What exactly is the point of the forum, if any discussion is impossible? What is controversial, something somebody doesn’t like?
Could you explain why did you remove my post that did not contain anything breaking forum rules, just because somebody didn’t like it? How exactly isn’t that censorship?
You deleted my posts as an off-topic one, while it was a direct reply about the topic of the thread, unit in question. I’ve explained, without any profanities and or other forms of rule-breaking forms, in detail the reason why I do not agree with the need for a change of that unit’s name. It’s simply a mistake on the moderaiton side, easily proven for anyone that can read with comprehension.
Reason or decency is not reserved for people with a couple of pixels of a badge next to their name and I don’t see a reason to not express my opinion about what is being written here.
You seem to be reviewing this thread, and as I’ve said- deleted lengthy post on topic as ‘offtopic’, while insulting the creators and their work doesn’t seem to bother you.
I didn’t express any frustration, I presented detailed explanations. So be so kind and do not delete substantive content and focus on frustrations on the forum.
It’s not an inaccuracy. That unit is not named wrongly. The demand is to expand, lengthen the unit name at the same time removing the basic description of that unit type ‘rider’, which doesn’t help anything gameplay-wise, and makes it slightly harder to quickly asses in the heat of the battle what is that unit.
It is a unique name, but before uniqueness the more important factor is simplicity, and since there are o other cavalry units- this full unit name could be added as part of the description, flavor text.
Shorthands like that are present everywhere, not only among minor civs and native tribes, but all major civ, including poster boys like Brits or French. Treating a game like historical dictionary is bad idea on many levels, and these numerous reasons were taken into account when designing all AoE games. AoE3 have been pushing the boundaries when it comes to bombardment newcomers with sheer amount of unique terminology, alternative technology via shipment cards, or an overwhelming amount of distinctive units.
Having units be branded with their class-type is simply a crutch for people learning the game, or ones with less time or worse memory/not interested in memorizing all these unique concepts.
This is a video game. Not a history book. Not a school teaching aid. And gameplay design and game balance come first, and for various practical reasons from a need for a specific unit archetype not present in history, to simply lack of time/budget/knowledgeable consultants specialized in certain subjects (often of secondary or tertiary importance) it’s more than OK to create units to just fit the design requirements.
From the first game to AoE IV, historical accuracy was and will remain out of the question in regard to the vast majority of content. Historical themes are a coating and flavor of a game, adjusted and tailored to it. Not the other way around.
I would very strongly recommend you reconsider the words you’re using to describe the work done by game creators. Now and in the past.
Again- this is entertainment, and none of the core staff in dev studios was, is, and most likely will be required to be a professional scholar in the field that happens to be a subject of video game that is being made at that moment.
It’s all made up, it’s all symbolism, simplifications, heavily reductionist translation of the spirit of a certain time, into a real-time strategy video game meant to be at best- inspiration to seek knowledge on your own if touched countries, regions, or mentioned historical event are alluring to the player.
If there is a well-documented, researched military unit that is fitting the time and broader design (and is no less interesting than what’s already here) and can replace a generic archer, spearman, swordman, slinger, skirmisher etc- nothing is stopping anyone from creating a suggestions thread. Heavy, unplanned rework of very old civs is very unlikely, especially in a remaster and not a game in the early access stage, but it might become helpful if presented well.
Making up structures, technologies, units, attacks etc. with just some thematic coating is a standard and a baseline and expected (and good) thing, even in the most historically dedicated game- AoE2, where only 1-2 special civ units were granted unique names. Ease to learn and remember unit roster comes first.
In AoE3 it was inverted, and the amount of unique, not shared special units, and unit variants is staggering compared to all other AoE entries combined.
‘Cheyenne Rider’ tells the story, and until other cavalry units are introduced- there is no need or point in making learning the game (for newcomers and ones that just played AoE3 years ago) ever so slightly harder.
Well, there is a point in your personal (and half of a handful of others that might even think about this) satisfaction, thankfully this plea, along with dozens of other demanding introductions to the game the most obscure or irrelevant things possible, doesn’t matter.
All you do here seems to be nitpicking, complaining, and apparently now- offending people that spent a lot of time and effort creating a video game that covers a fantastic historical period, and focuses on many civilizations, countries, tribes and ethnic groups completely forgotten for centuries and barely present in video games, any games.
I’ve played a lot of strategies and AoE III even in the original form already paid an impressive amount of attention to portraying these things, and with time the amount of content focused on natives in Americas outgrow almost all other games I’ve seen combined. The amount of neutral native settlements present on these maps alone could fit a couple of RTS games. And that’s just a small, extra layer of optional gameplay.
