Design expectations for the North American natives

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Considering we have 9 more civs to choose from, I wouldn’t be surprised if 2 of them are indigenous peoples from North America.

Now, I don’t know which ones they might be, it’s not the point of this post, and I don’t really care either, but

Considering they can’t use horses, and the eagle warrior is already an anti-archer unit that the other no-cav civs use (the Meso), and there are clear design intentions with eagles countering archers and jaguars, slingers, plumes all countering infantry, what are the chances that:

North American native civilizations, if they are implemented in the game, will use a tomahawk warrior as their early scout unit, which has 0 range in dark, 2 range in feudal, 4 range in castle, 6 range in imp, as a ranged infantry unit (that counters infantry), thereby filling the role that the current Meso Unique Units fill in for the no-cav civs, in dealing with infantry, but also not being truly a ranged unit, at least in the early stages of the game, as that would be too OP for drushing/laming. So it’s like a gbeto or a throwing axeman, just with incremental range to ensure it’s not overwhelming in feudal and castle.

And, as a takeaway from that, their UUs will be focused on dealing with archers, if I am to follow aoe3 we might see… a Mantlet maybe? As an UU? For the ones who don’t know what it is:

image
image512×512 121 KB

For one of the civs, and then for the other civ, maybe some sort of unique skirmishers? Like the imperial skirm upgrade of Vietnamese, or the genitour of Berbers?

Also do you think they will get an unique mechanic to “recruit” european units in a certain way, maybe through an unique trade workshop building that lets them train Knights, Hand Cannons and Bombard Cannons for an increased gold cost?

Just a bunch of thoughts, don’t take them too seriously. Playing a bit of a guessing game :smiley:

7 Likes
2

Hey there.
I must admit that I don’t know much about the north american cultures. I am interested to learn about this, but haven’t found time to do so yet.

But I would like to tell some balance thoughts I made at some point when reflecting the meso civs. I think I hit in the same spot there as the TO, @ElizaKolmakov , but my attempt to solve the “issue” goes a different direction.

The main issue with them - in my opinion - is that the eagle is just too much “jack of all traits” unit. There is basically only 1 unit in the entire game to counter them and that has a hard time catching them.
I don’t want to demand changing this unit, but I think it would be benefitial if the devs decide to seek for a multi-unit solution as replacement for cavalry instead of a single one.

My general Idea: Replace the eagle with a more specialised unit. As fast as an eagle but low pierce armor and good bonus damage against cavalry. No bonus vs Monks. The Gold ratio of that unit should be somewhere in between 20 and 40 %. The main purpose of it is countering cavalry and raid if there is unprotected eco to hit. (They are still classified as “eagles” for bonus damage)
I remember somebody somewhere proposed a “falcon warrior” or so, that could be used as basis for the creation of this more specified eagle warrior replacement.
Then these north american civs could get access to light cav from castle age (i know it doesn’t fit the time, but we know that europeans brought horses and several indiginous cultures then used them aswell. The light cav then could be used against monks, skirmishers and for raiding aswell.

Then these civs only would need some better tools against archery as they don’t have access to knights. I would propose 2 unique bonusses to their skirmishers: A) Skirms get extra bonus damage B) Skirms fire faster.

With this done we would have a nice foundation for these civs to work with without the eagle warrior problematic. Especially with the access to ligt cav the civs would also have some lategame trash raiding tool comparable to the other non-meso civs that the mesos are missing.

I know this thought is maybe a bit unrelated to the “reality” but I just think 3 eagle civs are enough and whilst I don’t want to throw away the whole concept of american civs having no or very limited access to cavalry I think replacing a whole stable with only 1 unit is just a bad idea in terms of game balance and diversity. For me games with and against mesos are generally “boring” as they play out so similary and repetitive a lot of the time because of how eagles practically determine a very narrow game continuation with little deviation possible. I hope that if we had that “jack of all traits” thing split up again and restore it to the different utility different stable units have we could get much more interesting and diverse games with the new north american civs.

I think that’s an interesting idea aswell. But I am not sure if this is the best unit for a scout role. Probably this would be a nice UU for one of these civs. One reason why I conclude this is that the meso civs have anti-infantry UUs is because the eagle warrior is countered by the militia line. If an american civ doesn’t has a unit that is classified as an “eagle” they also don’t really need an anti-infantry unit.
So I think that concept is actually better for a UU, but I like it, a more specialised version of the TA or gbeto. In the exchange of being more specialised it could have some more pierce armor to be less vulnerable to archery than these two.

No, i don’t think any of these units should be recruitable, but they can probably get delayed access to the light cav and cav archers. Probably one of them could possibly also get a UU similar to the Conq, but maybe with different specifications. Like higher speed and better rof but less range and damage output. Or a bonus damage vs something. That could be interesting. But I don’t think it makes sense to giv any american civ access to something they definetely never used. That would be very weird.
But they used light armored cavalry at some point (ok way later in history), so in my opinion for the sake of intersting gameplay it would be fine if the game would “cheat” a bit in historic accuracy there.

