Mayans, Mapuche and Koreans. I’ll be willing to pay a respectable amount of coin for that DLC if it manifests into the physical reality.
so i wanna know how you guys manage to get Koreans into the same DLC as Mapuche and Mayans, you just wanna add all the unpopular faction ideas into one or what?
next question you got to ask yourself is: how are you going to make Mapuche and Mayans unique from 1 another and from Inca and Aztec, the 2 most unpopular factions in the game.
while i dont agree with Koreans for various reasons i can at least see how their gameplay would be unique (Asian artillery civ), i just dont think in particularly mayans are capable of doing that.
Mayans and Mapuche are currently represented in the game, in a way that is fair for them, id rather have more minor civs in the region join them than promoting the 2 tribes we have into major factions, if this goes through then we only have tupi left in south america, which would be pretty sad IMO.
The cards are what make civs differentiate from one another. 1-2 Unique unuts for the said civs + unique cards is the AoE2 way of introducing a new civ and it can be done here pretty good and is the easiest way. Im also tired of repeating that there are “cultures” in the game - with the same architecture - what game are u playing and expect aztec and maya buildings to be that much different. The, probably new devs, apparently abandoned the “culture” system and now we have americans aging up the same as the african civs which is a MAJOR DESIGN FLAW and does not continuate the “culture” system, and plus it looks like they dont know the rules of their own game. Europeans aging with european politicians, watchiefs civs aging up with tribal representatives, and asian civs aging up with wonders. If the new aging up system was to be only an african thing it would be fine, but nah - amuricans gotta have it all. So yeah - Mapuche and Mayans can age up like the OG design with the tribal leaders while Koreans (which the WoL team already did em check em out they can be just copy-pasted and i wouldnt mind) can go with Wonders. Its easy if u have the will to do it, and KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING (americans need to be redesigned to ageup with european politicians because it breaks the rules of the game).
PS: They also completely abandoned the “culture” system with the Inca design - instead of a similar architecture to the aztec we got some oval shaped buildings that leads me to think that they are actualy beta testing the architecture design for aoe4 in OUR game (u can see that borderline-cartoony, no straigt lines, and circular shaped edges of the buildings there in aoe4, from what we saw in the trailers, which strongly reminds me of the Inca building design. mOnuMenTal aRchiTeCtuRe
I think the European civilizations, which are of cavalry, infantry and siege weapons are all the same and tedious, all the same, with their hussars, musketeers and skirminshers, dragons and pikemen, with one or two unique units and one or two units different from the standard set of basic units. . All the same thing. They could, in fact, do as in AOE II, and give a single architecture to all Europeans, equal peasants, and apart from the cards in the deck and some balances, we would not see any difference, as they are almost AOE II civilizations, they are so identical. . Basically, to lighten up the game, they could just give different flags and languages to all these Europeans alike. And there would be no reason to introduce more European factions, they are so identical that you just have to use your imagination to play Austria instead of Germany. Just picture a different flag and a villager saying Servus. Well, the reasoning about Aztecs and Incas is basically the same there. There are groups of very identical civilizations, including the most identical, they are all European. The Incas and Aztecs have common mechanics, but different balances and cards, very different architectures, with different constructions, totally different design. The only problem is having basically infantry armies. You don’t get sick of the faces of hussars, dragons, musketeers and skirminshers for what reason? It’s the same thing over and over! The whole forum has someone saying that the Aztecs and the Incas are basically the same thing, as an argument, but don’t they realize that Europeans were made so equal that German peasants look Slavic and even though there are differences in uniforms in all those European civilizations , the game doesn’t even change the uniform textures to individualize them? That some are distinct in two, three units, or combinations of units, in language, flag and cards, a distinct mechanic at most?
only european factions share the same architecture, asian and native civs have always been unique from one another, as an example china and japan only really shares the rice paddy (and even that i am not sure about).
i am not sure what this is relevant for here? as far as i know i haven’t seen someone use that as an argument?
while i am not the most enthusiastic about the US being added to the game then i dont think their age up mechanic is the same as the africans.
the American age up system gives you new cards, the African ones gives you new buildings, units and/or tech. sure they might superficially seem similar (strong long term upgrades from aging up) but they aren’t quiet the same mechanically.
sure, id expect that if they were added the same way as with the incas.
i’ve looked at the WOL implementation of the faction, and honestly from what little i have read it seems like the factions, and esp wonders, need a massive overhaul.
