Exactly, that’s why the Aztecs must have a unit like the AK; an archer or other unit that attacks from a distance without using firearms that defeats the cannons even if that does not make historical sense. I do not support the idea of giving captured falconets to the Aztecs. I had already said in another thread that this would be an easy way to balance the Aztecs but then the Aztecs would be less unique.
1 Like
The Dahomey Amazons weren’t defeated by French Musketeers. Not by a mile lmao.
The Kingdom of Dahomey was colonized by France at the turn of the 20th century. Do you really, seriously, unironically think they were still using freaking muskets in the 1890s?
It wasn’t even a quick defeat either, there were multiple, protacted wars before they finally were soundly defeated.
Also, regarding the Aztecs, well, emphasis on their indigenous allies, Spanish armor was kinda useless on Mexico anyways, so they didn’t have that big of an advantage on that front.
1 Like
Anyway you want to make the siege tactics of Lakota more sense. Since you think the Lakota cavalry are already good at siege, the introduction of Arson Prowler is not so necessary. And obviously Prairie Guns doesn’t make much more sense than Captured Mortars in my opinion. Renegade Mortars are simple to implement and theoretically sound for any Native American civilization.
If your purpose is to change Tashunke, then I agree. They are neither as useful as Axe Riders nor as powerful as Tokala. Their stealth ability has no chance to be used well. I had once suggested that the Center of Power (now Heyoka) card would allow the Chief to train Tashunke in addition to granting the Chief Stealth Mode. With stealthy units trained by a stealthy unit, this combination would ideally greatly increase Tashunke’s strategic value.
The problem is that too many of the Lakota cavalry units can siege well, and the Charging Ceremony just makes this problem worse.
Their siege efforts need to be concentrated onto 1-2 units - the Cetan Bowman and the Itkunyan Prowler would be ideal, as it would give a use to two, largely-forgotten units that aren’t utilized much.
ok, that’s a mistake. I remembered that in 1890 the Dahomey Amazons were defeated by the French army, most of them being wounded with bayonets and since the most representative unit with bayonet in AoE 3 are the musketeers… But yes, it is a very silly mistake to say that they were musketeers (but it still doesn’t make sense for them to massacre heavy infantry in close combat). Even so, it is mentioned that they had bad aim, but in the game they are skirmishers that run faster than a horse (that doesn’t make much sense).
I believe that a warrior armed with a steel sword and buckler has an important advantage against a warrior armed with a wooden shield and a macuahuitl. however, in the game the JPK massacre the rodeleros (which is ridiculous). Anyway, I’m not asking for the game to be historically accurate. I think some historical inaccuracies are fine as long as they make the game more enjoyable and fun, especially with the Aztecs.
I don’t think that stating that the warriors of one culture had an advantage over the warriors of another culture at the same time is a reason to be upset, especially if it is true. So, any outrage due to my comment is unjustified (and I only said a historical inaccuracy, who can’t list even one?
1 Like
As it would turn out, you’re not really right about that. Macuahuitls turned out to pretty thoroughly demolish a lot of Spanish infantrymen and most turned to using Mesoamerican armor and weaponry because it was better suited to fighting in that situation than their own weapons and armor.
1 Like
nope, macuahuitls were not very durable and lose their obsidian edges relatively quickly, especially if they hit something like a steel shield. It is true that there were Spaniards killed by Macuahuitls, but that does not mean that Spanish weapons did not provide a tactical advantage. As I recall, the Aztecs substituted their obsidian weapons for the weapons of the defeated Europeans (there are accounts that the Aztecs used captured steel to arm themselves during the siege of Tenochtitlán). If the macuahuitls had any advantage over steel weapons the Spanish would have used these weapons, as in fact they did with the ichcahuipilli and the Aztecs would not have replaced their macuahuitls with steel weapons when they had the opportunity. Anyway, that’s no reason to be outraged. Not even I, a native Mexican from Mexico City, bother me when they say that the jaguar warriors were no better armed than the europeans. So, I don’t know why that bothered you. By the way, I am one of those who defends that the JPK can massacre the heavy infantry; It is the only Aztec unit that can stop large masses of melee heavy infantry. I don’t want AoE to be historically accurate if it means balance issues or loss of fun.
