No, they went extinct. They were reintroduced by Europeans.
1 Like
Sri lanka had lions in the past that dosent mean anything by the time europeans came.
Why only ram make them unique by removing all siege and giving substitute units?
Yea non of those civs had sea faring Navies, complex seige engines, steel weapons, steel armour or castle like fortifications. To give them all those things would just be more fictional content which undermines the gameâs feel of authenticity.
1 Like
What do you think about Aztecs, Mayans and Incas in the game?
1 Like
Same opinion. Never liked the way they were implemented.
I wouldnât be against it if they somehow figured a way to include them that was authentic, like no castles, no trebs, no big ship navies, etc⊠but thats not how the developers decided to make this game, they decided early on that all cives would share the same foundational blocks which is fine if you are dealing with old world civs that had contact with each other over this time period and shared similar or comparable tech, but it doesnât suit the American civs.
Might as well just create a separate game with just the American civs and add all the ones everyone wants⊠but we know that wonât happen either.
I somewhat agree with that.
I think the American civilisations could need an update.
In some why the Indian civilisations feel more unique then the American ones with their Siege Elephants, Battle Elephants and Elephant Archers on top of up to 3 unique units per civilisation.
Giving them more unique siege would help a lot.
But siege is often very unrealistic in the game. Huns have a bonus for Trebuchets despite them never using them historically. Same for Japanese.
(The whole Mangonel line is completely historically wrong anyway)
In regards to navy I think the game is in need of some major changes anyway plus there are some land locked civilisations in the game too anyway so that will never be realistic.
Iâd love to propose a lot of new unique and regional units but AoE2 players are way to conservative.
Some of the historical issues could be mitigated by regional skins so we donât have Mayan Crossbows or Aztecs Champions in plate amour anymore.
But adding more American civilisations wonât make the game any more historically wrong than it already is. If you donât like them, fine. But adding more things doesnât ruin existing things, does it?
1 Like
I recommend only these three pre-Columbian civs for AoE 2 because I think that only they fit this game. These were highly developed civilizations from America that are worth including in the game alongside the more famous âfriendsâ from the Americas - the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans.
ehh⊠I have responded to similar arguments many times in the past so Iâll try to be brief.
Civs like Huns or other civs that only existed in the early Medieval period like Goths for example can get away with those kinds of innacuracies without feeling inauthentic or âwrongâ because by the time of the âImperial Ageâ those civs would have morphed into other identities, but their descendants would have still been there using that kind of tech they just wouldnât have called themselves âGothsâ or âHunsâ anymore⊠itâs not perfect but its an acceptable level of deviation from historical accuracy for a video game. Your tolerance may vary but I am ok with that. For the American civs, their entire foundation is wrong, they start out being completely innacurate (there is a freakin donkey in the Dark Age mill FFS!!!) and they continue to be inaccurate throughout the gameâs timeline. Ofcourse you can have a debate every minute detail of every civ, and in general yes I would be for tweaking them as much as possible to make them feel more authentic, but while with most of the civs a tweak here or there would make them more beleivable, the American civs are in a league of their own, like where do you even begin to change them without completely redesigning the game?
Same story, you could have been a land locked civilisation in the middle of Europe but you would have known about galleys, merchant ships and so on. And actually a lof of those ships sailed in rivers as well so you didnât necessarily have to have a shoreline next to the ocean to have a navy as such. And in any case, it is completely beleivable that had any of those civs expanded in their own regions they could have had access to that technology, because the tech itself wasnât inaccessible to them.
This would be a good start, but nowhere near enough of a change to bring them to standard.
Sure it does. Adding more stuff that you know is going to be so far from historical accuracy just makes the game more silly and ruins its tone. This might not be important to most people but if you are asking my opinion, it matters to me. Again there is a difference between civs that get some details wrong and civs that are just built on complete fantasy from the ground up and at the moment the American civs fall into the latter cateogry. In general I am also for more regional skins and also donât like the European skins being on all the units.
But isnât it already âruinedâ with the existing American civilisations?
So adding more wouldnât change much, would it?
Siege, ships and Castles are the most out of place in general. I mean the game has multiple nomadic civilisations that never had any fortifications.
1 Like
Again, tolerances will vary, but I donât think like that⊠to me just because there is already some bad things in the game isnât an argument for adding more bad things to the game.
