Future of Native Americans

Whoa now. “Simply”? My way is simply. You’re asking for a new civilization.

-They’ve changed the civ’s name before.
-They’ve changed the civ’s flag before.
-They’ve changed to voice actors.
-They’ve changed/reworded the HC cards.
They can do it again.

I think you don’t understand that we agree. The Lakota do need to be a new civ. But I am also saying don’t delete this civ in the game that is currently called (for some reason) the Lakota. Instead keep it and call it something else.

I think it would be a priority to separate the Incas and Aztecs civs from the Native American category of civs. The reason is very simple - these civilizations fell quickly compared to the Lakota or Haudenosaunee - moreover, they did not use firearms unlike them. Give them a rework that will make them a new category of civs! - Pre-Columbian American? Then you could also count on DLC adding civs such as: Mayans and Muisca.

In the case of Lakota and Haudenosaunee, I think that instead of criticizing the creators, it would be useful to support them - send sources of knowledge about native American peoples. Native American civs I’d like to see in the game are Cherokee (in Cherokee: ############# Cree (in Cree: Néhinaw), Comanche (in Comanche: Nʉmʉnʉʉ), Council of Three Fires (in Anishinaabe: Niswi-mishkodewinan), Tupi, and Mapuche.

Yeah, I’ve been wanting new architecture sets for Euro civs for a while. The South European/Mediterranean used by the Ottomans is used by 5 other civs as well, including Mexico.

Ana actually made a few suggestions for renaming the civ. Not that I remember them.

1 Like

Yes, but the “Sioux” were way too general. As to why they decided to name the civ “Lakota” instead of another Sioux tribe, I don’t know. In this case, this may have been justified, but this shouldn’t be the to go solution for every misrepresented civ.

Following your logic: Why not simply rename the Portugese instead of making them more accurate?

So you say we’re asking too much, yet you kind of agree.

No, I’m not! What?
I’m agreeing 100%. But now I’m doubting my decision.

Let’s take historical and cultural accuracys out of the equation for a second.
The civilization that we’re are talking about, what is mechanical wrong with it?
Yeah it needs some tweaks for balance. The community plaza/native american mechanics are a bust.
But the unit rooster is sound. The bonuses work. K?

Now follow me here. Rather then throw all the away, use it instead for a different civ. Okay?

The changes that op listed here and in other posts are good ideas, but it would make a completely different civ, so let’s use those ideas on a completely different civ.

This is quite literally my proposal about adding the Comanche to take over the current Lakota playstyle + AI, rename the AI to Quanah Parker, then rebuilding the Lakota from the ground up with Chief Eagle Woman as the new AI.


The unit rosters aren’t sound at all lol, who told you that.

The existence of the Captured Mortar at all is the greatest example that these civs have glaring holes in their counter systems.

The Aztecs must bend over themselves to counter half the game’s normal unit comps and the Inca unit roster is somehow a more gimmicky, worse copy of the aztec roster.


I gotta add that the Lakota can reliably access more types of cavalry in a game than any other civ, yet a solid 85% of Lakota cavalry that gets built are Axe + Bow Riders. Aside from the Warchief, Rifle Riders are significantly less-used and Tashunke and Tokala and rarely used, if at all in any game.

And when was the last time you saw a Lakota ship in Cheyenne Riders or Comanche Horse Archers?

1 Like

Whoops. I thought I read all your posts but I guess I missed that one.

I see this as the easiest and quickest fix. Lakota may disappear for a while but that would make the reintroduction better.

1 Like

IMO it’d be best to lay it out as a future DLC, then plan for that. Turn the known playstyle into the Comanche, add/remove a couple things to make them a little more unique, add the Lakota as an entirely new civ, and add the Iron Confederacy as an entirely new civ. That’d cover the major powers on the Great Plains, and if prescribing to my Fur/Resource setup, it’d give one of each that lightly bends into the other two regions - The Comanche would focus on gold and food, the Iron Confederacy would focus on wood and food, and the Lakota would simply double down on food and Furs.

Do a similar pattern in the other two regions.


Forgot about that. I still mostly play vanilla.
I know DE they rely a lot more on infantry for thier siege instead of cavalry too. That needs to be fixed.

