Keep in mind I don’t know jackshit about AoE2, I find its civ design too dull and boring and extremely limiting to even bother making a hypothetical Native civ for, but if you would like, I could always link my ideas for Native civs for AoE4 and AoM.
2 Likes
Mobile version of this site sucks, sorry if this doesn’t work. There’s some sources you’ll find interesting.
I’d definitely be interested in them. 
I talked about you because ideas from 4 can still be used on 2. Thanks for answering 
I’m open for any civs as long as they also fit the Castle and Imperial Age concepts and wouldn’t need to be awkwardly forced in as it was the case with the meso civs lacking cavalry.
Logic never was this game’s biggest strength as it shouldn’t be, yet:
my brain keeps me from accepting naked archers or poison dart units to be on par with Paladins
2 Likes
Tell your brain to have some fun lol
Also archers from mesoamerica coulf be in practive as good as old world archers
1 Like
Slingers destroy the walking tanks that are Tuetonic Knights by throwing small stones. Game balance has to take priority over complete realism.
And it already does, more than enough so. That’s what I said.
And you made a very dumb comparison to say that because archers on the new world are just as good as old world archers.
1 Like
Some points that I can highlight:
-
Let’s be honest, AoE 2 was planned to focus on medieval European history, remember that it was a game from the late 90’s where historical information could not be accessed as easily as today (I even saw in a documentary that AoE 2 developers used children’s history books to draw inspiration from the development of civilizations.)
-
The inclusion of Medieval America (which was a hit in my opinion) was primarily a prelude to AoE 3 (including the Aztecs against Spanish as a gunpowder civilization was to promote AoE 3 focused on the Age of Discovery and colonialism), it is more than obvious that Microsoft planned to abandon the AoE 2 franchise and focus entirely on AoE 3 without imagining that AoE 2 would stand the test of time.
-
I’m not saying this to offend, but you can see that many people do not know in detail the history of pre-Columbian America, many people say such generic things that they imply that they believe that an organized empire is on the same level as a group of tribal organizations , which in addition to being offensive also sounds racist (sorry if it is redundant).
-
Many times they use the concept of Native Americans as an excuse to express anti-Hispanicism (as if some other country in Europe would have been better or worse than the Spanish if they had come to the new world earlier …)
-
It is obvious that AoE 2 has many historical inconsistencies (remember that in the 90’s technology and information was very limited), however, it is absurd to use those historical inconsistencies as a justification to add more (and worse) historical inconsistencies, now you have better access to information and technology than 20 years ago.
-
Being against the inclusion of a new civilization that does not fit with the medieval concept of AoE 2 is not an act of discrimination, it is an act of affection for the original concept of the game.
-
Remember that each of us have a “pre-established concept of American civilizations” due to our own culture and history and it is often difficult to be impartial, I know that for many it is difficult to see the difference between “requesting to add new content that will help AoE” and "request fan-service ".
-
Whether intentional or not, the difference between AoE 2 and AoE 3 has functioned as a “barrier” between “pre-Columbian America” and “the new world”, and that is why I consider that the great pre-Columbian American empires and kingdoms fit into AoE 2 , there is a lot to choose from (and not to mention that Native American civilizations were the least chosen in AoE 3)
-
Remember that you can be inclusive but without being exclusive, I know that everyone has their personal tastes and opinions, but being specific, request to add an American tribal organization as a new civilization in a medieval game (breaking the logic of the game and adding even more historical inconsistencies) with the sole argument of “inclusion”, ironically, it is being exclusive with American civilizations that achieved great social and technological development (which fit with the medieval game concept and influenced world history in a direct or indirect way) . Basically, instead of supporting America in AoE 2 what they are really doing is maintaining the stereotypes that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were tribal organizations in the stone age (something like this).
-
Finally, remember that the Native Americans (like all human beings) had a rapid adaptation to the environment, they adapted to European customs in a few years or a few decades. From what I read from some users I get the impression that they think Native Americans are stupid enough not to learn how to ride a horse or know how gunpowder works until after 2 or 3 decades …
2 Likes
In fact the unification of Japan is a historical moment that connects both aoe 2 with aoe 3…Kyoto (1582 with Nobunaga and Hideyoshi),Noryang Point (1598 with Hideyoshi as an enemy) and the Japanese campaign of aoe 3 (1600 with Tokugawa)…the other historical moment would be the siege of Malta in 1565 (which appears at the beginning of Morgan Black’s campaign aka Blood campaign in aoe 3) and the historic battle of Lepanto (1571) of aoe 2…
Yes,the coming of the Huns in aoe 1 ror and Attila’s campaign of aoe 2 the conquerors…
the Italians…and in the east the Byzantines…
I kinda wish there was an AoE game that covered both the time period AoE2 covers and the one AoE3 covers
1 Like
Is everyone here familiar with Vinlandsaga? Where the Vikings meet the Skraelings, including the Iroquis Warrior unit.
1 Like
A great idea on how to choose a civi posted in the aoe4 side of the forum.
You mean the scenario where native north americans are celts? sure.
Well,you could make a campaign of the Tongan king Momo who expanded the Tonga Empire at the beginning of the thirteenth century…and if they were to put the Mapuche (I see them most likely in aoe 3) they could make a campaign of the Mapuche leader Leftaru fighting against Pedro de Valdivia in the mid-sixteenth century (1552-1557)…
2 Likes
Well they could put the Samoans as Malays no?..
Are they related somehow? you could also say malays can stand in for tonga too.