Yea but again, those ânomadicâ civs were all in contact with the other civs in the game and shared technologies. It is totally conceivable that they could adapt and pick up tech from other people they came into contact with. Also not sure which ânomadicâ civs you refer to. If its the Mongols, well they actually brought trebuchets to Europe and also engaged in siege warefare. The Celts? They are one of the early civs I mentioned before, so if we imagine that say by the âImperial Ageâ they are effectively âThe Scotsâ it makes sense that they would have access to the kind of tech that they have. Any other civ you think of could be thought of in a simiar way.
1 Like
So you just want to ruin other peoples fun? Ok. Itâs not like anything is taken away from you. You already have the âissueâ that you might have to fight unrealistic civilisations in mulitplayer. Is the increased chance of that happening so bad for you?
Or is it that you hate it when the devs work on any content that is not for you?
I thought about the Huns and Cumans that both have a captured version of a different civilisations monument as a wonder.
The Goths are pretty much whatever. They are not just Goths but also pre 1000 AD Germans and Iberians depending on definition. And somehow they have fully upgraded Hand Cannons.
The Celts are not a nomadic civilisation by any definition anyway.
(The fact that the Mongols brought the Trebuchet to Europe also shows that itâs wrong for all the older civilisations)
Ok confirmed youâre just an idiot with comprehension difficultiesâŠ
2 Likes
Yes, they are things that AoE 2 already has since its originâŠin AoE 1 the same thing happens, much more marked in addition (Sumerians fighting against Romans of the fourth century AD) and in AoE 3 less markedâŠ
I like the general concept. But it might be a bit weak. I think for balance reasons a scout unit needs to have 2 Pierce Armor as baseline.
I think there are several ways to solve the current eagle âdilemmaâ of being a âjack of all traitsâ unit. One of them can be to reduce the pierce armor and another to remove the anti-cav bonus. A third one could also be to remove the anti-monk ability (for a civ that also would get light cav). idk if removing both pierce armor and anti-cav bonus is such a good idea though. Unless ofc it comes with some other major buffs. But I donât see them in your design so far.
I think uitâs too good against archers. Maybe it doesnât have the range, but man is this thing tanky.
It would most likely just be those civs standard answer to xbows. And super effective as it doesnât need any upgrades.
I also donât see why it shouldn break walls. Whatâs the sense of a siege unit if yu canât break in with it?
I think it has potential but needs some tweaking.
I think this is too strong in the early and midgame. We often have stages where half of the eco is on Wood. And wood is also collected way faster than most food sources. Even with the âstandardâ 4 vills on wood start this will already translate to more than 100 extra Food before even clicking up to feudal. And opposed to civs like Lithuanians it doesnât stop there. I think 10 % is the upper limit for this bonus.
I thinnk even with the 10 % itâs still a very neat bonus as it gives you just a nice trickle of âpassiveâ food supply pretty mucg like the current Gurjara bonus. But it scales with your economy. Free food is very valueable and shouldnât be underestimated in itâs effect in the game. We saw already what can happen with âtoo muchâ free food when Ttars got their 2 extra sheep in feudal.
I donât think this works out. And I think if they add unique buildings to civs these should get some kind of special feature. And not being just âworseâ than the standard building they replace, thatâs weird.
what?
Interesting. I think the bonus vs Infantry doesnât need to be that big. Ranged melee units are usually very strong vs Infantry anyways. BUt it might be difficult to separate them more from TA. Maybe just more damage output (atk or ROF) for less HP could do the job?
Could be interesting to see. Just for interest, how much of a difference would it make for infantry to have that extra speed and bonus damage.
Wouldnât do that tbh. There is a reason why all the current mesos have some bonus to their Skirm line. Missing one of the three pillows of trash wars weights heavy enough on a civ, but basically only having one acceptable trash unit is a very heavy burden on a civ. What to they if the opponent just throws out Skirms at them? When their own skirms suck and donât have light cav, they are basically helpless without gold.
Better rethink giving them so bad skirms.
Thatâs a bit weird.
I miss somthing that excites me. Interesting set of nice to have bonusses, but nothing that really catches the eye.
This could possibly acheived by a secondary projectile that has lower range. But then would be âdeals more damage against closer enemiesâ.
