I just noticed that in andes - upper the settlements are still inca and not only that, but the buildings have changed to reflec the new inca architecture. Are they still going to be a minor native as well as a full fledged civ? With the change in architecture it seems devs are not planning on adding new natives but i hope Im wrong.
Aztecs, Iroquois, and Lakota (Sioux) have always been native settlements available to ally with. There has always been overlap, and nobody has had an issue with that.
EDIT: nvm Iām stupid
only in the first game with no expansions
in the Warchief expansion they were replaced
2 Likes
No? Aztecs were replaced by zapotecs, lakota for cheyenne and iro for huron. Have you played the game with expansions?
5 Likes
Wait, yeah, Iām an idiot, haha. The vast majority of my time played was in vanilla. My b.
4 Likes
I thought the same when I did not see a replacement for the Incas.
This theme must be revived. There were many satellite tribes in the Inca empire to implement a replacement.
1 Like
They explained why. Incas are balance issue on upper Andes, which is why they were not replaced there. In other places they were replaced by mapuche.
2 Likes
Except that āAndes - Upperā is a map that appeared on DE, it didnāt existed before. They said it was because of the treaty mode and that it would change balance, but the same thing happened when they replaces aztecs, iroquois and lakotas in The Warchiefs. Was it created only to save them the work of replacing them with the Huari, that are referenced in the map loading text? I donāt know, hopefully not, but this is one of the things missing from the DEās. I hope a South American rework is down the line, because we need more maps and natives (only maps and 2 natives, 3 if you count incas, which is a personal decision.
4 Likes
a lot of treaty players essentially only play andes and the inca are a part of the balance on that map.
It existed, but it was a random variant of andes.
One had rivers and the other dont
1 Like