1 Like

Tbh I’m not against the Captured Mortar being turned into a full Outlaw unit, being manned by Pistolero and Renegado dudes, but it needs to become a normal option for all Outlaw possibilities and available to any civ. Make it an Age 2 Mortar that’s like the mercenary version of the Hand Mortar - the ridiculously small damage despite the four dudes carrying it would be funny.

Add this with the change of giving the Natives access to normal mercenaries.

Can I actually take moment to say something nice about the community plazas?

If the different culture types(euro, american, asian, etc) must be mechanical different, this was a reasonable (maybe even good) attempt of using cultural differences as a mechanic.

That fact that women played a role in decision-making and that everyone could participate in a democratic like system not just the rich or noble.

I like that. That is a difference that should be focused on.

Now it just being a resking of the bonfire and dancing was dumb. And I doubt the aztec and Inca were as community driven as the in-game north americans.


Not a waste of time at all. I am not Native American (Japanese) but even I can see how underdeveloped and painted in broad strokes the native civs are. I really like the recent updates affecting not only unit appearances but also in the case of the Russians and ottomans which saw unit replacements to make them more unique. So why not apply such changes to the Lakota and Haudenosaunee.

1 Like

As a person? When did I make any individual remarks like that?
When it comes to nations, I don’t think any of them are automatically entitled to exist in a game just by virtue of existing. Here are some maps on many pre-Columbian natives, just to give you some perspective of what is being discussed.

And this is just an overview because if we zoom in on every country in looks something like this

Now, do you think that we are not “acknowledging as a person” all of these hundreds of nations too only because they are not part of this specific game? And I say “we” because I haven’t heard you mention 99% of them on this topic either.

1 Like

IMO this would be better represented with the age-up system; the Seven Lakota tribes would have been led by councils of old women. The job of a chief was more ambassadorial than directly in charge. Chiefs would listen to the decisions made by the Council and do their best to communicate that when dealing with foreign nations or other tribes.

The age-up of the Hauds and Lakota would be better suited if all or most figures involved were women - the Haudenosaunee Clan Mothers should be their age-up figures and the Lakota tiospaye should be theirs. All of these figures are women, generally older.

1 Like

That reminds me - two of the Native mercenary units I had in mind are women; the Arapaho Cloud Sisters and the Crow Crazy Dogs.
I’d love to see a Mercenary hero version of both of these, with Chief Pretty Nose as a more powerful Cloud Sister + Mercenary aura and Woman Chief as a more powerful Crazy Dog + Mercenary aura.

Both civs deserve being a full civ in their own right, with these women as their AI personalities, but it’s unlikely that enough room would ever be made for that many prairie cultures, so having them as obtainable in-game Heroes would be cool.
Although, it’d make sense to have Woman Chief and Chief Pretty Nose as unique, cardable heroes to be sent in from specific civs. Having both in the Lakota would be cool, though Woman Chief wouldn’t make much sense (although Chief Pretty Nose would, she fought alongside the Lakota at Greasy Grass).

It’s a complex issue, especially when it comes to Native American tribes. From my standpoint, this topic is often approached without proper historical research and instead relies on speculation. Additionally, it sometimes intertwines with elements of nationalism that can lead to inappropriate cultural appropriation.

A clear example is the representation of the Iroquois civilization in Nathaniel Black’s campaign. In my view, their history was distorted to fit a nationalist narrative of the US, resulting in a biased and manipulated image of the Iroquois. Moreover, it seems that some Native American civilizations, like the “Sioux,” were included for reasons more related to US popular culture than to an authentic representation of indigenous peoples.

In the case of AoE 3 and its TWC expansion, it appears that Native American civilizations were treated as tools to highlight US culture rather than properly representing the indigenous peoples. From my perspective, the game shouldn’t continue to add more Native American civilizations, not because they aren’t interesting (many already know my admiration for the Jívaro people), but due to the complexity and sensitivity of representing these cultures.

There are numerous Native American groups, and any form of favoritism or incorrect interpretation of their cultures and histories could be misunderstood. In my opinion, it’s essential to approach this topic with respect, authenticity, and a solid foundation of historical research.

You can, just as everyone can. But as far as I know about you, you may never be satisfied.

