Bruh
There are plenty of powerful African and South-east Asian nations. And even if they were insignificant, every civilization has had uniqueness and innovation.
2 Likes
You didn’t read what I wrote.
Cool than how does your documentary explain why the Holy Roman Empire as the worst knights in the game?
Which is why the fact that HRE has the worst knights in the game is under constant criticism.
I feel like we are having the same discussion here as we had yesterday in the other topic.
We can make a documentary about any local history. Nowhere did Relic say they chose the factions available because all their choices were “the strongest civs”.
Its almost as if there are very specific conditions that make or break wars. If a small nations is able to resist and win a war against a “stronger” enemy. By all means that’s just history. Literally every war in history was dictated by local politics, economy, morale, etc.
What do you even mean by “truly win”?
There is no instance in history where nations just bashed forces together while completely ignoring economics, politics, and geography. That is simply not how war works.
1 Like
In that case you would have a two class system, where native Americans only compete with other native Americans. I’d say that the developers are attempting to balance each and every faction against the others, which rules out the possibility of adding Native Americans without throwing overboard realism.
Thats perfectly fine for their campaign. I expect it to be about local history and politics.
As for multiplayer? A lot of the current factions never fought each other either. Let people go wild.
Multiplayer isn’t really about realism. Its about using the unique tools a faction provides to compete with your enemies. The music, architecure, and units also play a factor in entertaining people when they play a faction as well. All of which most factions people suggest can have.
Its about using those tools to defeat your enemy with skill. As simple as that.
1 Like
Total War is very different game and is constrained by map. They started to add those factions when most important ones were already in game. What’s more TW community wasn’t happy with that. Pontus meme is still alive.
There was limited number of factions you could add to this game. Japan is not that big. TW is very bad comparison.
In the end everything can be balanced by numbers. I find general concept very interesting and unique.
As for multiplayer? A lot of the current factions never fought each other either. Let people go wild.
Modern-day Russia and China also never fought each other, but that doesn’t mean that people are unable to recognize that these are in the same category in terms of military power, while Angola is not.
Im a total war player myself and I love the diversity of the game.
Pretty much all of the factions mentioned have their own fun campaign as well which keeps things really interesting. (basegame factions get boring pretty fast)
You can also just play them multiplayer (though with varying results). Some factions are just less competitively viable when compare to other factions. But thats a matter of balance that is the dev’s problem. I only care about unique and fun experiences.
Pontus was one of the important powers at the time period. People were raged because Rome 2 had a terrible release and put something as basic as the Greeks (which were fully implemented at the release and are not even unique enough to justify a DLC) behind a DLC.
1 Like
I do not care about how realistic matchups are in multiplayer. Its multiplayer, im playing to out-skill an opponent or just have fun messing around. Balance is the dev’s problem.
2 Likes
With all respect, I really get the impression you are not at all reading my replies to your previous posts. ‘Balancing’ between Native Americans and any of the existing factions would clash with the realism of the documentary style approach.
1 Like
I want my factions in multiplayer to be historicaly believable inside constraints of the game.
Thank you very much.
2 Likes
Well we have different goals then and we will disagree.
Imo: keep campaigns as realistic as possible.
Make multiplayer fun, fair, and interesting.
4 Likes
You are dead wrong man I’m an undergraduate student in History and we worked on the Aztecs specifically on the Tzompantli. What we learnt in the recent years with the discovery of the Huey Tzompantli is that even if it was exagerrated aztecs did really sacifice a lot of people. Slaves, captives and chosen ones. The spanish exagerated the numbers but we must recognize with the recent discoveries that cortez and his men said the truth when they told that they sacrificed many people. Many historians and archeologists defended the fact that it was medieval european exagerating the reality in their sources. However the recent discovery of the tzompantli of tenochtitlan which many thought it was a myth show us that there is a barabaric and real truth about sacrifices.
1 Like
I wrote a concept for the Aztecs that includes their culture of sacrifice in a way that I think makes sense for gameplay and is still in line with a 12 year rating.
They collect kill bounty like the Rus but for killing enemy units.
That is not exactly what they did. They took captives to sacrifice them but that mechanic would be hard to implement and be problematic for the age rating.
3 Likes
In aoe3 they have the xp bonus when they kill units/building, tbh in an AoM2 game, aztek could gather their favor like norse did in AoM ^^
Anyway i prefere an Aztek like civ a way more than the other native thread (which don’t make that much sens in term of time frame), but i am strongly (like strongly strongly) disagree with the ability to build over water, it’s seem just absolutly impossbile to balance this kind of mecha.
I like some idea (mostly in the military section) but somes sound super weird :
Fast and heavily armored? like a super buffy MAA? not sure about that.
No pls no, longbow is enough annoying to deal with, don’t make a bow with more range ^^. Or i don’t understand the purpose of this unit.
And how aztek will deal with defensive structure like stone wall and castle?
1 Like
Why not do it like Total War? They simply combine them under a catchy name.
Who are Anteans, Venedians, Sclavenians? A yes they are Slavic.
Who are Danes, Geats ,Jutes ? A yes they are Viking Forefathers.
Lol, tell that to all the vils I deleted over the years once pop-capped… all those little souls could have found another use as a stereotypical sacrifice to the gods ^^
Reminds me of “Theocracy”. But that would also involve magic, so maybe it is something that would fit better into another AOM (one can dream).
1 Like
A better way to describe the military that I have set up for the basic units is that the weapons listed (tepoztopilli, macuahuitl, and tlahuitolli) are more intended to be visual indicators, but I think giving each of them an expensive upgrade named after their namesake weapon to give utility to these units that others in their class don’t have is important, as they’d lack the last tier of Blacksmith upgrades.
In the case of the Archer, giving it the Tlahuitolli as an upgrade to its range would be interesting and historical. Tlahuitolli were bows that could reach 6 feet in length. People of the time familiar with these bows and the English longbow stated that the tlahuitolli likely had more range than the longbow.
It’s more just about fun little nods to things that may or may not have been real, but we don’t really have a finite way of knowing for sure.
Very fast, heavily armored, low attack. The last part didn’t copy/paste. The idea would be they’d be ideal for chasing down cavalry units and slowing them until other units could catch up, while being tanky enough to not die on their own, but they wouldn’t be enough to kill a regiment of cavalry on their own.
@CommendedOwl62 , if you are really aganist adding ‘inferior stone age’ civs , then create your own topic instead of taking this topic elsewhere .
1 Like