Yes, but I was not calling the Aztecs, or anyone else for that matter, an ‘inferior stone age civ’.
The Spanish versus the Aztecs was as if an army from the future suddenly arrived and started to fight the present. It wasn’t a fair fight at all.
It was as if you would use a time machine to send an army of heavily armed French cavalry back to the time of Mesopotamia. Mesopotamians would be outmatched, just like the French cavalry would be if an army of Soviet tanks or a bunch of Turks using WW1 equipment would suddenly arrive to join the party.
You can then attempt to include the Mesopotamians in the game in the name of ‘asymmetric warfare’, but I think this would not come across well, because there really wouldn’t be much that the Mesopotamians could do.
There are a lot of civs that need to be added to the game. South Indians, Byzantines, Turks, Japanese, Polish…
None of these civs would need to engage in asymmetric warfare using sticks and stones in order to have a chance.
Therefore I think Native Americans should not be added to the game. (My opinion of course)
I wasn’t saying that Aztecs should do Asymmetric warfare against the other civilisations.
Even thought that would be very well possible. A lot of other Native Americans in both North and South America did that very well into the 19th century.
One main problem is that the Aztecs or any Native Americans didn’t fight any Europeans until “Imperial Age”.
But Chinese never fought Europeans. Chinese Weapons weren’t designed the fight European style armour and European style armour wasn’t designed around Chinese weapons and the other way round.
Native Americans never saw a horse before the Imperial Age but in a multiplayer setting they would already encounter them in Dark or at last Feudal Age (so like 500 years before they actually did).
So we have to balance them around that scenario somehow.
Horses were probably the biggest problems the natives had.
The Spanish usually didn’t use heavy plate armour and even back in Europe it was getting out of fashion anyway.
Even within the short time the Spanish took to conquer Mexico the Aztecs learned to counter crossbows and arquebus, they figured out how long they take to reload and what range they had. But at that point the Spanish had so many native allies that the Aztecs had to fight against equal numbers.
In North America you can see the same. When they got into a fight with the Natives there they didn’t know how to fight horses. They tried using bows against them.
So I think it’s reasonable to add a similar effect to the ones the camels have to normal cavalry (reducing the damage of native units nearby) in the campaign to symbolize the effect they had.
But in a multiplayer match you kinda have two civilisations developing next to each other for 500 years.
And as I said. Even an Elves with Unicorns DLC wouldn’t ruin the game. People can put things into perspective.
People liked the Aztecs in AoE2 and AoE3 so they expect them in AoE4. It is very likely that they will come.
So let’s talk about how we should implement them into the game so we don’t have silly things like Aztec Champions with full plate armour or Mayan crossbows like AoE2 did or Obsidian sword infantry that counters pikeman like in AoE3.
1 Like
Tbh most games assume factions rarely change their weaponry or tactics anytime anywhere. In reality, European knights didn’t always stick to heavy chain mails and garments in middle east deserts, Anglo-Normans discarded their heavier units and preferred ponies and light cavalry in the bogs of Ireland, Spanish conquistadors also used mesoamerican-styled cotton armour, Napoleon recruited mameluks and camels. There are infinite examples like that.
If the Aztecs or Mayans really faced medieval European-style fortification they may be at a loss in the first few attempts but would eventually evolve to deal with it (not to mention there were large stone walls in mesoamerica). Just like how native American peoples that lasted longer and interacted more with Europeans learned to deal with and even adopt themselves gunpowder and horses.
So if the game really wishes to go to that level of “what if”, all those discrepancies can be handled. And I don’t really think that kind of “what if” is any more fantastical than “civilizations never adapt to different conditions and enemies but only evolve on their own”.
2 Likes
Ouch. To be frank, I’ve only ever flagged about 4 of CommendedOwl’s posts. I ignored him when the thread about 50% European Civs or whatever was locked by the mods and I haven’t flagged a single post of his since, because I do not see them.
I think it better to just ignore him and not engage. He only ever partakes in bad-faith arguments with no interest in learning or actual discussion.
That aside, I really like Skadi’s concept of the units gaining a small boost whenever they kill an enemy, although I think it might be better to tie it to a Priest unit. IE if a “High Priest” is nearby and the Teocalli units kill a unit, all units within the aura of the High Priest get a small utility boost for a few seconds. Best if it’s a speed boost or an empowerment to Teocalli slow attacks. Raw stats aren’t any fun, and these would give the player a fun micro skill to learn.
1 Like
Keep in mind that AoE4 civs also have diffrent music and evolving language as you age up . I think these would be hard to do for some civs.
Your flagging says otherwise .
That was an exaggeration , sorry
I am not flagging his posts. I am not even opening them. It is not worth my time to engage with him.
If he is mad about me flagging him then his anger is unjustified. I am not flagging anything he posts.
Music would be interesting to look at. Language evolving as it goes might be a tad difficult, but it also might not be. There’s plenty of old Lakota that’s known as well.
1 Like