I want them in the game, but I also want to see Adam Isgreen’s vision of it being “a reliable source of History”, which means I want Nat-Am civs to be completely useless after Eurasian civs get to Age 4, and heavily depend on Zerg Rush tactics from Age 1 onward, to win.
I do not want to see AoE3-style overbuffed Nat-Ams beating European Pikemen, because that is bad History, it never happened.
“History is what actually happened, not what we would like to have happened.” - Indy Neidell
has nothing to do with people wanting them added in the game tho
Then I won’t be interested in AOE4 for a long, long time. When I hear Age of Empires, I don’t think Crusader Kings…
Weird. A lot of people including myself think otherwise 
Yeah it’s just a good quote about history 
Source? This just seems me like one guy claiming stuff without backing it up with anything. The HD expansions were better received than the DE ones going by the review numbers as well as the overall score. Seems me to prove you wrong on that regard. Admittedly, they’re out for a shorter time, but still, the overall feedback was pretty mixed on getting new European civs on top of European civs. It seems to me that people want to have a lot of civs with different cultural backgrounds, not just minimal differences.
Well the old expansions added uniqueness
The DE ones were mainly the plain boring same civs with a different unit
And where did this uniqueness come? Maybe due to the fact that they were unique civs from unique regions?
because they put effort into making them different
Unlike how they acted with Euro or Asian or African civs
Got Steppe Lance line and Battle Elephant line
Sahel zone African civs aren’t actually different from the other Old World civs. Sure, if they’d add Kongolese or Zimbabweans or anything similar to any AOE game one day, they’ll have to be designed differently which will make them even more interesting
Just because they are not going to add stone-age civs into the game about most important civs in world history you are not going to play it?
Why do those discussions always lead to the same direction.
The Native American civs ARE important. A lot of stuff we have nowadays we wouldn’t have with those. More than half of the convenience food contains maize, a plant species selectioned by Native American civs. Same with the Potato which is an important part of the diet of a lot of countries around the whole globe.
Even if you disregard those achievements, which you shouldn’t in my opinion but anyway, they were very relevant on their continent. Sure, they used different materials for their weapons and armours, but you don’t see me complaining about “iron-melting” “stone piles building” civs. This argument is honestly stupid.
You know, there’s a lot of ressources online about Aztec Chinamapas, Inca Terrasse agriculture, Maya astronomy and mathematics you can easily find online.
If you see about Teutoburg battle, will see that germans had a very bad armament in comparison to romans.
I am particularly expert that battle. Germans in general had no armor and weapons was worst quality that romans.
Because for a MEDIEVAL game these civilizations haven´t priority over many other European, Arab and Asian ones.
I repeat, “medieval game”.
Amazing! Let’s make a civilization based on food, potato throwers as UU.
Seriously, even if, following some twisted logic, we call having potatoes and corn an achievement, this achievement should still be more European than Aztec. In the 15th century, maize did not differ much from the sprout of wheat, it was small, thin and was not harvested much, only the Europeans brought corn to the appearance it has today and to the fact that it is actually so wide used. But that’s irrelevant anyway, I don’t consider growing one plant a cultural achievement.
Achievements are architecture, art, music, war craftsmanship, administration of a large state, education, cultural achievements, writing, language, diplomacy, any greater influence on the shaping of the history of the world and its final appearance, everything that Asian and European countries had, and what about with minor exceptions, it was difficult to find elsewhere. The Aztecs at the first meeting with the outside world were very badly defeated, and this is their entire history of contact with the powers of the world to which, in your opinion, they should be compared for some reason.
Not at all. It would make no sense at all. It more your wish than anything else.
Seems like you guys are shitting on Ensemble’s legacy which not only added once but twice Native American civs (AOE2+AOE3).
As Sandy Petersen, Ensemble dev said rightfully about the Conquerors expansion:
“THE NEW ARCHITECTURE SET: the possibilities were New World, India, or Africa. Frankly, we thought the New World civs were the most exciting. Don’t waste your time flaming us about how they were stone-age savages. All you do is show your ignorance. Go read a book or something. We knew that the Aztecs were cool, had name recognition, and were defeated by a concatenation of lucky flukes. Maybe we’ll do India and Africa another day.”
uhm… are those his exact words? or are you paraphrasing a little bit? 
Those are his exact words. You can check the link if you want.
In a historically accurate game, Mongols would get a giant horde of free cav archers. But of course, that is better than having MesoAmericans in the game