3

Yes agree completely. And not just for countering archers, American civs need skirmishers that can decisively beat other skirmishers because they do not have the option of Hussars in trash wars, and gold for eagles runs out quickly in 1v1.

3 Likes
4

There are still 2-3 bonuses left for Eagles - Cheaper to train, faster moving and faster attacking. Aztecs have the faster training one but that’s a global bonus with a very small percentage. I won’t mind another one with eagle specific and greater percentage.

Giving these civs Eagle Warrior line will probably be ahistorical but…I think most us just don’t care. The 3 existing eagle civs are already some of the most historically inaccurate civ anyway.

2 Likes
5

Have zero clue why we don’t have these in game already. Ethiopians used to have the 2nd one but removed in the very first patch after African Kingdoms DLC. Currently all 3 American civ has a skirmisher bonus as the Castle age UT. Adding these 2 will definitely fit them.

1 Like
6

Civ Mississippians. Byzantine and Vikings archetype.

Unique tech for “earth works” giving defensive bonus to castles and towers would be cool. Maybe giving all defensive buildings an artificial elevation or two. This would correspond with the huge earth mound cities built in the Mississippi River Valley.

I’d also like to see a “corn farming” unique tech that seriously boosts the farm rate. Then pair it with some high powered skirms and a good spear line their meta would be to have 100+ trash unit armies powered by their powerful farms. Giving them uber farms would be balanced by missing hussar. Then we’d have to decide if they full upgrades on their spear line etc.

It would make them sorta similar to Byzantines in that they have strong defense and trash. The idea would be some solid gold units through castle age but limited gold power units in imperial age. Their imperial age would be comprizlsed of the tomahawk warrior and trash flood. Vikings (beserk, skirm, seige late game) would be similar but viking eco spikes mid game and the Mississippian civ would have the late game eco spike.

Tomahawk warrior would be an infantry unit that runs fast and has small range like a gbeto or axeman. Though I’d like to see them both fast like a gbeto but with less range and more HP.

1 Like
7

My Idea for the Falcon Scout:

Falcon Scout: 25 G , 45 F

Dark Age: Same stats as an Eagle Scout, but no bonus damage vs monks. Also no conversion resistance/increased minimal conversion time.

Feudal Age: Same stats as an Eagle scout except for no bonus damage vs monks. Also no conversion resistance/increased minimal conversion time. Has +2 more extra attack against Cavalry and +1 more extra attack vs camels.

Castle Age: Same stats as an Eagle scout except for no bonus damage vs monks. Also no conversion resistance/increased minimal conversion time. Has +3 more extra attack against Cavalry and +1 more extra attack vs camels.

Falcon Warrior: (200 f/ 200 g / 50 sec upgrade)

55 HP
8 Atk
‘+ 6 vs cavalry’
‘+ 2 vs siege weapon’
‘+ 4 vs camel’
ROF 2
Melee Armor: 1
Pierce Armor: 2
Armor classes: Infantry, Eagle Warrior
Speed: 1.15

Elite Falcon Warrior: (800 f/ 500 g / 50 sec upgrade)

60 HP
10 Atk
‘+ 9 vs cavalry’
‘+ 4 vs siege weapon’
‘+ 5 vs camel’
ROF 2
Melee Armor: 2
Pierce Armor: 2
Armor classes: Infantry, Eagle Warrior
Speed: 1.3

Looking at this, the stat changes actually aren’t that big in comparison to the Eagle. But it makes a big difference: The Falcon is specialised as an anti-cavalry unit. It doesn’t get shredded completely by archers but should try to avoid bigger balls of them. Also the utility against Monks is taken away from the unit. Making it possible to use different unit types to try to counter it than just the militia line.

As I postet above this unit should come with the civs being able to train light cav from castle age. Light cav could be used against monks and as a raiding tool for these native american civs with the falcon warrior - so in the end the falcon replaces the knight or camel line only and not the whole stable.

(Before this question will come up: Yes the falcon is slightliy “superior” to the eagle in feudal as it has extra bonus damage vs cavalry. But this advantage is ofset by the higher food ratio of the falcon, which makes it a bit harder to produce at this stage of the game (where food has actually way higher value than gold).)

2 Likes
8

Let’s talk first, I think even the Iroquois (covering the Skraelings) who are relatively reasonable on the timeline and have relatively sufficient records are quite low priority among potential new civs.

Their unique features will include the Tomahawks and the Mantlets. Here are 2 possible way.

  1. The Tomahawks at the castle and the Mantlets at the siege workshop.
  2. The Tomahawks at the barrack and the Mantlets at the castle.

The Tomahawks may have similar situation to the Throwing Axemen and the Gbetos, so they need the new position and strategic value for their identity. For example, making them cheaper or even cost no gold, lower frame delay, faster rate of fire, lower HP and attack, etc.

