okay :(, but yours is for AoE2 too =P
Read our conversation and I know my poll is for AoE2
1 Like
lets make a poll, someone make a poll
1 Like
I just did
4 Likes
kk no probs, I just pointed out another poll, that was it
yeah we kinda know that lol
1 Like
Getting back on topic…
I like and agree with the idea of an ambush / stealth civ. OK, yes, it’s been pointed out that (when fighting other Aztecs), ambush was not part of their typical battle plan. But I like the idea of a different type of warfare that could put them on a more level playing field with other civs (even if in reality they were no match for gun, germs and steel). Given their severe handicaps (no steel, no cavalry, no wheels, no siege weapons, no gunpowder), I thought about alternate ways Mesoamerican civs could take down a stronghold. My ideas (posted in the AOE2 forum) were howled down for being too much like AOE3.
But since you raise the topic of alternate warfare… how about units that are weak in combat and poorly armored, but can do tremendous damage to buildings and fortification if they’re allowed to get close enough? Units that can undermine stone walls if they’re not caught in time. Units that can set fire to non-stone buildings in hit-and-run type attacks. And my personal favourite: units that can garrison inside enemy towers, turning the tower against its own builders.
Given that AOE4 aims to make each civ as unique as possible, I think the developers should certainly consider a civ that’s based on guerilla warfare. They’re be a massive thorn-in-the-side in multiplayer games, and force other players to adapt their strategy accordingly.
2 Likes
Completely agree, when I heard they wanted each civ to be as unique and diferent as possible , I tougth the meso civs would be an interesting addition.
seems like the devs though otherwise…
1 Like
Yeah in general, it’s a good idea to have civs from all over the world because then it’s more likely the civs will have less in common with each other, and Meso civs are an entire ocean away from anyone else too, they are definitely a great choice!
2 Likes
I respect that you would try to have a conversation about civ design there. Let me guess, they wanted every civ to have the identical buildings and everyone gets men-at-arms and archers?
2 Likes
Sadly, a lot of people are using this excuse of “they were isolated so they shouldn’t be added” lol
4 Likes
I’ve hardly seen that excuse,
moreso it’s the technological disparity
4 Likes
Lmao that was a scripted event, not actual gameplay
In a historically accurate game, Aztecs would always lose to anyone, expect undeveloped tribes and other Mesoamerican civs.
Like there is no chance a clubman wins against a plate armored infantry or do anything against a Mongol horse archer.
5 Likes
I dont think that. If something teach us the battle of Teutoburg is that always is possible the win with a good strategy.
1 Like
The Germanians had Steel weapons and armour, the Aztecs did not.
The Romans also did not have Gunpowder.
2 Likes
Exactly!
The Aztecs would even have literally zero chance against the Incas, because the Incas had stronger slings, stronger cotton armor, + bronze armor, bronze weapons: mace, halberd, axe, clubs and spears. + better communication, road system, government and ships.
3 Likes
Archaic Gunpowder is effective against armor. But against the Aztecs … too slow to reload, a bow or bow is more effective if the enemy has no armor. You have that a sling is better than an archaic gunpowder if the enemy has no armor.
In Teutoburg, the Germans had such poor weapons and armor. They practically or had weapons and armor of iron and the ones they had were of poorer quality than the Roman ones.
Edit: In Otumba battle, spanish had not gunpowder.
1 Like
Wrong. Because Aztec armour was very inneficient, Gunpowder weapons could often kill 2 men at a time. Not to mention that Cannon shot goes through Infantry like a hot knife through butter.
Native Americans stood no real chance against ANY Eurasian power.
2 Likes