Yes, those are his exact words
3 Likes
The maize thing is just wrong though. It was mesoamericans who selectively bred it to what it is today, a process that started thousands of years ago. It used to look like grass. You don’t even need to dig into the science to find it, some basic searches will show it did not look that different at all to maize today. Here is the Aztec maize goddess Chicomecoatl holding corn.
“…architecture, art, music, war craftsmanship, administration of a large state, education, cultural achievements, writing, language, diplomacy”, the Aztecs had all of this. I also wouldn’t discount the potato and maize crops either as having a major impact. They fed European nations which allowed their populations to boom. Disregarding this there are a host of other reasons to include them and/or other American civs. Honestly, it would make the game more interesting on a strategic level and live up to the asymmetric vibe they are going for. I mean who wouldn’t want to build cities like this in the game?
6 Likes
Amazing drawings, where did you find them?
1 Like
They are from the late Gentling brothers (Stuart and Scott), they did a lot of research and work with historians and archeologists. The Aztecs were a major focus of their work.
1 Like
Seems like you are forgetting that those people have absolutely nothing to do with AoE4
1 Like
You may be right that Ensemble is no longer involved, but I would bet money that Relic and World’s Edge agree with him in principle. There’s just too many good reasons to add them - they’re incredibly unique both visually and gameplay-wise (infantry-only, human sacrifice, maybe ranking up troops in battle), they’re recognizable and fairly popular (hell, Medieval 2 added South America to the map for no other reason than to have them), and they give North America some representation.
Frankly, I’d be shocked if they weren’t added within the first couple expansion packs once glaring holes like the Byzantines are filled.
facts and facts, agreed in all u said
adding a civ for the sake of adding them is not a good reason to add them
4 Likes
The devs wanted asymetrical civs, not adding mesocivs was a huge loss
3 Likes
It makes a lot of sense.
1- They only made 8 civs, and wanted ALL of them to fit their 4 starting campaigns.
2- They want their wargame to be “a trusted source of History” so they do not want to have to give fantasy stats to a civ, just so they could stand against the Old World civs.
3- With only 8 civs, they really had to add crucial ones for the Middle Ages, and there are DOZENS of crucial ones still missing, for the time period, none of which are Native American.
If they added 1 Nat-Am civ on game release, it would stand out negatively, as it would be campaignless by force, and would have to be extremely asymmetric to have a chance to win.
Not to mention it would go against the entire core audience for this game: Medievalists.
8 Likes
So you assume the ENTIRE core of AOE audience are medievalists, and also believe adding a civ like Aztecs would “stand out nagatively” ? idk, seems like overexaggerating.
Okay, I think you’re overestimating the importance of quotes about ‘realism’ - to me, that reads much more as talking about the accuracy of things like campaign descriptions or the look of buildings and soldiers.
Because let’s be real - AoE has never really been accurate in the way it depicts warfare. Spearmen get dumpstered by swordsmen for gameplay reasons, archers conveniently forget their armor at home to make things fair in melee and can run around kiting enemies, a Teutonic Knight puts a bucket on his head and becomes a melee god while Huskarls somehow become arrow-immune due to a wooden shield (all while a Champion in full plate is vulnerable to both). Oh, and converting monks still exist.
I definitely think the Aztecs could probably be made more Goth-like and made to rely on higher numbers than normal, especially later in the game, but if it becomes a question of strict realism vs gameplay concerns they’ll choose the latter every time - they’ve already made changes like faster arrow firing and ship turning for those exact reasons.
As for importance, while the Aztec’s impact on the medieval world wasn’t as direct as, say, the Byzantines (who I agree should be added first, along with other mainstays like the Turks, Vikings and Japanese), they were a major player in their part of the world and could be used to represent a number of different tribes in the area when the developers inevitably add a Conquest of the Americas campaign. Plus they’re both highly recognizable and unique, and the devs have made it clear those are important factors for any civ they want to add.
6 Likes
facts, the devs meant historically accurate and realistic in terms of history and campaings, not gameplay
1 Like
do you have the quote?
Why would they do that?
No need for American/Oceanian civs.
4 Likes
I may have worded it a bit wrong - they lowered the lag between selecting a target and archers firing, since testers felt it made those archers feel a bit hard to micro.
Why not buddy? because you don’t feel they are needed? while a LOT of other people do?
1 Like
4 Likes
We could use some campaign fodder civs, so there is no need to balance them
3 Likes