Americans are not a European faction per say, they are their own unique “culture” - new world nation. except a few units (art and huss) they’re otherwise extremely unique.
1st: my main civs are aztecs and indians, the most different civs in the game.
2nd: europeans were made that way for balance purpouses, also european nations were very simmetric in that times while lakotas, Hauds and Incas are across a continent bigger than 4 europes. they must to be different.
Aoe2 only gives 2 techs and one unique unit. AoE3 gives AT LEAST 2 unique units and a lot of more diversity with decks plus different gameplay-changing bonus as manors, coin vills or CDB. Comparing aoe3 civs with aoe2 ones has no sense.
3rd: New civs have to be attractive, creating a 3rd infantry civ would seem repetitive. The same would happen with lakotas and a new cavalry-nomad civ.
4th: how aztecs and incas are that different? Both have special priest, are focused on food, both have 2 defensive buildings, melee runners, upgrades coin cards for units, firepit unit… All they did is to create a great balance issue cause Incas can do better than aztecs can.
How strange, isn’t it? Because all the gold and silver in the Americas, discovered up to that time, were here… They were in the mines of Potosí, in Bolivia, in the countless Andean rivers, and in the mines of Minas Gerais, in Brazil. The coast was infested with pirates, English, French and other nations, the French allied with the Tamoios (confederation of Tupinambás from Rio de Janeiro, Guaianás and other smaller tribes), against the alliance of Portuguese and Tupiniquins. French already settled in Maranhão too, and were expelled by the Portuguese. At the time of the Iberian union, the Dutch invaded northeastern Brazil, had conflicts with the Portuguese, and were expelled.
Tupi peoples, mainly the Tupinambás, successfully attacked and destroyed several well-established Portuguese towns and villages.
Further south, in southern Brazil, Paraguay and northern Argentina, the Jesuits created a civilization with their own method of managing their economy, uniting European and Guarani elements, the Peoples of the Missions, who were destroyed by the Portuguese sertanists, who lived in São Paulo, together with the Tupi people. Later, the Portuguese and Spanish would maintain constant conflicts until the 19th century, between the South of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Not to mention that there were indigenous peoples who were never conquered by the Spaniards, and who built a kind of local empire, as the greatest example, we have the Mapuches.
There is also the Portuguese Aleixo Garcia, who before Pizarro, convinced 2000 Guarani to go with his band of Portuguese to attack the southeast of the Inca empire to capture loot and send part of it to Portugal, hoping that Portugal would take an interest in the Inca empire. For this, they used the Peabiru, a huge Guarani circular road, lined with short, smooth and self-repairing, tapir pata grass, which used to take up much of southern Brazil, northern Argentina and Paraguay, and continued to the interior of Paraguay. , close to where the Inca roads were located. This happened because the Guaraní had bronze Inca axes, Inca corn, and told Aleixo and the other Portuguese that there was a kingdom with cities on the other side of the continent, just as he described the European kingdoms, which had a lot of gold and silver. In addition, there were very advanced civilized peoples, in addition to the Incas, such as the muíscas, the Tainos, very interesting peoples, such as the Patagons, the Charruas, Indians from the Pampas, the inhabitants of the Xingu, in all their ethnicities, the Munduruku, Tupi tribes who they hunted heads and shrank them, the Jivaros, tribes of another origin, who shrank heads even better. Inhabitants of the Xingu and Santarém, and other Amazonian peoples, even created large cities of riverside stilts, made of wood and straw, which traded exotic products from the tropical forest with the Andeans.
