideology irl, at the same time not braking the rule of 90% mirror game as a whole.
Then devs probly read all this and make a conclusion - “Ok, we got it, they are crazy. We can’t do it and we will not do it.” And everything stays the same in the end.
My approach is different. I say - lets go step by step and for a start replace most dumb things with less dumb. And then do it again and again. And then we will get some real results.
So. The American warrior is better than a Euro swordsman. Even if it is not ideal.
I don’t know what this unit is conceptually but why reject an idea to experiment with the problematic militia line. Maybe nerf Incas and Mayans in a different way and introduce this unit if it has too much of an advantage over militia line. If the campaign version is too strong maybe balance it out. I think it’d be great to balance the lack of cavalry through such changes instead of making the meso civs too strong economically. And if it works out, some of the advantages wrt usability can be partially transferred over to the militia line. Like lets say fewer upgrades or better speed.
Selling realistic skins as DLC? When games enter this field, it means they have entered the final stage of their existence. The last thing that happened to StarCraft 2 before its death was the skin trade.
“Those who do not pay will have ahistorical units” - this would be direct blackmail and an insult to the fan base. This will be the end of AoE.
So no. Fixing weird mistakes is not a dlc, it’s a must. If one is a dev ofc.
And some prefer historical accuracy over readability. And are offered to pay for this after they already bought the game.
Para-doh is not even games. It’s a fraud for table-paper-game-lovers, 99% of their games is interface. I don’t know what skins could they be selling. Buttons may be. Anyway they’ve found their own, very specific niche that most gamers will never go into.
What an illogical statement. Clearly you know nothing. I am not a fan of that genre specifically but what a blanket statement. Let us who want more accurate unit/hero/building skins/sets get them. Rot with your inaccuracies and leave us in peace.
Normal dlc is playable content with plot and mechanics.
Skins dlc is more like a fraud, such things have a very low reputation among gaming community. Those are released when real content of the game is over and this is a zombie-game already but it’s decided to milk players for 2-3 years till they realize.
Because they are civs from before the arrival of the Europeans to the New World (13th-16th centuries)…the AoE 3 mesocivs also do not have cavalry; only the native civs of North America have them, but because they are from after the arrival of the Europeans to America (the Hauds are from the 16th to the 18th centuries and the Lakotas from the 18th to the 19th century)…
They are also civs before metal and swordsmen. And here we returning to the starting point. Either we make Americans unique and authentic or we don’t.
I really don’t get the point of “lets make it a mirror game BUT without American horses”. Do you people want a mirror game? Or do you want authentic America? Lets choose it somehow.
The point of AoE2 civs is that they are as historically accurate as possible while only using civ bonuses, tech tree differences, unique techs, and unique units/buildings to differentiate them. Americans with no horses is a tech tree difference, while what you’re suggesting is a fundamentally different mechanic. Civ bonuses change things up, of course, but all civs share the same basic gameplay, and this must stay the same for AoE2 to be AoE2. All AoE2 civs must have fundamentally identical mechanics for the game to remain simple and beginner-friendly, which goes against the kind of things you’re suggesting. Unit skins are merely cosmetic, of course, but they shouldn’t be forced on people who don’t want them, which is why they should be DLC (preferably free, but most likely fairly cheap).
I don’t think you understand the game or its core design very well. If you like the medieval setting but prefer asymmetric and authentic civ design, then play AoE4.
I will figure out what I should play or not play, myself. I’m glad that you don’t make decisions in the development of this game, because in this case we would already have to pay for American Priest skin.
Like a legionnaire, savar, elephants and dromons you mean? Like sergeants building fortreses? Like donkey carts, shooting churches, caravanserais, farmsteads, trading posts?
Good. Then stop complaining that this game isn’t exactly how you want it.
Actually, I think regional Monks should be included for free, because they’re quite obviously Monks and are easily readable. Regional skins for normal units will not be very readable, so they should be relegated to DLC.
Those aren’t fundamentally different mechanics, just expansions of existing ones. That’s a false equivalence. The only truly new mechanics we’ve had in recent times are charge attacks, attacks ignoring armor, and aura mechanics, and even those are just built on top of the basic mechanics and are simple enough to understand at a glance.
