The Spanish Musketeer card is a bit redundant to me. The main stars of the show to me should always be the Peruvian Legion. They do not need extra infantry that underperform and have a coin cost. It would be like having Khevite Fusiliers being split into food and coin cost while serving no purpose in an actual fight.
What i would prefer is Peruvian Legion Militia can be trained from Barracks and Forts and not just the TC. Allowing you better access to them while pushing.
Edit (also allow have a x16 Colonials infinite card)
That looks great Cuso! Both decks really do. One thing I will also suggest, is that the Peruvian legionariesâ grenade attack be made into a charged attack. The way they are right now just makes micro a nightmare and they hardly ever actually fire their grenades. Even without increasing the damage it would be a flat improvement.
In the sites I have consulted, it is said that the Montoneros were mainly cavalry troops, both in Peru and in other countries where they were used such as Argentina (where they were used a lot) and Chile (on a smaller scale). They were irregular cavalry forces, most did not wear uniforms and were armed with lances, the opposite of the JunĂn hussars, which are a regular cavalry regiment that wore uniforms and were armed with sabers. The Montoneros could be represented in the game similar to the Chinacos, but dressed in Peruvian style.
âInsurgentâ is simply another term for those who rebel against authority (In this case the Spanish authority). It is synonymous with rebel, insurrectionist, dissident, revolutionary, etc. Even the right to insurgency appears in the Constitution of Peru. For all this, I do not think it is necessary to change the name of the Peruvian insurgents.
I would like the column of the Peruvian army to be the Peruvian Guard Legion , in the game there is only one card that gives you infantry with grenade, but perhaps with a single card called âPeruvian Guard Legionâ, it could be converted to the hussars, revolutionaries, and horse artillery in special units, then Peru would have hussars of Junin, the current infantry of the Peruvian legion, and special horse artillery, then the Peruvian regular army would be the guard legion, and the irregulars would be The Morochucos, Montoneros, and Rabonas.
I do not agree with adding Inca references, I already commented that the Peruvian natives had European military training, Peru was practically a Spanish military stronghold with Quechuas and Aymaras, it makes no sense to refer to anachronistic units, if I want to play Incas I will choose the Incas
I have not cited anything, Wikipedia is not a primary source, it is used as a general reference. We are in the year 2023 and there are still people who do not know how to use Wikipedia. I explain to you:
Review the article to get a general idea of the matter.
Corroborate the information by reviewing the bibliography that appears at the end of the article.
I personally reviewed (quickly) these documents to confirm this information:
And if you search the web for the expression âMontoneras in Peruâ you can find more articles and videos indicating that the Montoneras were mainly irregular cavalry forces, the information I presented is correct.
I would change the 4 gatlings for 2 units of horse artillery and add a card called the Peruvian Guard Legion that allows you to train Hussars of Junin , infantry with grenades and special horse artillery, and finally I would add another card , you pay 1000 food and you get a handful of the Peruvian army : 5 hussars of junin , 10 grenadiers with rifles and 1 special horse artillery, the skins would be easy to add, I mean the units are already in the game, it is not that difficult to modify the skins of the hussars or the artillery, I really forgot how many versions of hussars there are in the game.
As a Peruvian, I overall agree on most of your proposals but disagree on some statements.
First, on the Peruvian Identity:
Are you writing about the Peru or only about the Peruvian Republic? Theyâre not the same.
The name Peru was born as an Exonym for the Tawantinsuyu. With that sense it was used by the average inhabitants of the country, before (as you can see it in the âGenealogĂa de los Incasâ paintings, Chronicles, History Books and Quechua Vocabularies) and during the Independence wars (as you can see in the Incaist Proclaims of Tupaq Amaru II, the writingsof Monteagudo, and another independentists), and to this day many Peruvians still view themselves as a continuation of the same nation not the start of a new one. Because while the administration or government of the Inkas ceased to exist the country and the majority of their people remained.