How far do we have to go for native civilizations to be considered the same level as the Europeans? The answer may be different for different people, and for some, the question should even have been turned upside down over the past 20 years.

From 2006, almost every native unit and building has a unique skin, unique stats, unique name, while recently some units of Europeans finally get a unique skin after Age 4. People have enjoyed the maps and minor civs of the Americas for almost 20 years, and it wasn’t until last year that people got the maps and minor civs of Europe.

Same level of care as the Europeans, which means that we should first consider making Haud and Lakota share the same bowman, clubman and rifleman in War Huts at least until Age 4. Same level as the Europeans also means only adding new cards, reskinning and renaming, no changes to the mechaniscs or even the civilization as a whole rework. Also, without DLC, there is no possibility of introducing new civilizations, a large number of new maps and new minor civs.

What you may need to know is that you may think that many people are dissatisfied with your push, but in fact most of them are also people who want the native civs to be more accurate and hope that every civ can be taken care of.

With goodwill to improve the civ and more or less study on native cultures, they have shared some ideas that are easier to implement, and those ideas could more or less bring better or more accurate content to the game, but they are still criticized by you for “not enough”, “too little”, “still stereotypes”, and even “discrimination”. These are where the problems are, nothing to do with the natives. You have hurt many potential supporters, even though they are still with you in the general direction of improving accuracy.

But how dare I wish a Lakota to tolerate other people’s opinions about the in-game Lakota civilization?

To this day Germans still don’t have default Musketeers, Grenadiers and Hussars, Russians don’t have default dragoons, Ulans and Cossacks don’t use lances, British don’t give up longbows until age 4, some civs even have Pikemen buff from age 4. For the sake of gameplay and entertainment, each civ has a difference from reality. I don’t know if any Maltese have complained that Commanderies’ teleportation is magical powers.

Any way, I remember you once had a proposal for renaming units. That’s pretty much your most practical, most implementable, most supported (by including me), best advice. If renaming and reskinning can simply help make those vague units relatively more accurate and reasonable, then do it.

The Plaza is viewed by you as “magic”, as a stereotype. But the definition of Plaza is already good enough to offer a better explanation than continuous dancing around a fire pit. People descuss and debate about public affairs, and while people are focused on an issue, the response to that issue has a positive effect, until fewer people pay attention on this issue or people focus on other issues.

In terms of gameplay design, it still has merit. It is a unique way to obtain buffs in exchange for villagers’ gathering time instead of a simple one-time resource cost. Although you cannot hold multiple effects at the same time, you can simply switch to other effects to meet the current needs without investing more costs. These mean that the threshold for obtaining those buffs is very low, but as time goes by, those buffs are no longer so cost-effective, which is in line with the characteristics of natives that are strong in the early and weak in the late.

We can still hope that the Plaza can have more changes, such as changes in the gameplay, such as changing the construction cost to 0 or making the ceremonies have a basic rate even if there are no unit tasked on there, or changes in the visual, such as giving Aztec Plaza a pyramid, Lakota Plaza a white buffalo, etc. But, as someone who likes to play these civs, I’d like to see the Plaza better, not see it removed.


This is the main problem. You think that a unique model is good enough - but they might as well be models of Covenant buildings from Halo for how accurate they actually are.

Do you think if the Natives had a bunch of Covenant buildings, that they’d be “good enough” just because they’ve got unique models?

Oh, boy, some of your units got the wrong weapons! Oh no! How awful!

I wish Natives even HAD history in them! Where are the Mohawk Bone Carriers, the Haudenosaunee Clan Mothers, the prairie Akicita that dominated society? What about the Three Sisters, the type of farming that dominated North America from the Rio Grande to the Columbia and Hudson Bay? The Haudenosaunee helped cause the Little Ice Age because of their logging efforts, why is that not the basis of their economy?

The Dutch had a little thing that was relevant to them, so they got a unique economy, separate from the rest of the European civs.
Meanwhile, the Natives had economies nothing like the Europeans, but still use the same two buildings and basic foundation to function.

Remove it. It is a relic from a time where the devs didn’t care about actually representing these nations and only wanted a stereotypical pop culture mess to play with.

1 Like