I suggested an ability for Wittelsbach that could give everyone allied to them access to a Tavern.
But general access to Taverns for the native civs could be seen as insensitive. Alcohol was used to exploit them by getting them drunk before getting them to agree to unfavourable treaties that took away their land. They generally didn’t have a tolerance to it like Europeans did and the stuff they were given was often cut with random chemicals.
Some limited mercenary access could be accomplished by giving them “treaties” to ally with relevant powers like British and French to get access to a few of their mercenaries at the embassy.
Just as much as any other civ hiring mercenaries out of a Tavern honestly.
There’s many instances and cases of non-native people deciding to fight on the side of the natives, either because they were outlaws, immigrants or just people who simply preferred that lifestyle.
Hiring them on a bar out of all places is whack, but that’s also true for any other civilization honestly.
Oh absolutely. For the many years playing AoE3, the whole notion of a modern European civ hiring random professional Mercenaries and how odd that is (is your Commander loitering in the Pub just as a group of Stradiots and Highlanders stroll in and offer their services?) has just ‘normalized’ in my head!
A general Diplomatic Center building (like in the old RTS Cossacks) or Mercenary/Auxillary Garrison or just anything more sensible makes more sense, but hey-ho!
Yep, I agree about insensitivity and would not even entertain the same building, though I’m sure there’s a workaround some where. I do like the idea of Treaties that allow a shipment of Euro nation-linked Mercs (like Harquebusiers/Highlanders for the British treaty, for example). I think whilst Renegade insert generic Euro unit is fine, it’s a bit of a cop-out when every civ (including the Asian civs’ Mercs from Monasteries!) can access this distinct class of units. Why not make some availability to them but with the suffix of ‘Ally’ (much like our there are ‘Repentent’ prefix mercs) and allow them to be aquired via an appropriate building.
Do you remember how Inca was at the launch of the game and how he was extremely broken?
You forgot sweden got nerf almost every patch ?
Mexico is not a euro civ is broken and recive a buff
lakota and hauda got a rework
The only asian civ that didn’t even receive a change of mechanics and didn’t even receive a form of rework was japan.
All Native American, African, and Asian civs have unique aesthetics, unique mechanics, and units with unique appearances.
Older European civs other than Ottoman, Maltese and Italian had generic units, only made the European units more unique in each civ.
Every game that has recurring patches and an active competitive scene has meta changes, this is just one more, stop complaining!
the aoe3 timeframe is the height of imperialism, it is not possible to approach the subject without highlighting euopra, between the 16th and 19th sec they dominated the world.
The game you like is getting new content and being renewed and you’re complaining?
if you don’t like the theme of the game because you think it’s eucentric, look for another franchise game that you like (although they’re also eurocentric)
That would be awesome. I know Aztecs had a merchant class that would have private armies of Mercs from the area.
I’m not knowledgeable on other Native American tribes and their mercenary practices if they did indeed hire Mercs but it would be nice for NAs to get some counterparts to Euro Mercs, even if they were reskinned existing ones that make sense (i.e. of relevent tribes that allied and had essentially soldiers for hire, as well as keeping to what weapons they had).
Like minor native civs? Like outlaws? Having natives as mercenaries doesnt seem to be a good idea. Same happens with europeans ones, not sure when they are from royal houses or mercenary
They get the basic outlaws, Lakota can upgrade them to American outlaws, but none of the native civs has a way to reduce their population which makes it useless for any of them apart from Lakota (which still becomes a problem for them lategame), while they have to spend 700 gold to get access to low tier outlaws in the first place with no benefit whatsoever, so no they don’t really have an option to use mercs/outlaws, the only reason anyone would bother with outlaws is the captured mortar for long range siege.
Yes, since the change from Colonial to more the whole age of enlightment/early modern era the optics have changed significantly too.
Originally it was so Euro-centric that it was obvious what the minor civs were - they were ‘just’ the Native American tribes, and the mercs were all fancy versions of existing Euro units.
Now it’s a little more difficult, especially with Outlaws in the mix as the weird bit inbetween the Merc and Minor Native Civ, er, sandwich.
Having Mercenary version of Native Americans is tricky, especially from my European viewpoint where 1) I may know of one or two (predominently Meso-American) Native civs who did hire (Native) mercs, however I’ve no idea if Woodland/Plains civs did (and I’d certainly would want to not be insensitive and assume) and 2)) how do I tell the difference between a Mercenary native unit and Minor civ unit. It’s the same for Euros with the Royal houses, which is further blurrier as Euros now have limited access to Euro natives.
It’s a difficult one! I’d certainly (maybe more so for new players) welcome some better icongraphy for Outlaws, Mercs, Minor Civs, but that’s not for this topic.
no desert archers for lakota