Native American "Mercenaries"?

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
1

I came across this part in an abandoned and unfinished draft I wrote almost two years ago. Since this part is relatively self-contained in that draft, I thought it would be worth posting it separately.

Since we might not have many opportunities to see new American playable civs or minor civs for various objective reasons, and we also don’t really have any mercenaries with a Native American background, I was thinking back then: why not use mercenaries as a way to add some in-game representation of powerful or famous Native American political entities first? At least this way, these Native warriors could still appear in regular games before gaining a full minor civ.

I’m not sure how popular this idea would be, but here are about 15 examples that I think have potential. Apparently, they weren’t mercenaries historically, but neither were some Asian and African mercenary units.

Maybe not all of them are necessary, and there could certainly be others worth considering. Maybe besides the candidates, it’s also worth discussing how players would have access to them. They could still be trained through the Native Embassy rather than the Tavern/Saloon if having them in the Tavern/Saloon would feel inappropriate.

Okay let’s get into it.

Métis Sharpshooter

Assiniboine Bow Rider

  • Bow rider mercenary from the Iron Confederacy of Cree-Assiniboine.
  • Has a good speed and can quickly break free from snares.
  • Specific to the Assiniboine because there is already a Cree minor civ.
  • Saskatchewan should also enable the Cree Tracker and Assiniboine Bow Rider.

Blackfoot Rifle Rider

Shoshone Prowler

  • Lancer from the so-called “Snake Country” who raided other tribes, as well as settlers’ ranches and mines.
  • Can use the stealth ability.

Algonquin Clubman

  • Hand Heavy infantry from the Algonquin tribes.
  • Uses only 1 population space.
  • Wields a paddle-like long club.

Mi’kmaw Militia

  • Gunpowder infantry from the Mi’kmaq people of the Wabanaki Confederacy.
  • Doesn’t have the heavy or light infantry tags. Trains quickly and loses health over time until 50% like a Minuteman.

Anishinaabe Prowler

Miami Warrior

Shawnee Marksman

  • Skirmisher from the Northwestern Confederacy, led by Warchief Blue Jacket and fought together with the Miami in the Battle of the Wabash.
  • Based on their historical achievements, they deal significantly more damage to artillery than other rifle infantry.
  • A card available to the British that ships a group of Miami, Shawnee, and Lenape units.

Redstick

Otontin Warrior

  • Light infantry from Mexico.
  • Throws large stones with his bare hands, like the hero Tzilacatzin.
  • Uses the Grenadier action, with the thrown stone dealing area damage like a grenade.
  • The current Otontin Slinger would get renamed and reskinned.

Quangariecha

  • Hand light infantry from Purepecha Empire.
  • Runs fast and slashes enemy infantry in melee.

Guecha Warrior

  • Spear-throwing heavy infantry from Muisca Confederation.
  • The lower its HP, the more damage it deals.

Guaraní Militia

  • Gunpowder cavalry from the Jesuit missions.
  • Doesn’t have the heavy or light cavalry tags. Has strong stats and trains quickly, but loses health over time like a Militiaman.

Tamoyo Bowman

8 Likes
2

The existence kf the Qivittoq opens the gate for these to be added. But I’d hope this comes with a way for Native American units to get actual mercenaries (a new building maybe?)

1 Like
3

I’d like to have a “Tradehouse” where generates resources and enables outlaws and mercenaries for the Haudenosaunee and Lakota, while letting the Native Embassy go back to normal.

The Aztecs and Incas should get “Messengers’ Huts” instead of Native Embassies, where they can access Native Scouts/Chasqui, outlaws, mercenaries, and minor civ units.

4

If they weren’t mercenaries then this just muddies the waters and makes the system more incoherent. I’d prefer they go the other direction and make some of the Asian/African mercs into natives. For example the Sennar Horseman has no reason to be a merc when there’s already a Sudanese native site that they could be a part of.

Nearly all of these could be full or minor civs so I don’t see any reason to ask for half measures. A lot of these you suggest as being generic militias and such actually have some pretty iconic weapons to base a unit on.

The Tukudeka (Sheepeater) tribe of the Shoshone had a powerful weapon called a Bighorn Bow. I think that would be a more specific basis for their unique unit. And Shoshone would be a great Comanche replacement if Comanche ever became a full civ.

