Image says in Spanish: It shot two meter arrows that pierced 4 people"
2 Likes
The bow pictured looks impossible. The bow wouldnât flex if itâs being supported on the ends like that so it would need an elastic string instead of a bow.
I know some Antisuyu tribes used giant arrows so maybe thatâs what itâs referring to rather than an exceptionally large bow.
I very much doubt whoever drew that was going for realism. Itâs kinda like complaining about seeing an Arquebusier Archangel because Arquebusiers didnât have wings IRL.
You may be onto something, although I believe the article you pointed out is just the Jungle Bowman already ingame, which does have a fairly large bow as it is. I donât think itâs that outlandish that in Precolonial times they had a scaled-up version of that thing.
2 Likes
Spanish: oh no dios mĂo , our gunpowder got wet in this tropical land, we shall defeat our enemies with the superiority of steel
Andean with a sling:
âthrow a fat rock that can kill a horse, sometimes the knight even if hit in the armor of the head. Truly is little less than a arquebus. I have seen a stone break in two a old sword in the hand of a man from 30 steps awayâ
Sometimes reality tastes more like fiction than the fiction presented in the game
4 Likes
The sun and the humid heat scorched the conquerors, locked up in this kind of iron âovensâ. The iron helmets burned the heads, and the iron plates on the shoulders of the armor caused painful wounds and burns. So "the conquistadors soon learned to exchange these defensive âfurnacesâ for the light and effective clothing of the Aztecs.
The most important weapons were greatswords, spears, and pikes. âFirearms, however, were not of great military importance and did not contribute much to the conquest; however, they did have it as a psychological instrument. Thus, these weapons, in the early days, produced in the natives an enormous, almost divine surprise, a great terror due to their flame, their detonation, their smell and their smoke. In addition, they caused injuries hitherto unknown to them. They sought death instantly or quickly.
Moctezumaâs ambassadors, in their accounts to the Aztec chief, told him of the horrors they witnessed.
1 Like
Ironically they gave giant arrows to the aztecs. Apparently theyâre supposed to be tlacochtli (6 foot long darts), but those were thrown via atlatl, not launched out of a giant bow. Even the description of the unit mentions the flipping atlatl. I guess they didnât want them to be confused with eagle knights, but even if they both threw darts, they look nothing alike. Not like similar animations used by different unit types isnât already a thing.
1 Like
Thatâs why I suggested merging Arrow Knights and Jungle Bowmen.
An archer that shoots giant arrows really far and deals poison damage would be an excellent anti-artillery unit since the poison would bypass the huge range resistance. Poison damage and a bit of extra speed could make them viable without even having to give them ludicrous range like Arrow Knights have now.
Yeah, the Arrow Knight is essentially fictional. Their appearance is based on the Huastec, but Iâve seen no indication they had any specialty in archery.
Thereâs something quite amusing about a giant arrow hitting some infantry with poison damage. Like the huge obsidian-tipped arrow penetrating a line soldiers gruesomly needs a poison trickle after it has critically maimed a battalion 
In all serious iâd love to know the sources of Inca siege.
Various Spanish (normally Priests) sources let us know that Aztecs scaled walls with ladders, undermined with digging sticks and used incendary arrows/darts or heated sling stones to siege, however I can hardly find anything regarding Incan siege.
I remember reading an instance of a siege tower-like structure (possibly from an old Spanish illustration), however aside from scaling laders and flaming missles (like the Aztecs), itâs reallllllly hard to find!
It does seem like overkill.
I wonder if the attack could be given piercing damage to skewer some infantry. The arrows would be coming in at a pretty high angle so that might look strange.
Itâs been mentioned a few times in some AoE4 discussions.
The siege towers are Maya. They also had cool stuff like hornet grenades.
1 Like
Maya, outside of this discussion would be a great new civ - they out-lasted a number of central and south American civs.
Ah, I must have had my wires-crossed about the siege towers!
oh, thatâs the Pucara-Purisaspa.
1 Like
Absolutely, they would be an infinitely better fit than Aztecs who essentially ceased to exist beyond the 1520s.
Yes they are a revolution, but it really should be the other way around and Maya should revolt to Mexico. Unfortunately the way it is now, people are just going to gatekeep them and say âwe already have Mayaâ just like they go on about already having Prussia.