And look at this. In Age of Empires 3, all this diversity and these conflicts are represented by these natives only: Incas, Mapuches, Tupis and Caribes [Mapuches had Rukas, very tall houses, with high roofs, made of wood and straw, Tupis had vaulted longhouses, similar to the Iroquois, but covered with straw, not birch bark, but as many Mapuches, as Tupis and Caribbeans live, apparently in circular huts covered by a semi-spherical roof of straw, a kind of cloth, canvas, or leather… Seeing the variety of architecture of the natives of Africa, and even of North America, although this one also needs a lot of repairs , it is very sad to see Mapuche settlements without rukas, Tupis without Tupi longhouses, at least to increase a little the degree of local realism, as was done with Africa, or at least with North America, where there are these huts that exist in the South America (no people here covered their houses with tarpaulins, I don’t know if in North America they did that… I don’t know where they got the idea), but there are also tipis and longhouses typical of the Haudenossaunee, at least. Even excluding the architectural variety of various peoples, there is a slightly smaller variety than in South America, which already increases the degree of realism]. There are Zapotec and Maya in the Orinoco, just to mention that there were complex societies there. The Incas are the only local civilization, and when they were introduced, instead of the Inca natives being replaced by Aymaras, or Puquinas, or Quechuas, or Chachapoyas, the villages were just kept as “Incas”. If they changed the name to “puquina”, they wouldn’t even need to change the units. If they switched to Aymara, they would change the spearmen’s helmets, put Aymara helmets on the bolas, and change the shield designs. I was too happy unless they upgraded the architecture of the native settlements, to a truly Andean architecture. This has changed a lot of South American maps, making some maps look a little more South American.
Most of the maps do not correspond to local geographic realities either. South America was much despised. I would actually like to see new native civilizations and native peoples from North America represented, especially the Inuit, but South America can be tremendously diverse and greatly enhance the quality of the game. As there are other urban peoples here, and we had confederations such as the Tamoios, which had many thousands of indigenous people in conflict with the Europeans, such as the Haudenossaunee, and as we had indigenous peoples who defeated the Europeans, such as the Mapuches, and made us to back off, it would be very unfair for South America to have only the Incas. How much the world was not impacted at the time and changed because of the contact with Tupi anthropophagic rituals, how much did the Tupi not bequeath to the world? The tobacco that went abroad, left for South America, which is represented in the European Plantations of the game, the cassava that became the basis of food for so many African countries, just as it was for the Portuguese in Brazil. The hammocks, which started to be used on ships so that one could sail more and better, and which were used in the French Revolution as a practical and comfortable bed, allowing revolutionaries to rest better and fight better. The history of North America is amazing, and I really think it should be the game’s emphasis as it was made with a North American audience in mind, and there’s plenty of material to explore from the beautiful history, the beautiful landscapes and the amazing cultures there. But South America was another world too, very interesting, whose history, even here, in South America, not many study.
What a Wonderful comment!
This idea that the architecture of the Incas might represent a kind of test, of “beta”, for a similar civilization of AOE IV, when I went to play with the Incas for the first time, I had a similar thought.
It also seemed strange to me to read a comment that hinted that “South American history was not so interesting because there were not so many wars between Europeans.”
I know this is part of Central America, but to get into context only during the Siege of Tenochtitlan there were armies of 80,000-200,000 vs 80,000-300,000. Even taking into account the smaller numbers, the size of the armies are already greater than those that fought in the Battle of Gettysburg (North America’s bloodiest battle in history).
In the 4 years of the Inca civil war (prior to the arrival of Francisco Pizarro in South America) hundreds of thousands of soldiers had been mobilized between the Huáscar and Atahualpa factions, some chronicles even give figures of 650,000 soldiers, of which only 100,000 survived when Francisco Pizarro captured Atahualpa (the soldiers died in combat and from pandemics), much higher than the almost 100,000 soldiers in total from the two sides who fought in the American Revolutionary War (Including the 11,000 French allies, 12,000 Spanish allies, 30,000 German mercenaries, and 13,000 native allies).
In the wars of the Aztecs and Incas we are talking about armies organized and led by generals of staff, although they usually go under the radar, the allied “native” armies were led by generals and officers educated for the war with years or decades of experience. Unfortunately, many people still have the idea that the ancient American empires were tribal societies that fought almost naked without some kind of organization.
