It was a really interesting read and I hope that at least some of it will be considered and implemented into the game. And hopefully sooner than later, Europe got enough spotlight for now.
1 Like
But Aoe2 isn’t a good example of how Aztecs or any native american civ should look like. They never used scorpions, siege towers or european ships. In Aoe3, they shouldn’t have access to cannons either, even if it means giving siege power to an archer unit.
2 Likes
If they can add completely new civs with completely new mechanics, they can remove a single building.
Given the mechanic is based on stereotypes/misconceptions of US natives, I think it should be just as off-limits for non-US natives.
But does “steppe people” reflect their reality in this period?
Ana has been complaining about that too, though she’s been much more vocal about native civs since that’s closer to her reality. I’ve also requested multiple times for the ####### monk heroes to be replaced with actual military leaders.
Personally I don’t think keeping the plaza is a good compromise.
I’ve been thinking AoE2 Native American civs need more regional units. Would hopefully also make it easier to add more native civs.
And if you all wanna talk about Asian civs on this thread as well, other than replacing/reskinning monk heroes, I’ve been asking for wonders to be reskinned into generic-er buildings (could make it easier to add new Asian civs) and for some of the units to be reskinned to be less fantastical.
Also replace/reskin the monasteries into non-Religious buildings as far as being the merc recruitment building goes, and rename the Caravanserai to stable since that’s what it really is. The name Caravanserai would be better on a tavern/saloon counterpart.
You know what…
You talk about better representation of native Americans, they will “what about Asian monks”.
You talk about Asians, they will “what about Ottoman architecture”.
You talk about Ottomans, they will “what about xxx and yyy and zzz civs that still are not in the game”.
Unless you cover ALL of them comprehensively in one thread, you can never win!
Even with that they still have “this game is not a history simulator. Go read a history book/play total war if you want accuracy.”
2 Likes
Yeah, so much of this.
1 Like
I’m not saying that AoE3 should copy AoE2, just that Native Americans are not inherently unpopular.
Aztecs are also one of the most requested civilisations for AoE4.
But AOE3 is not a medieval game.
The Aztecs on the other hand don’t exist for most of the AoE3 time span and neither do the Inca.
But the people that made up those civilisations still exist today so I think it’s ok to give them some kind of captures gunpowder weapons.
They already get Mortars and in the case of the Inca even Light Cannons, but only once.
So how about giving them captured Falconets? They would be slower then normal ones because they don’t have horses and they would also have the mercenary tag.
They could also get Skirmisher units in late game that represent some kind of guerilla warfare.
Some of those aspects already exists in the Mayan revolt.
I don’t like seeing units with very unrealistic traits just to compensate for missing unit types.
I’m personally also not a fan of the way Shock Infantry is treated in AoE3.
In AoE2 the Eagle Warrior has different counters then Cavalry but in AoE3 Shock Infantry just feels like Cavalry with a different name.
Actually, the Incas still existed long after the Spanish conquest. Just think of the Tupac Amaru II revolt. They still were Incas and they used firearms. Therefore, it would be justified to give them access to firearms in the game. But not for the Aztecs.
This is exactly what they are. The xolotl warrior is a cool unit, but he makes no sense at all. I don’t want to see it in aoe3.
1 Like
It’s because of their design not because they’re out dated or something. African civs are new in comparison but also unpopular. People like a musketeer, falconets and standard play and that’s not a problem. I like inca but they are also even less played than lakota. Unless you make the natives a reskin of a euro civ they’ll always remain less popular.
3 Likes
Hot take! Replace the Lakota with a another plains nation(or at least horse reliant nation) that mining and cultivating isn’t a sin. Reskin the civ and change some names and words.
This doesn’t change everything that’s a problem with native civs, I know, that can change later. It does get rid of the stupid mining camp or whatever it’s called.
1 Like
Why would you need to replace the civ for another in order to get rid of the tribal marketplace? I don’t get it.
2 Likes
We have a civilisation that can’t hunt at all, why can’t we have a civilisation that can’t mine at all?
1 Like
That was a minor point.
The reason it exists is because the Lakota. And it’s not just that.
Tree cutting, farming, plantations, livestock; the Lakota don’t do those. My suggestion is to change it to a civ who can.
Maybe bring back the Lakota later as a completely new kind of civ.
Or simply rework them in order to make them more accurate? The tribal marketplace is bad design, so let’s remove it and find something better. The farm and estate are another problem that need to be adressed. Changing the name of the civ in a lack of will to correct poor design isn’t a good solution.
1 Like
I think that these are absolutely high demands to completely rework a civ, to workers that you won’t pay for doing this specifically, is too much to ask. They changed voice lines, fire pit, resource gathering mechanics, unit and technologies names, added more cards to better represent other faces from both nations. They changed some cosmetic as well and I don’t know if they can do as much as on that as they did with Euros, because these civs have pretty unique units already.
Have you considered that inadvertently this might hurt things that you probably care about also? I had no idea that civilizations like the Lakota and Haudenosaunee even existed before playing the original War Chiefs expansion. To me as a Non American it sounded like such a random pick for a civ back then, specially considering the other options. But because the original devs decided to give them some representation by inserting them in AoE3, I started exploring more outside the game and learning about the culture and rituals.
I think that the chances of these civilizations being implemented into a game like AoM for example are absolutely abysmal, because any fact or mechanic that they change that is not an exact representation of the nation, they know they are gonna have to deal with a huge and constant amount of backlash. This is hurting your cause if you would like to see more representation in the international media long term. Consider the opposite, like Mexico getting a full skull-man dia de los muertos hero; where do you see the posts on that? Where do you see the posts of Italians complaining from stereotypes that they can send pizzas to their teammates?
I say take your wins and do ask for these things for other games like total war and other in-development games that try to be more attuned to history.
4 Likes
This is such an horrible take to give on any subject. You’re basically asking them to be glad that they are being acknowledged at all as a person.
You’re setting the bar abyssaly low.
Your Dia de los Muertos comparison doesn’t even hold water, the civ is very representative and a tasteful depiction of Mexico, if you wanna get silly with custom explorer skins, well, you do you, but mexicans are not offended by it because normal people understand that’s an option to have fun and it’s not meant to be the “main” way to represent the civ.
And trust me, Mexico is very well researched.
8 Likes
Muslim steppe people, and no, certainly not. Arabic elements are completely absent from the med architecture, safe for the mosque. And having no balkan representative in probably the balkan age (19th century) is certainly a bigger inaccuracy than wrong native plantations.
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.