They have cool archaic units like their javelineers and hornet grenadiers and they lasted long enough to fight with modern weapons like rifles and cannons. Branches of the Maya even had ships that reached Florida. So thereâs more than enough to have a fully fleshed out civ in the era of AoE3.
1 Like
aoe3 has lizards that turn into shaolin monks if punched, lightsaber weilding magic flag planting immortal astronaunts leading usa, and a steam tank with a guy making engine noises
we can stretch history if it results in awesome gameplay
5 Likes
everyone abandoned the use of stone weapons when the use of bronze spread and stone weapons are being compared with steel weapons; it has no logic. The only civilizations that used lithic technology instead of bronze or steel weapons were those that would have logistical problems equipping their warriors with such weapons. If American warriors had access to steel weapons, they would have used steel weapons instead of stone weapons (as indeed they did). The Native Americans were not fools and replaced their stone weapons as soon as logistics allowed them to use European technology. That what happened in the whole world; You take the best of other cultures and adapt them to your own.
However, that topic is outside the purpose of this thread. The argument is that there are a lot of historical inaccuracies in AoE 3 and the fact that AKs having 30 range is considered ridiculous in historical terms by some is not enough of a reason to reduce that AK range. If the example of the JPKs is offensive to someone, there are many other examples of historical inaccuracies. In addition, it is known that the Aztecs knew and used the bows, but no Aztec bows have survived to the present day and there is no historical certainty as to how they were made. So how can you be so sure that they werenât better than European longbows? Isnât it insulting to assume that Aztec bows were inferior to the bows of the âall-powerful Europeansâ?
The Aztecs currently have one of the weakest armies in the late game. So any changes you decide to make to aztec army should be focused on making them more viable in late games and the whole issue of historical accuracy should take a backseat. Once the Aztec army is balanced, then it will be time to make historical adjustments. As long as that doesnât happen, reducing the range of the AKs seems like a problematic idea to me.
3 Likes
Yeah, had forgotten that the image Iâd seen was the Chicken Itza mural where it depicts a number of siege towers.
Iâd love Mayans to be a proper civ!
What about something like this as a Lakota ~artillery unit:
[add name, @AnaWinters, any ideas?]
âA light long range cavalry good against artillery and buildings.â
Tags: Artillery, Cavalry, Light Ranged Cavalry.
Becomes available in age 4 so it has age 4 stats:
2pop
250hp
25% rr
Speed 5.5
Range 22 (RCC from âNew Waysâ adds +2)
Siege Damage 8 with 10x against buildings, 2.5x against artillery and 8x against ships. RoF of 3.
Itâs basically a mini siege ele with more speed, and less range. It would have some durability against culvs because of the cav tag because otherwise the super low range would be an issue. I could also see doubling the multipliers and cutting the base damage in half.
Any thoughts? I have no idea if this would be in any way remotely historical accurate. Iâm suggesting it as it could help Lakota gameplay wise.
They dont need anti buildings artillery, captured mortar does the job better by far thanks to higher range and damage, its not a secret that siege eles needed buffs to be competent vs walls. All they need is to revert pop cost.
Everyone is aware of the fact that if you give everyone the exact same Mortars they will all be equal.
This post is about how doing so is complete fiction and just plain stupid. The natives should have their own solution to siege, not something copied and pasted from the European roster.
6 Likes
Its a simple and efficient solution. They cant be the same since they dont have heavy artillery like europeans, neither the same economy and HC cards for mortars, so europeans ones would keep being stronger. Also, natives should need to reach imperial to train them from just 3 buildings.
Mortars work too well to not have them. Civs without them are the weakest and easily stoppable as there is no better option to take down walls. Edit: While natives are hard enough to play for newcomers to these civs
And yet, the cavalry siege of the Lakota was hard nerfed because it was significantly better than mortars.
Itâs clear that other answers exist. We just need to be creative and think outside the box. If the Natives just get mortars, all youâre doing is turning them slowly into pseudo-European civs by badly copying European military comps. At that point, why bother having the Native civs in the game at all if all they are is a poor-manâs version of Euro civs?
7 Likes