It is also strange to me that they do not know of various stories of indigenous resistance, such as that of Guaicaipuro, who was the one who created the Caribbean Indigenous Confederation which fought for almost 10 years against the Spanish, and that unlike other parts of South America, their territory had large gold reserves for which it was of interest to Spain. The conflict was so great that at the Battle of Maracapana 10,000-30,000 Caribs fought against a similar number of “native allies” of Spain. Even with the smallest amount the size of the armies are superior to the armies that participated in the Siege of Yorktown.
PS: I hope I have not done off-topic
It is difficult to include them as a fraction because they were never politically consolidated.
I would like you to rework your presence as a tribe including new units and upgrades. I think that would be enough.
Just no… Please no. I’m tired of weird civs.
Just add Venice and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with simple European mechanics.
Weird civs? What the hell man Do u mean weird by how they would be designed? I personaly enjoy different designs. The Africans are designed pretty good for example, they are just broken and not balanced. Dont get me wrong, i’m a huge supporter of adding new european civs - Venice, Austria-Hungary (or just austria), renaming germans to prussians, PL commonwealth -im all for that, please more. But this topic is about Mayans having a spot as a major civ, so i dont know why would you say “weird civs” regarding the Maya. Is Aztec also a weird civ because they have more that 3 units and its tough for ya to learn their units names and what they do? Cmon man
As a minor faction it’s fine. You just have to rework.
i personally dont think venice and poland are the most important factions to add atm, even tho i obviously am pro europeans. also venice? call them italians or take a periodically more important “state”.
current germans are most similar to the catholic leagues army of the 30 years war, when it comes down to it they are more austrian than prussian.
also honestly there are other european civs that deserve the spot: danes, poles and italians.
Booo! That’s boring. We have enough Europe.
Weird is your text…
Better to add Italians civ with their unique mechanics (Italian countries like Venice) which was planned for the vanilla game but unfortunately not added. The tiny Venice civ itself would look strange with such civs as the British, Russians or Chinese.
The Venetians make sense as a separate civ, but only in AoE 2!
PLC is just the strangest civ in the history of mankind. I say this as a Pole
The present Germans are as similar to the Prussians as they are to the Austrians - that is, not at all.
After the Thirty Years’ War, Austria cut itself off from the rest of the Germans, focusing on Southeastern and Central Europe. At the same time, a new future empire was slowly emerging, which united the Germans (except for the Austrians) - Prussia.
Since Austria cut itself off from the rest of the Germans in the first half of the 17th century, it makes a lot more sense than the USA civ which was founded at the end of the 18th century and was a revolutionary state!
The current Germans civ is simply based on the HRE - nothing else!
Germans civ, if it was called the Holy Roman Empire, it would be the most appropriate term for it.
Austrians (later Austria-Hungary) and Prussians are completely different civs that would offer a lot of new content and freshness to the game. In addition, they would represent what the current Germans civ cannot.
Personally, I would not support Poles civ, for a very simple reason, in the times of AoE 3, Poles were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a multinational state in which Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians, Tatars, Jews and many more nations lived; similar to the Austrian Empire.
In my opinion of Poles, civ should have a different name - Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth civ / or Poland-Lithuania civ.
The Austrian civ should also be called Austro-Hungary - out of respect for other nations living in this empire. The Danube Empire name for this civ, unfortunately, does not like the forum community
Weird in terms of design ofc. The more asymmetric the game gets, the harder to balance it is…
Harder but not impossible. Dawn Of War - Soulstorm is a pure example - and is done by the guys that make aoe4 - RELIC. Idk how much more asymmetric u can get, where every civ plays differently and u have like 6 basic races plus if u get the Unification mod its like 26 asymmetric races:
Chaos Space Marines
Sisters of Battle
Adeptus Mechanicus Explorators
Legions of the Damned
Khrone World Eaters
And they are all pretty balanced because the team CARES about the game. It is another thing that we aoe3 players have always been the “odd goofballs that play a weird aoe game” and have not got the attention like aoe2. Its harder to balance but if u sit down on your bottom u can do that. But devs pretty much havent cared about this game since forever which is a sad thing but it is what it is. So yes its harder to balance but not impossible if u actually care about the game.