but 200 years to where?..it would end up distorting aoe 2, which is supposed to be a medieval game…you can not set aoe 2 in the third century or in the eighteenth century,since that is what the other two games are not for?..
Yes,but while the kingdom of Kongo was created in 1385,it began to be important in the following centuries…its wars against the Portuguese in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries until conquered by the Portuguese in 1857…I see it more as civ for the AoE 3…I would put Zimbabwe or the Bantus proper…
Maybe Empire Earth or Rise of Nations?
I can’t believe I’m checking out an AoE2 post, but it’s related to the Americas, so I might as well…
Aztec bows - the tlahuitolli - were larger than English longbows, and primarily used arrows with obsidian tips meant to explode and maim with shrapnel. To be frank, a majority of Aztec weaponry was designed this way, and the Spaniards learned the hard way that giving the obsidian weaponry something to easily shatter against was a quick route to a very painful death. They did not keep their plate armor for long after reaching the new world, especially once they figured out that ichcahuipilli - Aztec armor - was easily more reliably effective against atlatl darts, arrows, bolts, and - to an extent - musketfire than their own plate and chainmail + gambeson was, while simultaneously being lighter and cooler in the jungle.
A slingstone can bust a skull from 200 yards and dent plate mail more effectively than the muskets of the time. On top of that, Aztec slingstones were often imbedded with obsidian shards to, again, cause shrapnel explosions and heavily maim the target. Plate mail is an excellent material with which to shatter high-velocity obsidian against.
Not much else to say, but I saw these two specific points I wanted to throw some clarification into.
5 Likes
Of course,but I mean if they put the Polynesians and another civ that they did not put yet;for example Bantus or Mapuches…
Woops, forgot to add some stuff - Atlatl darts were capable of piercing plate armor, but were far less reliable about piercing ichcahuipilli.
Also, please refrain from saying …naked archers… or any sort of naked unit when it comes to Native Americans. Natives had armor. Europeans preferred to record that they fought naked to push the savage stereotype and dehumanize them to gain support for genocide and eradication.
7 Likes
Europeans always tried to show anyone none european was some barbarian under developed nation regardless its americans africa or asia.
2 Likes
You are absolutely correct, but I am referring specifically to the Americans because this topic (and more specifically, my contributions) are specifically about the Americas.
1 Like
They were until DE 
Made me remember this
There is also the detail that for the Incas the slings were a “privileged” weapon, they preferred them to the bows (which were more used by the soldiers of the jungle), there were different types and sizes of slings, in the book. 1491: New Revelations from the Americas Before Columbus, writer Charles C. Mann quoted a conqueror as saying that an Inca sling “could break a sword into two pieces” and “kill a horse” (some slings measured up to 2.2 meters long (7.2 feet) and weighed about 410 grams).
In addition, the Incas also had the “fire slings”, which were also used for the siege, the enemy soldiers hit by the projectiles of these slings were engulfed in fire.
It would be interesting to transform the slinger into a “regional unit” and for the Incas to have the upgrade of “Fire sling” (stronger and bonus against buildings) that is capable of launching fire projectiles (similar to AoE 3)
1 Like
They change it to whom?
Denting plate mail and helmets are exactly what prevents them from busting skulls. That’s the purpose of the armor.
The obsidian shrapnel is an interesting fact. Wouldn’t want that making it through eye slits, or working its way into chainmail. Explosions without gunpowder are underwhelming. I still think the majority of it would be prevented by platemail and gambeson, or even a shield.
It’s just like modern firearms, hollow points are devastating to an unarmored target because they shatter into shrapnel, but they’re also the least likely to make it through a vest.
I’m not saying the conquistadors were perfectly equipped to deal with these weapons, but in general the European technology like steel is going to come out ahead of obsidian.
Oh, I mean they changed it from Woad Raiders to Iroquis Warriors. I’m not actually sure which civilization is used, but at least it’s not Celt units anymore. And the point was more that within AoE2 there are already battles between European civs and Native North Americans. I’m not sure why people seem to think it’s anachronistic or otherwise impossible.
Its impossible because we dont have any records from that era from the natives side.obviously you can make up a scenario like the movie pathfinder.
A campaign could be difficult. A civilization is certainly doable. We know enough about technologies , weapons, architecture, etc.
Wonder and leader names could be an issue tho.
I would expect a longhouse and a campaign about the founding of the Iroquois leagur
1 Like
I… I literally made a point about plate armor and how atlatl darts were known to be effective at piercing plate armor.
As for the shrapnel, the point of that is that it was highly effective at going straight for a person’s throat and legs and arms. Again, they were weapons made with the primary intent to main rather than kill. Spanish cuirasses of the time weren’t huge on covering the neck or arms, especially for the forces of the conquistadors, because they were protecting you from direct hits to the chest and head, which weren’t even the main targets of the Aztecs in the first place. Armor made by the Aztecs themselves were more effective at blocking their own weaponry than what the Spanish brought over.
Fair enough, I don’t mean to debate that Aztecs were able to inflict damage to conquistadors. It’s likely that they were able to catch the Spanish off-guard with weapons and tactics that had never been seen before, and therefore armor was not designed to protect. My point was that a slinger would have a hard time killing a Teutonic Knight. Hard to prove that one either way, so I won’t debate it further. I’m a little skeptical about the Atlatl example, if the darts were made from wood or stone then that would only be possible if the hardened steel plate had some significant flaws. (too thin, poorly tempered, etc.) Doesn’t really matter anyway I think we can agree the current system makes sense for game balance, as Incas need an anti-infantry unit and they don’t have hand cannoneers or horses.
http://staff.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TheAtlatlWeapon-Keddie-RBCM-Note-24-1988.pdf
http://www.swordforum.com/vb4/showthread.php?44287-Atl-atl-vs-plate-armor
There’s a fair bit of discussion in the latter post, but the ultimate consensus points towards the Aztec atlatls being more than capable of piercing Spanish plate of the time.
As for slingers… well, the point of a slingstone isn’t to kill when it comes to heavily armored targets. The point is to incapacitate from a range and make them easier in melee more than anything. That Teutonic Knight isn’t going to be much use in combat when he finally gets into range after suffering multiple concussions and getting his armor bent so badly he can’t move an arm without injuring himself.
2 Likes