The article you linked calles them “militia” but every description is of a typical native warrior fighting style and organization. There’s really no reason to liken them to the in-game militia style units. A more iconic unit would be an archer armed with a Wabanaki Bow. The Mi’kmaq (or Wabanaki more generally) could easily fit into the existing maps on the northeast coast and would be a hell of a lot better than house of Stuart there.

2 Likes
5

Well, it depends on how you interpret the way the game categorizes it. Personally, now I don’t think so.

In the game, the term of Mercenary has already become more abstract concepts for years.

From a classification standpoint, things are actually simple and coherent. In theory:

  • Native units: Local third-party factions. Players compete for access to them by constructing TPs at minor civs, as if they’ve formed alliances with the local tribes or communities.
  • Outlaw units: Local third-party factions. Players can gain individual access to them directly through their own buildings.
  • Mercenary units: Non-local third-party factions. Players bring them onto the map from outside the map through their own buildings.

Which category a unit belongs to depends on how it’s intended to be accessed by default. Those terms essentially serving as placeholders for the mechanical differences between these types of units, rather than necessarily carrying their real-world or historical meanings.

The biggest difference between Native and Outlaw units is actually whether there is a minor civ involved. If a unit can have certain maps as its homeland in the game, and those maps can have a corresponding minor civ for it, then it is clearly a Native unit. If there is a map that the unit belongs to but no corresponding minor civ, then there is technically no obvious conflict with having it use the Outlaw access method instead. It’s just in practice the Outlaw units currently still maintain a fairly strong criminal or antisocial theme.

The key difference between Outlaws and Mercenaries basically comes down to whether they are map-based. If we want a unit that isn’t tied to a minor civ, can be accessed regardless of the map, and meanwhile we still want ot maintain the criminal theme traditionally associated with Outlaws, then Mercenary is the natural fit technically.

So it’s kind of like saying that if there were a minor civ that served as a local gang’s base, then there wouldn’t be any technical issue with making Pistoleros and Renegados Native units there. Conversely, if a Native unit has no minor civ to belong to, then having it use population spaces and be directly trainable from Native Embassies would make it technically work almost the same way as Outlaws and Mercenaries.

Back to my original post, all things considered, I think treating them as Mercenaries is technically the most reasonable solution. Obviously, this isn’t entirely satisfying from a cultural or thematic perspective. But if these units have both the Native and Mercenary tags, then giving players access to them through Native Embassies rather than Taverns/Saloon might address those thematic concerns.

Having the British enter into a contract or alliance with the Muisca or the Tamoyo Confederacy, with the confederacy sending warriors to fight for the British in Asia, is hardly unreasonable within the context of the game.

6

The premise for the original post is that we may not have a corresponding minor civ or playable civ for them, so the question is how we can give players access to them.

If we can ultimately get all of their minor civs or playable civs, then of course there’s no problem. It’s just that, discussing Plan B doesn’t mean we’re giving up on Plan A. It’s simply acknowledging the objective reality that Plan A isn’t very likely to happen for most of them in the foreseeable future. In addition, Plan B isn’t just for these 15 units either; it could also cover any potential future ones. There’s simply no way every potential unit can have a corresponding minor civ or playable civ. If you’re just going to reject that premise, then there’s not much point in having this discussion in the first place.

That may seem ideal, but it’s not really practical or feasible. Many of them don’t have a corresponding minor civ or playable civ.

What are the chances of the game getting a Kingdom of Tungning minor/playable civ for Iron Troop? A Kingdom of Kanem-Bornu minor/playable civ for Kanuri Guard? A Kingdom of Dahomey minor/playable civ for the Amazon?

For the same objective reasons, they’re probably unlikely to get one in the future either. Again, don’t get me wrong, that would be great if getting a minor civ or playable civ one day, but until then, how are players supposed to access Native units that have neither a corresponding minor civ nor a playable civ?

If we make those units accessible only to certain civs through specific cards, that would be a step backward in terms of gameplay. If we make them units that can be trained at Native Embassies by every civ, then essentially there’s no difference from the Native-Mercenary approach I described above, other than whether they’re map-based or not.

To me, there’s nothing hardly unreasonable about treating them as Mercenaries or Native Mercenaries in the first place. Even if they weren’t mercenaries historically, in the game you can still enter into contracts with those kingdoms/sultanates/confederations. As part of the exchange of interests, they send their people to fight alongside you on battlefields far from their homeland. That’s what I meant in my post by using Mercenaries to represent particular political entities that are still not a minor civ or playable civ.