The view of Peru as a New Nation, was developed after the Independence by some Criollos, and they were criticized in their time as anti-patriots, but as the years passed the idea of a New Nation took popularity among Criollos and some Mestizos because it justified the system of native explotation that replace the Spanish Haciendas and Encomiendas called âGamonalismâ. In that sense, conceiving Peru as an Exclusive Postcolonial nation is a Criollo invention that portrayed themselves as the inheritor of the Conquistadors, building their identity opposed to the Native Peruvians (The first people that were called Peruvians). This paradigm shift began a change in the Historic, Identitary notion of what is Peru, making some Criollo and Mestizo distance themselves apart from the indigenousness of the country and to dissociate the country itself from the native idea of Tawantinsuyu, and some Natives to acculturate to the Modern Nation to regain their rights. Mark Thurner wrote extensively about this in The Origin and Principle of the Name of Peru.
Nonetheless, even when ignored by the Republic, Native Peruvians were an important part of the wars that Peru was involved in, fighting for a land shared with the Criollos and Mestizos. And many of these Peruvians identified themselves in one way or another with the Tawantinsuyu past, adopting their symbols or maintaining and adapting some traditions.
(The Permanent Commission for Peruvian Armyâs History share this view, by the way// Sorry for the Spanish)
Furthermore, these days a lot of Peruvians are more and more proud of their native roots and their connection to the Tawantinsuyu, thatâs why Manqo Inka was recently acknowledge officially as a Forefather of the country (by the way Iâm in favour of adding Manqo Inka to the Inca Civ).
In summary, the Peruvian identity is a continuum that goes through the pre-contact/pre-hispanic age, the Viceroyalty of Peru and the Peruvian Republic. For the Peruvians of the Viceroyalty, the Conquest ends the Inka government but not the country that now was called Peru. During the Independence, many Peruvians of different background adopt Incaist views that tried to reinstate the Empire of the Inka. The notion of a postcolonial Peru, while having some precedents, itâs a relatively new paradigm, mostly Criollo and not adopted by every Peruvian.
About the Inca Civ, in AoE3 this Civ represent the Tawantinsuyu, a colective of different peoples that lived under the Inka administration and share a cultural spectrum. The Inkakuna were not an ethnic group but a social status, there were âInkas by birthâ (Awkikuna) and âInkas by privilegeâ (Inka) (Waman Poma, Garcilaso and another chroniclers wrote about this), and people of different places could be made an Inka, not only the Qosqo people. The people of Tawantinsuyu continue to exist even after the Habsburg Crown subdued the Inka Regime. Their culture changed along the time like in every other conquered (and not conquered) civilization, but some institutions of the Inka prevailed. For example, the Inka title was recognized to the descendants of the Panakakuna (Royal Inka Families) until the Government of Bolivar. In the game, Tupac Rebellion represents a 18th Rebellion that in real life involves not only Natives but also some Criollos and Mestizos, even when it was lead mostly by Native people related to the Inka Royalty to found an Inka inspired State.
So, are these changes on revolutionary Peru a bad representation?
First, we should consider that identity in Peru is complex and this is a game after all. Personally, I like the way the Peru Revolution is portrayed now. It feels more native, itâs more interesting to play and to me is a better representation than before.
That being said, as you mentioned it might have some aspects that are too anachronistic for a revolutionary Peru based on the Republic: as the Aqllakuna, that could be changed for the Rabonas, and Manqo Inka that could be change for the Tupaq Amaru II rebellion.
Maybe an equilibrium between Native/Incaist and Criollo/Republicanist is needed, but still thereâs no need to erase neither the nativeness nor the Incaism that existed in the actual Peruvian Revolution and the modern-day Peru nation, because itâs historically accurate. Nations donât appear out of nothing, and there shouldnât be an strict limitation to select units, buildings or cultural traits between the Peru from before and after the Independence, but itâs true that the focus on Republican Peru could and should be higher.
@EntombedCurve02 I know I was critical in the other thread. I really appreciate this effort here. This is the kind of suggestion that really helps move the discussion forward. I suspect you are Peruvian, which really helps. Iâve had some Latin American history. I took a course in Spanish back in college, but I just donât remember it well enough to have done what you did here. I donât agree with all of it, but I thank you for taking the time to put a really solid, well-thought out suggestion together.
