The main problem with the Haudenosaunee is not really the time frame, since they surely existed during the Middle Ages. The problem is that we have next to no information or historical records of them. We don’t even know in which century the Confederacy was formed.
The only two civs north of Mexico that could ever be added are the Mississipians and the Pueblo. And even in both cases we still know very little about them.
I think there are at least dozens of better recorded civilizations around the world that should be considered before.
Yes, from the creation of the haudenosaunee confederacy we only have the song of Hiawatha and from there you have to make temporal calculations backwards based on the notes of Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain…The problem with getting the Hauds in is the very late chronology of the game…
Isn’t it said that it was in the 15th century? The timeline of AoE2 can go as far as the 16th century at the latest.
It’s late, but still valid.
And, we already know enough information to make at least one historical scenario.
There were five Iroquois tribes who had been at war with each other. A hero controled by the player will be able to go to one of the tribes as a starting point to promote his ideas, and make the tribes allied with each other by satisfying conditions or conquering by force. The united tribes will then join forces against the common enemies, the Algonquins and the Hurons.
I’m not sure there are enough sources for Mississippians.
I finally see Upmost’s sincerity and kindness in his last reply to me so I’ll stop arguing with him and move back to the topic.
Speaking of Native American civs, I think South America needs some attention too not just North America.
I could envision a Mapuche civ, this civ would not only represent the Mapuche themselves but also other peoples with the suffix -che (means “people”) in the surrounding areas, such as Tehuelche, Picunche, Huilliche, etc.
Their scout unit would not be the Eagle Scout but the Malon Scout, which is a cavalry unit similar to the Scout Cavalry. And its upgrades Malon Cavalry and Malon Raider would also mirror the Light Cavalry and Hussar of Old World civs.
Their Castle (or Fortress/War Hut) UU would be the Ironwood Club, a heavy infantry covered with seal skin and is armed with a large wooden club. It has bonus damage against cavalry and siege units.
Their Archery Range does not have access to Crossbowman, but would unlock another unit when Castle Age is reached, the Tehuelche Archer. It’s an archer covered with seal skin and is armed with a large self-bow, has slightly shorter range than the Crossbowman but has higher HP and higher pierce armor. In the Imperial Age it can be upgraded to Elite Tehuelche Archer.
Anyway, considering the lack of information and their isolation, I think there are far better candidate civs from the Americas, like the Tarascans or the Chimú. Mesoamerican and Andean History are better recorded.
Why not?, in addition the minor civs of aoe 3 are like the civs of aoe 2 and the unique units and tecs of the Mapuches of aoe 3 could be applied quietly in aoe 2…
Don’t add North American civs to AoE2. There is essentially no way to represent any of them in a way that won’t come across as purely fantastical, purely ahistorical, extremely stereotypical, or some combination thereof.
AoE2’s base foundations just don’t support the differences present.
If by “North American” you mean native civs north of modern Mexico then I agree. I don’t see any problem with more Mesoamerican civs. But yes, when we go to the north, even the “better” candidates like the Pueblo or Mississipians have a lot of drawbacks.
He’s just taken the names (and effects) from AoE3 – it’s not his fault!
“Mapuche Tactics” seems a particularly silly name to me, because you can do exactly the same with any civilisation, i.e. one could equally well have unique techs called Aztec Tactics, Bengali Tactics, Berber Tactics, etc.
“Mapuche Ad-mapu” is silly for the opposite reason: Ad-mapu is already something specific to the Mapuche (it seems to be some kind of religious law code), so “Mapuche” is redundant here; just call it “Ad-mapu”.
But as I said, you didn’t name them so it’s not your fault.
(I also don’t understand how the names relate to the effects for either technology.)
That’s true… the same with North America is not that you have too many options, Irqoueses, Mississipians and Puebloans and little else…if it is a dlc similar to that of Dynasties of India or The Warchiefs of AoE 3 would not be bad either…
Yes, I didn’t want to eat my head much either…
Good point then we can call it “Weychafe” (Guerrilla)…
Ok, just “Ad-mapu” then…
“Mapuche tactics” increasing the siege attack is a reference to the destruction of the seven cities in 1598 and “Ad mapu” as you say is the Mapuche legal code, which improves bureaucracy among the Mapuche, so it lowers the costs of the units in general…
Weichafe doesn’t mean Guerrilla… weichafe just means warrior (Literally someone who commits war).
If you want a reference to the destruction of the 7 Cities you probably need something like “Pruloncon” which is the Dance of Death which was ritualistically performed before war during ceremonies.
Hmm, I obviously misinterpreted what it was then. From what I read it didn’t seem bureaucratic or economic – but finding anything about it in English was difficult (at least, not without putting in more time than I was prepared to).
Yes, bureaucracy and economy in the sense of the Mapuche people, which was not too much given the little organization that the Mapuche had in their geographical area, which became complex in the nineteenth century…And about the Mapuche you will only find things in Spanish, mainly from the Chilean government and Mapuche regionalist organizations…