The Olmecs only existed until 400 BC and does not fit the chronology of AOE IV at all. Now, the Mayans, Zapotecs and Toltecs existed during the Middle Ages. The Aztecs and Incas enter this medieval era, but to be more precise, in Mesoamerica, Maya, Zapotec and Toltec (which I find more difficult to add, given the little knowledge we have about this people), and in South America, the Wari, Tiwanaku (taipikala), Moche or Nazca (all these too, as little known as the Olmecs). As the AOE team, after the AOE III DE, managed to do a good job with the Incas, and as Warchiefs created an Aztec civilization, not so magnificent, but which encompassed important aspects of Aztec culture, I think they could indeed enter into a DLC that included the Spaniards, and took advantage of the Abbasids, to generate a beautiful campaign that ranged from the Iberian reconquest to the conquest of the Americas… It could also contain the conquests of the territories of the Aztec and Inca empires, through great statesmen such as Itzcoatl, Montezuma I, Ahuitzotl, Montezuma II, and statesman heroes like the king, architect, philosopher, and poet Nezahualcoyotl, for the Aztecs, or, for the Incas, of great statesmen and conquerors like Pachacuti, Tupac Yupanqui, and heroes, like Coari Coricoca, Otorongo Achachi… But for campaigns involving these peoples, we would need other Mesoamerican and South American civilizations to interact, which would take a lot of time and research. We would need for AOE IV: Totonacas, Tlaxcaltecs, Mayans, and Mixtecs, or Mixteco-Zapotecs at the very least, to interact with the Aztecs, and we would need glues, chankas (which could include the wankas), chimu, chachapoyas, cañaris, and quitucaras at the very least, to get an idea of a good campaign with the Incas. I think that would be practically impossible, and we’d better be content with Spaniards, Aztecs and Incas, maybe an addition of Mayans and Toltecs, who knows, if the game is really successful, Huari.
Did you read what I said? I said Olmecs would make a great civilization for Age of Empires 1, even though they had no contact with the Old World yet.
What a garbage opinion. What if I would say that to the faction you like? That wouldn’t be very nice.
The absence of Aztecs was one of the reason I cancelled my preorder of AOE4 and wait for the first release. If they can’t even keep their promise having a wide variety of civs which asymmetry of factions implies, then their promise that their game is great is also on shaky legs.
I, too, have not seen enough interesting civ design and asymmetry in the publicly revealed info to be confident aoe4’s civ design will hold my interest. Good civ design is deal-breaker stuff for me.
Aztecs could be added with Spain as future dlc, but they don’t make a lot of since at launch, so lets just hope that it will be a great game, so they keep supporting it and adding new civs and stuffs to the game.
Sorry, I didn’t read that it was written 1, in front of Age of Empires, because I didn’t imagine a discussion about AOE 1 here. It was my distraction.
NP it happens. 
Forums get convoluted to read sometimes. It’s the nature of things here.
I don’t disagree with you though but maybe a little on the point of contact. Which was my point. I just don’t care about historical contact and connection.
Why does this realistic point matter here when we’re able to play Chinese in Germany fighting against Arab states? I mean I’m the one advocating for Historical Accuracy on the forums, but only where the game can be a game or not. When it comes to “the civ can’t be added unless it’s in the web of historical contact” doesn’t matter to me, even me being an IMMERSION first player that loves historical respect.
I just don’t find this as a point of immersion personally.
Loooooove this !!! 
I really really hope they will take inspiration on that 
It would be fun to have a civ designed around this but I’m not sure the aztecs are the right thematic fit.
Also a lot of the discussion in this thread is heavily focusing on the first time American people had to deal with a cavalry charge in the battle of Otumba and are ignoring the success groups that weren’t the Aztec triple alliance had after the Spanish arrival. The Spanish and their allies were defeated by the Inca empire in the battle of ollantaytambo due to effective use of terrain to counter the power of the Spanish cavalry. The Tlaxcalans who helped the Spanish fight the Aztecs were given concessions, allowing them to rule themselves to an extent, carry guns, and ride horses remained at least nominally independent until the Mexican war of independence.
I couldn’t find a lot of sources for how much independence the Tlaxcans had nor what their political structure was like during the colonial era but they show that Mesoamerican elites in at least one instance were able to achieve continued independence and victory over a long standing enemy by leveraging European military support.