If I had to respond:
I also like the turtle strategy. Given Peruâs geography in the Andes, it makes total sense. I do like the idea of using the strongholds though. It is something unique and different from the European forts everyone else gets. While I understand these were ruins and Machu Pichu was not a fort at all, itâs something Iâm willing to let slide to get that visual uniqueness to the revolution that tells me âthis is a different strategy and play style.â I do agree with allowing a few more of these for the revolution. Losing the INF fort card really does hurt the ability to make forward bases, which you really need. The bug where you canât set the fort to receive shipments is a real pain and hopefully will be fixed.
The only reason I wouldnât do the Junin Hussars is that we already have so freaking many unique cavalry units in the game. I donât necessarily mind having a lancer unit become available for the Ports, but the Spanish already get Garrochistas and can send the Caballeros and Cavalry Combat card before the revolt. If the focus is to be on the infantry, let chimus fill the role.
I agree on the Andean Warriors card. It is so strange to see the huaracas offered when you already have access to artillery. Unless they give huaracas Imperial upgrades or something, thereâs no reason at all to use them. INF 6 Soldados would be a better offering, as you suggest.
I like your idea with the Montoneros for the 33 Insurgentes card. Mexico gets a card called Reservistas that gives the insurgentes muskets. Letting the Montoneros work like that would be a cool idea and give you a bit more of the 19th century feel you were looking for.
One of the reasons I like the way theyâve done the current version of the revolt is recognizability. The game has a LOT of variables. It has a LOT of choices that the player has to learn and understand in order to play well. When I was learning Mexico for the first time, it took me well into rank 100 to really feel comfortable with the choices. The revolutions are so hard to master because each comes with their own deck, their own choices. You have to mouse over each and every card and read it and hope to get a feel for what youâre supposed to do and what youâre supposed to prioritize. Any time they add a new revolution like this, this adds to the learning curve.
In order to help the player, you really want clean, concise concepts that are easy to understand and choose from. I look at the revolt as an alternative to Imperial Age. I can choose to play as the civ I started with, or choose a very different strategy in hopes of winning the game. For example, the Brits can choose:
USA - convert to USA civ-style infantry-artillery focus, get access to 3 minor tribes
Canada - no all-in, convert to a French economy with Lakota food economy, access to 3 minor tribes
S. Africa - no all-in, convert to a Dutch economy with German Imperial War Wagons
Haiti - re-enact Jamaica with a food-based swarm army, outlaws (pirates), and African allies
So in that context, Spain has to choose:
Argentina - cavalry focus with mounted grenadiers, Italian lombards, and Imperial (Italian) mortars
Chile - (still needs a clear focus, IMO. The Hussar of Death alone is all it has now)
Columbia - musketeer focus with imperial upgrades to infantry and Bolivar hero
Mexico - convert to Mexico-style outlaws and Chinacos, access to 3 minor tribes
Peru - convert to Inca-style infantry-based units, 2 strongholds, Inca explorer, grenadier revolutionaries
These arenât perfect descriptions of course, but they do offer clear choices that are fairly intuitive and easy to learn. You adopt the play style of another civ. If you have to think about it on the fly in a game, you can choose pretty easily. Thatâs a good thing. With that in mind, I donât mind the priestesses, the llamas, the seasonal labor card, etc. They are recognizable to anyone who has played the Inca civ. You see the units and know what you can do with them. It makes the transition feel smooth in your hands, which is something you want. I know itâs not perfectly accurate with 19th century Peru, but for game play reasons, it felt good when I played it. I do agree with you on the Dia de los Muertos card at the Cathedral though. Itâs a 100% Mexica thing. Feels weird on Peru. At least rename it and give it a unique icon, even if the exp gain effect doesnât change.
It seems like we share the same nationality. I like the proposed changes, and I believe thereâs a lot of information available to refine the concept of the republican Peru to make it more appealing to all players in AoE 3.
Now, in my own constructive criticism, it seems to me that the developers have researched the Inca history during the Viceroyal/Colonial period (16th-18th centuries) and have had the intention to incorporate it into AoE 3 in some way. However, even though the Incas inhabited what is now the territory of Peru, itâs important to consider that they are distinct concepts due to cultural, historical, and other differences. While the modern country of Peru continues to make efforts to integrate all its inhabitants, itâs crucial to remember the history of the Incas (as well as other native American cultures) as a separate âcivilizationâ from republican Peru. The Inca Kingdom had a degree of autonomy and a rich history during the 16th-18th centuries that could be integrated into the current Inca civilization (although I acknowledge that this might require a significant redesign of the medieval Inca look currently present in AoE 3).