In fact, this approach has been around since the very beginning of the game. The Fusiliers originally had a Swedish background precisely because they had been meant to represent the Swedes before the Swedish civ was introduced as a playable civ.

7

You’re describing a classification, not defining a classification. If you go by the circular definition of a native unit being anything from a minor civ TP then literally anything you put in that minor civ is coherent with the definition.

No, their real world meanings are extremely important to what gets assigned to each category.

Even by your own criteria shouldn’t all the units you are requesting be outlaws? Every single example you list is a “local third-party faction” and none fought abroad like you define mercenaries to be. But you aren’t requesting they be outlaws probably because you realize there is more than just an arbitrary gameplay difference to them. Namely the fact that outlaw units are criminals, so it would be disrespectful to class native warriors like that.

The classification of these units actually do have meaningful theming that shouldn’t be ignored.

  • Native units: Local indigenous peoples.
  • Outlaw units: Local criminals.
  • Mercenary units: Elite soldiers for hire motivated by profit over local allegiances.

For sure there inconsistencies and exceptions to this, but the request should be to fix that, not make things an even more incoherent mess.

1 Like
8

It the choice is between bad content and no content, I’d prefer no content. For example, I think AoE4 would be a better game if they just did nothing at all instead of making terrible variants.

Just because something has a local affiliation doesn’t mean it can’t also work as a mercenary. Kanuri Guards are literally soldiers for hire to guard caravans, hence the name Kanuri Guard. Iron Troops were elite soldiers in a private army, so basically mercenaries.

Dahomey Amazons don’t fit the strict definition of a mercenary, but they are a kind of showpiece unit who’s expense far exceeds their military utility. It’s not unreasonable to fudge the mercenary category to include some extremely expensive wunderwaffen type units like Dahomey Amazons or Giant Grenadiers even if the expense of maintaining them didn’t go into their pockets. They at least have a reasonable basis of aligning with the high population and gold cost of mercs in the game.

9

Technically speaking, yes, like the outlaws in a local gang’s base I mentioned. I know, it’s pretty ironic. The units in a minor civ only need to fit the minor civ’s theme, rather than literally following the dictionary definition of “native.” The Spanish in the Jesuit church were obviously not native people from Asia, but they fit the theme of the minor civ.

On this point, the theme of minor civs matter more, like what kinds of groups or communities can actually be the reference for a minor civ. We don’t have a local gang’s base as a minor civ yet because it doesn’t really fit the theme of any region’s minor civs. Honestly, the Saltpeter Sites in the Indians campaign would be a quite good fit for local gangs and smuggling groups to be represented as minor civs rather than just being decorative. If the outlaws trained there could cost 0 population (since building a TP there can be competed on the map), then mechanically, that would make them no different from native units.

The reason I haven’t classified them as outlaws is pretty simple: I want them to be not depend on the map. I don’t want their access to be tied to the map, just like Ronin aren’t limited to East Asia. If we make them map-dependent, then mechanically speaking, yeah, they could be Outlaws. Again, mechanically.

My argument is based on the mechanics, not the literal meaning of the term. Granted, all of the current Outlaw units still follow the criminal or antisocial theme, but what I’m emphasizing is that the mechanics themselves aren’t limited to criminals.

If there were new units that historically weren’t criminals, it would just mean that the criminal theme it currently follows has been broken, but the mechanics would still work just fine. It’s just that “Outlaw” might not be respectful or appropriate in a literal sense, so the tag would probably need to be renamed at that point.

Saying that they were historically mercenaries is just nonsense. They weren’t already iron troops who were then hired by Koxinga. Rather, Koxinga ordered his officers to select the best soldiers and train them further to form these units. They were soldiers of the Koxinga regime, just like the king’s soldiers. Historically, they didn’t fight for other factions.

You clearly know how to look at things from a mechanical perspective, rather than insisting that the Dahomey Amazons or Giant Grenadiers have to be African or European natives to “fix” them.

If the game can assume that the Kingdom of Dahomey could send soldiers far away to support its allies, why couldn’t native political entities in the Americas do the same?

10

Their mercenaries are typically standard-issue units of guard rank in European countries. However, the idea of ​​having additional native warriors is also a good one. Gameplay essentially boils down to having fewer, more elite warriors or cheaper, more numerous warriors.

11

This could work by having certain alliances unlock special units in the tavern, similar to how the Sudanese enable Sennar Horsemen.