It would make sense to give them strong early game defensive options followed by cheap units in the midgame, and some kind of trade/alliance mechanic to supplement their late game armies with powerful units and siege weapons.
An alternative candidate American civ would be the Mapuche. A group that was loosely culturally connected but managed to resist an Inca invasion before the falling to Spanish conquest. At the end of the 1500s they successfully rebelled against Spanish rule and remained independent until they were conquered by Chile in the late 1800s.
I wonder if the Spanish would have conquered the Aztecs so easily if NINETY FIVE PERCENT OF THEM hadn’t just been killed by a plague. Disease conquered America, not Europeans. If it weren’t for the plague the Americans would have been fine.
The campaigns are historical, but to me AOE has always been an “alternative history” game. It’s like Death Battle but instead of Goku vs. Superman it’s Goths vs. Kamakura Japan. That’s why AoE3 had Ottomans and China colonizing America.
@DeepDish42
Spaniards created alliance with natives against aztecs, a few ships of them couldnt win vs thousands of natives alone.
At least Spaniards taked plagues to America without knowing their consequences, it wasnt on purpose
It’s a good point of view when you can actually play with the Incas in Europe, or with African civilizations in the Far East.
Yes I love this idea. If they could also have bonus vs villagers and the ability to settle in the ruins of dead players would be cool too.
Ok I looked it up - for the Aztecs it wasn’t 95%, it was ~40%. But still, when that many people have just died and most of the remaining are suffering from grief/famine/disease, there’s not a lot of will to fight.
My point is that the military power difference between the two is not really well attested by the Spanish conquest. The Aztecs put up a good fight despite being so desolated to begin with. And especially when compared to pre-gunpowder old world militaries I think they would have done alright.
This is not a good idea. Aztec technology is not advanced. It’s exaggerated to easily fight the gunpowder civilization in the game. Like some American civilizations in aoe3de, they can easily defeat many guns and cannons civilizations. I don’t like this setting, which is contrary to common sense…
Like the AoE3 Consulate ?
In AoE3 aztecs are the weakest civ despite the boost that they have get with patches. In the original game it was worse, a full army of skirmishers killed all your kind of units.
If they add american natives they have to give them that bonus to keep a fight against more advance technology for balance purpose. At the end we want a balanced and funny game where every civ would win against any other.
Man at Arms - Reforged… the cringe intensifies 
I won’t comment on aoe3de because I don’t have enough experince with it but on the technological gap: early gunpowder was a lot less impactfull than modern intuition leads us to believe.
There’s a few big problems:
- Low rate of fire. This makes charging gunpowder troops to engage them in close quarters combat effective. Ambushes are also viable
- Inaccuracy making them most effective at short ranges which is why early gunpowder armies were mostly pike and shot
- Requires complex logistics. This was less impactful as armies were usually able to carry or be resupplied with munitions as they were required but running out of gunpowder and bullets did occasionally happen.
I’d argue that it would have been much more difficult for mesoamericans to fight heavy cavalry (which is still relevant in aoe4) as their weapons were largely ineffective vs steel armor and they had no experience countering cavalry charges.
Even with the technological disadvantages American aboriginals had the Spanish found conquering and holding a few regions in the Americas difficult as aboriginals quickly adopted their military technology, horses, and traded for firearms.
In the case of the aztecs it would be slightly non historical as the triple alliance fell quickly after the arrival of the spanish but other groups allied with the spanish forming the spanish cavalry + Aztec infantry combination that conquered most of mesoamerica.
Its also worth noting that the rest of age of empires is not balanced around historical accuracy the Mongols in aoe2 are not unbeatable in the castle age and in aoe3 European civs aren’t intentionally overpowered. These gaps are admitably less extreme than the tech gap between meso and eurasian-African civs
Sorry, I’m a little overly passionate about history haha.
Similar yes, if I remeber correctly it’s basically a military building that produces special mercenary units that cost only gold?
I think it would be most interesting if there were a few different pathways.
- Trade pathway: High gold costs on late game units which can only be built after you establish a trade relationship which could be as simple as researching a market technology
- Adoption pathway: expensive techs to unlock stables, heavy units and siege.
- Alliance pathway: periodically you get a shipment of cannons, hand canoneers, and heavy cavalry.