I canât speak much more about the history of republican Peru because there have been topics mentioned here that I wasnât even aware of. I live in a very remote region far from the capital, and I admit that I only have a general understanding of early republican Peru. Nevertheless, I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to gather and share this information. Itâs always enjoyable to learn new history
I must say, Montoneras used whatever they had on hand to fight. If a weapon was in used during the period, the used it. While cavalry was often used for mobility in the countryside, the Andean terrain provided multiple situations when fighting dismounted was a necessity. This made the guerrillas resort to using traditional or improvised weapons, such as rolling boulders down mountain passes on top of marching enemies.
Thereâs more on the subject of the adaptability and fluidity of equipment of the montoneras starting from page 77 of this document:
Iâm really thankful of all the feedback and suggestion this thread has gathered! I havenât been able to answer until now but Iâve been reading your opinions, so Iâm gonna try to address everything now.
You are right in that, in general, Montoneros moved as calvary. Nonetheles, they were times they acted as infantry too, as they were irregular forces and sometimes autonomous groups with characteristics I think make them work as a Insurgente with the Machetes and Reservista upgrade: many of them arose from provincial social sectors, small and medium property owners and and dispossessed workers who sought to express their social demands and claims, which resonates with the historic role I feel the Insurgente unit represents in the game. Also, many times Montonera were used at that time as a umbrella term to refer also to guerrilla or even marksmen or sharpshooters. In the andes region, the rugged terrain many times made combatants prefer to go on foot that on horses, which could have difficulties moving between locations. Look at this recent comment for example:
I also didnât want to remove the focus of the disruptive calvary that Morochucos would have in game. I thought maybe naming the âIndependence Guerrillaâ but in the spanish lozalization of the game the term âGuerrilleroâ is used for Skirms, so I didnât want to confuse their roles. This is just my reasoning though, and Iâm sure they are also reasons to give them dismount ability like some european units or a better name, and Iâm eager to hear more ideas to really nail this down, as it was one of the lose pieces I had with the revolt. Please donât hesitate to let me know what you think!
Lastly, some inspirations I took for the infantry Montonero idea (Including the cover of one of the sources you provided )
(Cover of the book "Guerrillas and Montoneras during the Independence, featuring the firearms they would get with the Reservista upgrade)
Not a bad idea but I feel the problem would be adding too much unique units to one revolt. Not that I think its a bad idea, the more the merrier for me, but talking with Tilanus in a stream last week I got the feeling the devs are not trying to âoverbloatâ the latam revs with too much units, so they are only giving the one unique appart from the Comanchero variants. Iâm not on board with that idea btw, as there are some revolts that have more than one unique unit, namely Finland, Indonesia, Revolutionary France, Hungary, Romania; but thatâs what they are going with, so in my quest to make them consider a change, I had to temper my wishes and try to put together something that somehow reflects the devs intention. More on that down the line.
To be honest, I kinda agree, and I post my feelings about this here down the line. Nonetheless, I do feel some native flavour could work, but more in terms of abilities or gimmicks rather than in armies, thats why In my suggestions I enable the Inca units only after sending a card, which have other effects too (Tupac Amaru II revolt). I will say that, testing on the PUP, I saw my town with a stronghold and Spanish houses and buildings surrounding it and I just found it so recognizable, I felt like I was in Cusco. The problem, of course, is that not all our cities, nor the whole country, is like Cusco.l
I am talking specifically about the Peru revolt in game, which uses a specific flag, is available at a certain age and is a mechanic of an specific civ, in this case 2 civs: Spain and Portugal. But I do understand where you are coming from. I donât want to extend myself too much on this point but I do thing that it is important to address some of the points you raise up.