Thatâs a bit weird. But I like a ranged trash unit concept that has bonus vs Infantry. I would put it in the Archery Range though.
Nice little bonus. Itâs actually weird the devs havenât though of giving it to a civ already. Would enable so many interesting opener strats without breaking anything as hunt is in most cases very limited.
Nice little Archer bonus.
Why do you give this bonus to that civ that actually has access to cavalry? I think the other civs would be better suited with a more meaningful bonus to their falcons tbh.
Thatâs actually a quite strong TB. I like it cause imo generally the american civs often donât offer very much in TGs (when they donât have like the best archer play in the gameâŠ).
The UTs of this civ donât make really sense to me. With the early game bonusses the civ looks to me like a typical early agression american civ. Just give them something blunt like Garland Wars or El Dorado, that suits them better. When they come in a position where they need to counter what the opponent does they will have issues anyways. And the techs have too many different effects at once.
Can be mixed in with their falcons. Nice special unit that suits the civ quite well.
Thatâs too much. The unit is cheaper on Gold than the current CA. They are fine with just having the same attack.
No, just no. We donât need stuff that has been removed for good reasons to be put in the game again.
OH you mean âCavalryâ only in respect of their CA replacement? I thought you would give them at least light cav from castle age 11.
Maybe you should #### # ##### Tech Tree for these civs, cause atm I can only guess what you mean there.
I wasnât sure about this initially, but I think itâs too strong in the early game. Though it might be kinda expensive and slow to get up, I think this would be abused to drush FC buildorders where this kind of Investment isnât that punishing. Whilst I donât have something in general against drush FC, I think having only a few civs that can perform that so much better than all the others isnât the right way to handle it. I htink this can feel kinda unfair. I know these civs donât have Knights, but itâs still kind of too much imo.
Unless the civ has otherwise no early game bonus and is therefore basically forced to do this, this would be an acceptable tradeoff as the opponent would know whatâs coming (most of the time) and already set up his gameplan to deal with it.
I could see civs having access to fortified palisades from feudal. They could even come with âonlyâ costing wood. And either replacing only stone walls or being en entirely new defence.
Thatâs intended.
They are not supposed to feel like Eagle civilisations.
This unit is more situational and less of a general purpose unit like the Eagle Warrior.
Is it though? Mangonels are probably more useful and they are trained at the same building.
They are intended to be used together with other siege like Rams.
Mangonels and Scorpions arenât good against walls either.
Iâd rather take away some starting resources then make this bonus weaker.
The other option would be to make it scale by Age.
10%/15%/20%/25% per age.
They have a unique technology that makes them useful though.
The Caravansetai heals 60HP per minute but only for Trade Carts.
The Longhouse heals 20HP per minute for all units.
Infantry will probably get a buff in the next update.
Also they have bad archers so they need something to deal with Infantry.
Thatâs the Gbeto.
I think itâs boring if all natives play too similar.
I though about giving them Trash Falcon Warriors but that might be too strong. Maybe if they miss the Elite upgrade.
Iâd prefer if it could scale linearly by distance.
The idea is that itâs a defensive unit. You canât easily mass it because it trains in the TC instead of the Archery range.
Also it gives your TCs something to do in late imperial.
The only cavalry they have access to are Bow Riders in Imperial Are.
They do not have access to a stable.
They are a lot more fragile though since they donât have Parthian Tactics nor Bloodlines.
tbh. I forgot why I added this bonus.
Definitely not needed.
âCavalryâ as in they have fast Eagle Warrior type units.
They donât have access to the Stable.
I didnât want to post a Tech Tree because I didnât want to choose the exact technologies they have access to yet. There are so many possible variables that canât be decided without testing those units in practice.
I forgot the mention that they should only be available starting in Feudal Age.
Maybe they should still have access to normal Palisades too and the Fortified Palisade only replaces the Stone Wall.
AoE2-onlies saying Native American civs would fit AoE3 better vs. AoE3-onlies saying Narive American civs donât belong in AoE3.
Life is fun.
Yes, curious to say the least⊠the Native American civs make sense in AoE 3 because of the contact they had with the Europeans, but at the same time they feel very archaic having to fight against gunpowder units of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuriesâŠ
1 Like
I was throwing shade at those people