It’s a forum where we are supposed to discuss things, when you make a suggestion people might disagree with it and try to state their own reasons why, as long as it is done in a respectful manner i don’t see the problem. I appreciate everyone making input and doing research on civs because that means we have a lively community, doesn’t mean i have to agree with every suggestion put forth.
Also the fact that the OP is acting like adding Mayans is the best thing since sliced bread, while being extremely condescending about any diverging opinion is not making any of us more sympathetic to his point of view.
Mayans being worthy of being a full civ is mostly a mater of opinion, but look how he reacts when someone doesn’t agree with him:
People who agree with him : men of culture (his words)
People who disagree : Morons (my take)
That’s kinda ridiculous,if I disagree with someone replying in the same thread is the proper response, I shouldn’t make a different thread, in this example your saying I should make a separate thread called “why Mayans don’t belong” rather than replying to an already existing thread instead of having two separate threads both regarding Mayans
I recommend you read this, the Mayans were an amazingly powerful entity during this period unfortunately aoe3 doesn’t go all the way back to this period, and the Mayans past this period were not United, nor were they a major military or economic power.
Disagreeing exists, you should try to learn to accept that, if disagreements weren’t allowed to happen then I could just make a thread for any civ I want even if it doesn’t fit the timeline at all like Canada.
No, it just means that if you have a idea of a “better or fitter civ”, write it down in another post
I too know what doesn’t mean, as it also still means as it was the core of the text do people need to seriously be so negative ALL the time?
Like The US too
I was mad about it, as others, then as many many things that one tend to forget, its a game, bears pop out of town centers, a canoe can take down a full galeon warship, it doesnt matter, tomorrow they could anounce a full korean civ and the “thanks devs” gonna rain (mine included) even from the many people who spend too much time talking about that they dont have enough geopolitical influence at the time
I know friend, believe me I know
What I’ve described as a general norm of just negativity toward new civs suggestions(which is not equal to say disagreement) is true, doesnt have anything to do with “no accepting disagreement”
I can(and do) agree that they dont fit the time period of the game (is true) thats why I said the AOM thing.
STILL is awful that one just writes with pasion and love for something, have anyone else done a proper outside of wikipedia research about something you like and then post it here?
And before anyone say’s it here it goes
Yes, as many things
That shows he is immature , it doesnt affects his proposal
If anyone else have the urge to response saying something about “disagreement=negativity”, do it, if you feel triggered about my response, you must definitively do it
Aight, idk if i was being immature or simply very passionate regarding the Mayans - you decide. But anyway - have your Mapuches, and Crees, and Tupis whatever. I posted a suggestion about an iconic civilization that, wheter u agree or not, IS tied to the colonial era, and this thread became a spamshow of comments saying how the Mayans were irrelevant and what not - which is absolute bollocks. I hope the devs see the thread and consider this mesoamerican civilization as a possible dlc/expansion with 1-2 new southamerican natives. Thats all folks - im not trying to be toxic over here - i am a simple guy that wants a Maya civ because they are relevant to the aoe3 timeline. If i was wanting Spartans as a DLC - it would be fair to ridicule me - but im not. I ask for a civ that fought the spaniards and once again, a campaign about the tragic story of Gonzalo Guerrero - the spaniard-turned-Mayan would be a very interesting one and actually based on real history. Thats it. Have a good one yall and im sorry if i hurt somebody’s feelings with my Maya passion. Cheers
I have absolutely no idea what image people do have of mayans since they, not only were very relevant during the period, but, unlike the aztecs, they still exist as a cultural identity to this day (?)
Like, they didn’t go extinct, there’s literally millions of mayan people nowadays. And before anyone says (yeah kinda late for that) but they didn’t do anything in period bruh the guerra de castas lasted for almost a century.
Yours make no sence since Mayans were NEVER EVER EVER united like Aztecs or Incas… nor did they ever form any form of confederation like Haudenosaunee or Lakota people.
they were more like Greek city states that often went to war against each other.
Notice that no civs in AOE3 were dis-unified.
Okey let me get this straight -I’ll give u an example - we have Germans civ right? - Were the Germans united at that period of time - No, because this is post - HRE and we are playing Prussia - under the banner/name - Germans. There were other germanic states as the Confederation of the Rhine (created by Napoleon), Austria, Wurttenburg, Saxony etc etc . So the same thing can be applied to the Mayans as it was applied to the Hausa people and the Germans by that rule. Plus @HoopThrower Preach Hoop! “They were like city states”, blah blah same argument thrown over and over - and i’ll repeat about the Hausa again - they were the same - like 7 kingdoms, and we are playing the Kano state/kingdom as the most powerful and prominent one. Jesus, does anyone have common sense these days? So we CAN have Germans ,and Hausa ( both not united and warring with each other) but no Mayans. Seems reasonable right? No.