While itâs true that we Peruvians as a nation are very proud of our history and heritage, I think this examples you provide are more of an exercise in nation building that every nation state does to form a coherent national identity rather than actual history. Saying the Tawantinsuyu is the same as Peru can be very misleading, as can be saying that the first Peruvian army was the one led by the Incas in Vilcabamba. Those are just modern reinterpretations of historical events and people that are now given new role and goals that they wouldnât recognize as their own in their own time and context. Manco Inca being ârecently acknowledgedâ a forefather by a congress desperate for popular approval shows you that instead of serious history this reappraisal of historical events, when coming from government or army sources, is made for objectives other than to present actual history.
This is not to say that historically our people have not been discriminated and treated as second class citizens, or that we shouldnât recognize the contributions of our forefathers, not only Incas but from all the other peoples in all the different regions. I feel that in both my deck suggestions I keep the native flavour while also making some cards more âperuvianâ. I even want them to add Kancha houses to the revolt, which it doesnât have now. I do think that even if you want to implement these elements there is a way to do it that actually represents the history and the people itself rather than just giving them Incan cards. As we know, Peru is so diverse than even a card or technology that could be seen as 19th century has attached to it centuries of history (as for example, how Señor de los Milagros is a representation of Pachacamac, the andean god of earthquakes)
I come back to the Mexican Rev, having so many parallels in our history, even with the names being used before foreign arrival. Yes, they acknowledge their native past as they should, but they donât make the whole revolt an Aztec proxy. But I think its easier to do when you have a whole Mexico civ already in game. I think in a way it should be similar: We have an Inca civ in game that should have the Inca references (like Manco Inca), and give a bit of room for peruvians things to breathe in the little part of the game that relates to an entity that emancipated after 300 hundred years of occupation. In the end I agree that it is the same coin, no matter which side you might be looking it at, and many peruvian flavoured cards have the same capacity to represent our heritage than the Inca cards.
In the interest of improving my suggestions, would you mind telling me which parts of my decks would you change / revert / improve? Iâm aware everyone has its own taste, and I wouldnât want another compatriota feel disappointed with the revolt if they change it in the end, so please donât hesitate to give me your feedback
Those look good! I think the new skin for the Peruvian Guard could use some touches too, so these come in handy. Thanks for sharing!
I should thank you too, as I took a look to your feedback in the Steam forums and it helped me to better land the ideas I had towards the revolt. Your comment allowed me to see the devs vision from the side of balance/mechanics and filter some ideas. I know the devs and many players probably would not want to deviate too much from the chosen design, and it was really useful to read your suggestions to keep the elements that make the revolt fun and unique.
Actually, testing and trying the revolt in the PUP and many city layouts, I have to say seeing the Stronghold surrounded by spanish looking buildings looked very cool, it realy won me over. In my suggestion I keep the Stronghold and change its name to Sacsayhuaman, a true stronghold right outside Cusco. Along that, I introduce 2 more Fort cards that also have between them the effects of Monumental Architecture. What do you think about my suggestion of adding Kancha Houses? They can help with turtling a bit due to their size and it would increase the native flavour of the rev cities.
I actually thought of adding them because of that same reason: it seems every faction now has its own unique calvary, even revolts lol. But while reading your feedback I did come to the realization that the peruvian rev is veeeery infantry focused, so having the Junin Hussars might distract from their intended unit composition. I also didnât know what to do with Ports, as you say they donât get Lancers, so in any case the shipment would have to be an upgrade to hussars with the strike ability. Their role was very important, but I understand that in a game (and in a section that already has to work with little room to breathe as revolts) choices and decisions have to be made and you canât fill everything in.
I also think that, as a shipment, there are better options. In my suggestion I put all the native units behind the Tupac Revolt card anyway, so a change could be done. Rather than Soldados I would put maybe culverins though, as the Huaracas work as the anti artilley for inca and the Peruvian legion with its grenades kinda fills the Soldadoâs role.
Thanks! I just felt they needed something to really work out with the revolt. Reservistas and Machetes really step them up to industrial era fights.
As for the rest of your comment, I do agree that recognizability of the rev (mechanics and units) are important from a gameplay perspective, and surely, I wouldnât like this revolt to be too boring or too complicated to be useful to players. I just think there is a way to match a balance between the two without making it feel so heavily tilted to just the incas, specially having references that would work wonders with them and make little to no sense being with the peruvians (Manco Inka card specifically).