The Mantlets may be ranged ram and strengthened skirmisher units, a bit expensive, moving slow, having about 20 pierce armor and throwing the multiple javelins at once to do pierce attack. As anti-archer units, they may have some attack bonus against buildings but more bonus against archer units obviously. Able to garrison some foot units, infantry improve the speed and archers give the additional javelins. They can also be trained by allies if they are not the castle UU.

About Horse Warriors, they can be trained at the stable as the unique American native horsemen. However, the stable is locked until the imperial age so they are only available at that time. They make the American native horsemen different from the regular cavalry units and the Aztec Xolotl Warriors, so the dev can set their ability and quality freely to fit their own civ. This mechanic is also suitable to other Americans like the Mapuches.

Lastly, I would like to introduce the new infantry unit line to replace the eagle line.
Scout Infantry → Light Infantry → Elite Light Infantry, in the feudal/castle/imperial age.
They are still classified as “eagles”, having the high speed and good pierce armor too, but more specific at countering cavalry units rather than archers. (Of course they are not more specialized than the spearmen line at the anti-cavalry work.) Most importantly, they cost no gold for their relatively weak quality so they could be tank units in the late game usefully.

Honestly, I would like to make the eagle of Aztecs, Mayans and Incas replaced by them too.
The stronger regular eagle line who cost gold could become the unique barrack units of Aztecs and maybe get a bit strengthened to make them appear as the difference between the light cavalry and the knight.

.
.
.
I hope the ideas above could be helpful to inspire people and the dev when they are making other civs or updating the existing contents even if the North American civ is regarded impossible.

3 Likes
9

Following. I’m interested and know way too much about North American natives. I don’t play AoE2, but happy to provide information on various nations if wanted.

3 Likes
10

as llong as you’re happy to provide sources. Did the magic wood armor also stop arrows and spears?

11

If you are talking about the Mantlets, clearly they are quite weak against the melee units.

1 Like
12

I would be interested in the often mentioned missisipians as a very “settled” american culture. And in contrast to it one of the originally nomadic cultures. I know that actually most of the north american natives actually were not nomadic and only became nomadic when the europeans occupied their land. So I would be interested in a originally nomadic culture in the game. I wouldn’t like if there was a nomadic culture in the game that was originally settled, that would be weird.

Sounds interesting and very fitting to that civ. This tech could boost farm rate by 20-30 % or something.

2 Likes
13

A lot of people already hate the “meso” civs (Aztecs and Mayans) and the addition of the Incas was imminent but they lack the inventive or imagination of the first ones
IMO is difficult to insert more American civs in the game without having something similar as the AoE3 have, that personally I don’t like
It could be some civ that don’t have access to Imperial Age but I guess a lot of people would be mad
Just my opinion

2 Likes
14

In my opinion, the only viable candidates for NA are the Mississippian or Anasazi/Pueblo people.

2 Likes
15

There’s not much to know about the Mississippians, but a lot of things can be guessed at about them from their descendants - the people like that of the Seven Fires and surrounding areas can be assumed to have descended from the Mississippians to some extent, although it’s likely that both cultures existed simultaneously for some period of time.
The Eastern Dakota definitely occupied and created their own cities at the same time that Cahokia would have been occupied - Blood Run is such a notable city, created near the sacred pipestone quarries.
Most Native Americans were a stationary people - Contrary to popular belief, the nomadic people like the Lakota and Western Dakota and the Cheyenne only became nomadic to further their own riches and state of living.

Nomads on the plains were, first and foremost, traders. (There’s a reason my own personal civ concepts focus on Native Americans being centered around various forms of trade.) They killed bison and took them to the cities to trade and barter for goods - the cities like Blood Run and Cahokia would pay handsomely in some form or another for bison goods, since they had no way to get them themselves.

3 Likes
16

Actually a nice idea: How about a “nomadic” civ that doesn’t has access to mill (or farms) but a hunters’ hut where you can “catch” bisons instead. Bisons give food like sheep but additionally a small trickle of gold (like 10-20 % of the food income). That way this civ would have some lategame gold income to work with. (you can catch the bisons by placing bison traps that cost wood pretty much like farms. The benefit of it is you can collect food of the bison with multiple villagers at once, the downside is that you (especially in the lategame) need higher wood supply for the same amount of food (A Bison Trap could cost 40 W and A bison, like a sheep, provides 100 F - and if you use autoreseed you may need to be careful cause you could very fastly lose a lot of wood if you place too many traps))

(The nomadic civ could also use “tepees”. They cost only 10 W but have almost no HP.)

17

Any new feature should have to fit the structure of the tech tree of AoE2 technically.
Remind you friendlily.

4 Likes
18

I just replace houses with tepees, mills with hunter’s huts and farms with bison traps.
I don’t see a problem there, we already have mills being replaced by folwarks.

19

this is not technically possible to do and too much micro.

3 Likes
20

I think you think in the wrong direction. The concept is basically after building the trap there just spawns a bison and the trap builder (if autoreseed is activated) will just start building the new trap.
The shepherds will just continouusly collect from new bisons as if they were new sheep to gather from.

It should neither pose a technical or a micro problem.

1 Like