1 Like
That’s the whole point of a macuahuitl. It provided a distinct advantage into ichcahuipilli and proved to be interestingly effective against steel, where it would shatter rather explosively when swung hard against it.
And of course some Aztecs took Spanish weapons when they could. Whether it’s useful or not, it’s a mark of victory to take your opponent’s weapons.
That’s an interesting hypothesis, but even so it doesn’t make sense for the JPK to massacre rodeleros or pikemen. maybe we could historically justify the JPK massacring heavy infantry if we assume that their combat ability was much superior. But we would be speculating (and a lot); Unfortunately, there are no records that specify what the “martial art” of the Aztecs was like and neither did macuahuitls or ichcahuipillis survive, so experimental archeology should be used to ensure the capacity of that team. But the fact that this weapon fell into disuse gives us an indication that it was no better than steel weapons.
1 Like
Natives were in an amazing spot just before AR addition, after getting the mortars. There is no need for anything more convoluted. Easy and effective to stop walling spamming while it doesnt distorts their gameplay. All they need is a pop reduction without affecting cards.
And if needed, unlock them at imperial age as It was in origin
Several Native American peoples used mace-wielding warriors against the Spanish due to their effectiveness against armor. Good examples in the game are the Inca Maceman and Chimu Runner, the Nootka Clubman, and the Mapuche Ironwood Clubman. Usually these maces had stone heads or were large wooden clubs.
I don’t really know the history of the Aztec army, but I find it hard to believe that it didn’t occur to them to use maces against the Spanish, and as far as I know, a Macuahuitl has more in common with a mace than a sword.
@pwaopwao @Etarm369 @AnaWinters
Please, dont go out of topic. Whatever they used steel or stone to kill infantry is not relevant here, this is about siege and range capabilities
3 Likes
If the Longbowman can fire at a range of 22, it’s not unreasonable that the Arrow Knight could fire up to 25 or so. I’m not against lowering the range of the Arrow Knight to a more reasonable level, but it needs to be compensated by some sort of buff - I’ve had the idea before that giving them a siege attack instead of a ranged attack would change a lot about how well they function.
As for the Lakota… Give the Cetan Bowman an increased range on their siege attack per upgrade until their siege range matches their normal range and remove it from the card. This will cover whatever range siege they need, which isn’t much.
Nerf siege attacks on the Axe Rider and Tokala Soldier, change the Tashunke into the Itkunyan Prowler, then remodel the Itkunyan with a large shield and give it a grenadier-like siege attack into buildings with a DoT. Give it a short-ranged siege attack like the arsonist, but much weaker, and a small AoE melee attack.
1 Like
The Spanish found that using quilted vests (like the native armours) was more preferable to their armour due to the heat.
Aztecs used all manner of weapons including maces, though the Macuahuitl was mostly by nobles as it was seen as one of the most prestigious weapons.
One of my favourite ones is the Thelaximaltepoztli - which was a bronze-headed axe.
2 Likes
In the case of decreasing the range of the AKs, I think they should also have an increase in speed. That would be a nice upgrade since the Aztecs don’t have technologies that increase the speed of their infantry.
2 Likes
Yes! They should be able to at least distance a falconet, so they could have 4.25 or 4.5 speed. However, they need this speed buff whether they get lower range or not imo.
2 Likes
God, this website’s profanity filter is a joke.
What if they merged the Lakota War Hut and Corral into a single building (an Outpost/Stable hybrid), removed their infantry, and gave their core 3 cavalry units the Dismount ability?
2 Likes
What strikes me as the oddest thing here is that, by all means, the Inca should have a Siege Workshop. Even if the devs only wanted to represent Precolombine Inca (and why would you, given that this game is just shy of touching the 20th century), they still had siege tactics and weapons for these situations, which should be no wonder as Andean Fortresses were, well, Fortresses.
Much like the Haudenosaunee the Inca did use Rams and Mantlets, they even had some primitive version of a ballista, which would come in extremely handy for their roster so they could actually counter siege units from range.
6 Likes
Do you have any sources on the Incan ballista?
1 Like
Unfortunately not really because google ate up the only source I had on it so I only have a cachéd copy of the Illustration.
I only know that they were of Chachapoya origin and closely related to the Jungle Bowman. Basically being a scaled up version of what those units carry.
4 Likes