I agree completely with you, I think they tried to give it a very colonial and republican flavour, but they just went too far back and centered waaaaay too much in the late inca hitory rather than early colonial peruvian one. I am also glad all this reading has been helpful to you
Now, as we all know, the patch came out with the current version of the Peruvian Revolt. That was always going to be the case, because the devs had already worked on it and there was too little time to make changes. So, if you are one of the people that might want to see this revolt improved, donât be let down, we can still influence changes for the next patch (not hotfix), so the feedback and discussions we could have might be of use for the Team to consider. Iâve really appreciated reading all the things you had to discuss about my suggestions, thanks for that!
There is no problem with using Pacific War material, as revolutionary shipments are not limited to content from the wars of independence. I believe that the AOE3 revolutions were designed from the beginning taking into account the military history of the revolutionary nations during most of the 19th century, otherwise it would not make sense that, for example, Peru and Chile could send Gatlings and Ironclads, weapons that were used by these countries during the Pacific War (1879 â 1883). There are several other similar examples of elements that are beyond the period of the wars of independence, such as the Ironclads that Gran Colombia receives upon revolution, the âSalitreraâ card from Chile, or the âVoluntĂĄrios da PĂĄtriaâ of Brazil, which were units that fought in the âParaguayan Warâ (1865 â 1870).
I think it is good that the Peruvian revolution has elements that represent the Inca identity that persisted until that moment, but it should better reflect that Inca identity in the context of the 19th century. A good example of this is the Mayan revolution in Mexico, which has Mayan units that use modern weapons (Cruzob Infantry, Cruzob Avengers, etc.), while the current Peruvian revolution has archaic units from the time of the ancient Inca Empire.
Yes, I totally agree on this. If I wasnât clear before, I didnât say that the Inka Tawantinsuyu = Republican Peru, but that both share the Historic and Cultural continuum of a Region that was called Tawantinsuyu/Peru, and because of that we shouldnât base our conception of what is Peruvian only in the Republic of Peru. The Independence and the building of the Republic were different projects, and the natives of the Tawantinsuyu had different views on both. They revolt in different occasions before anyone else (Francisco Inca in Huarochiri, Juan Santos Atahualpa in El Gran Pajonal, Diego Tupac Amaru in Cusco and Upper Peru, even a later Pumacahua that joined the Angulo Brothers in their Rebellion, among others), some supported and participate in the initial stages of the Republic (Ignacio Quispe Nincavilca and Justo Sahuarara, et al.) and some resist the Government of the new formed Republic (e.g. The Republic of Iquicha in Huanta).
Montoneros could only work as replacement for Morochuchos as Light Cav. Right now, Morochucos are an equivalent to other Revolutionsâ cowboys (Gauchos, etc.) with the ability to gather food, so maybe itâs better to keep them as they are. Still, it should be noted that theyâre not just âPeruvian Cowboysâ but a certain Quechua-speaking People that supported the Native Cusco Rebellions and still live in ##################
Montoneras were irregular groups that formed before the Independence around Caudillo-like Leaders, some of them used to be Brigands/Bandits. In Art of the time the Montoneros are represented as horsemen wearing Hats and Ponchos, and carrying a flag. Would be cool to see them, but iâm not sure if they would be necessary.
While the Days of dead is a common celebration among most of the Americas and the South of Peru has itâs own traditions about the festivity that can be traced down to the Inka times (Aya Marqa), itâs probably better to use the Señor de Los Milagros procession, that as you said it could be related to Pachakamaq (Rostorowski wrote about this).
This feels more like a Spanish Card. During the Independence, Potosi wasnât that relevant as a Mine as it was before.
This sound great. Maybe there could be a new skin for the Peruvian Hussars similar to these. I think the Red and White Headress is essential to their look.
Maybe instead of having the 33 Insurgentes Card, Tupac Amaru Rebellion could sent Quechua or Andean Guerrilleros (it could also be named Illapaco, from the Quechua word Illapaq). Similar to a Insurgente with Reservistas Card. They could look similar to these representation of Natives of the time and Breñeros.
)