Same can be applied to the Italians (many people want Italians - including me). So what would it be - Venice, Naples, Kingdom of Italy. Because the Italians were at each other’s throats since the dissolution of the Roman Empire untill the formation of the Kingdom Of Italy. Member the Pazzi conspiracy? I member. And since AoE3 names the peoples that share the same traits and language under an umbrella name - “Italians” in this case- , we are talking a very large timespan : from 1497 (the beginning of the Age of Discovery, where the timeline of the game starts, to the fall of the Japanese Shogunate 1867 just before the Meiji Restoration where the game timeline ends. So which Italians will we be playing with? …Yes u guessed it correctly - they will be named Italians and will have the different techs and bonuses from the italian city-states - like florentine banks, venetian ports etc. So why you guys continue with the city-state argument and that they were separated -yes they were but also a big chunk of the other civs we have in the game were too. So not treating the Mayans with the same point of view is called cherry picking.
There was a literal Mayan free state proclaimed in period. They had international diplomatic relations and everything.
Seriously, where do people even get this information?
Idk man, u tell me…There is a latin proverb that says “Damnant quod non intelligunt” - or “those who do not understand - judge”.
You say it yourself, scientists of the pre-colonial age. I wonder when AoE III starts…
Also by the time of AoE III the Maya’s were only a small portion of which they once were. Not to mention due to diseases them turning to a lot of Aztec practices like the sacrafises.
We really, and I cant stress this enough, dont need another Aztec/Inca civ as the Aztecs became already obsolete with Incas.
Are you just gonna ignore the two posts i made and chery pick “the scientists of the pre-colonial” era and hit me with that, and also repeat “they were a small portion” which is not correct at all. But i will indulge and reply. Yes the mesoamerican scientist of the precolonial era that got colonized. This game is about colonization so you do the math yourself buddy. And the AoEIII timeline starts from 1497. And how are Aztec obsolete exactly. If u want to lame the ladder with the top 3 civs atm that doest mean people dont play Aztec. Your whole post is a bunch of nonsense mate for real.
The Mayan’s heyday was in the time period of games prior to the time period of AoE3. It’d be more fitting to laud for their inclusion into AoE4 than AoE3 - If more Natives are to be added to AoE3, I’d suggest the Mapuche and the Tupi, although I’d personally like to see the Iron Confederacy and the Dakota or Kiowa.
Maya civilization collapsed way before the arrival of Europeans. It turned into city states and smaller states, which then, with the introduction of the Old World diseases, addopted more of the Aztec culture of sacrafising while they became more desperate.
Aztecs in game are about the same as Inca, while Inca has way better units and Buildings.
Literally almost everything Aztecs can, do the Incas better. Priests? Priestess. Skull knight? Maceman. Etc.
Usually Aztecs win because opponents dont know how to counter them, which isnt too hard.
Also you expect me to read what you argue about with others? I read your main post, which I respond to. If you werent clear in your original post, you should edit it and not expect people to read all your posts.
How different would Dakota play compared to Lakota? I dont know, but assume there are cultural differences, but were their military and such really different?
I, if indeed more natives were to be added, do prefer the mapuche, as I think they can have some interessting mechanics around their village society and guerilla warfare.
The Dakota were significantly different - the Lakota are the nomads, the Dakota are a woodland people. A significant portion of their population is traditionally bound to defending the Pipestone Quarries, which is where the peace pipes of the Oceti Sakowin are mined from. (This is the only place we mined from, and it’s a huge religious deal to get the materials for a peace pipe from the pipestone quarries.) The Dakota would, imo, play as a turtling and booming civ with an emphasis on strong infantry units, likely with 2-3 stealthy units.
Mayans adopted the Aztec culture of sacrificing? Man like @HoopThrower said before - where exactly do you got that info about Mayans adopting Aztec culture. One of the primary cause for warfare , alonside of course territorry was collecting victims for sacrifice. They were doing the sacrifices since forever. And to @AnaWinters, yes maybe their heyday was indeed prior to the aoe3 timeline - take a time to ponder on what was one of the main reason for their dowfall. I’ll give you a hint - they got colonized. And about the Dakota/Nakota/Lakota - these are people that share a language. Through the history civilizations are defined by their language - that is the most important thing that distiguishesh one civ from another. That is the reason that asking for a Dakota civ would be pointless since we already have Lacota representing that nation as a subtribe. But Aztec, Inca and Maya didnt share a common language. And about the design of the Inca, you need to blame the devs for lack of creativity.
As someone who can literally speak Lakota, lemme tell you right off the bat that I can’t understand jackshit when someone speaks Dakota to me - the two are about as interchangeable as Portuguese and Spanish.
And Nakoda? Nakoda isn’t even a part of the Oceti Sakowin, that’s part of the Iron Confederacy, an entirely different nation.
I’m literally Lakota.
(For comparison, Nakoda is about as similar to Lakota and Dakota as Mongolian is to Spanish.)
Okey, but this is 2021 and we are talking about the historical nations. Through the years languages mutate. You can take the scousers - Liverpool. Everybody struggles to understand them. Its called dialect and accent. If you cant understand, or struggle to understand Dakota, that doesnt mean that the Dakota language doesnt belong to the SIoux languages. The great Sioux nation speaks a common language with dialects among the 3 subnations. Talk to any linguist and they will approve of what im saying.