Personally I would replace the Muisca with either the Zapotecs from Mesoamerica or the Tiwanaku or the Wari from the Andes (which would be great for the Inca campaign) because the Muisca were kinda isolated (terrible for campaigns) and also weren’t really big builders, I don’t know what their castle would be, they barely used stone, they would need a completely different architecture set, and if we’re going for civs that would need architecture sets I would rather add the Mississippians/Cahokians
1 Like
The Mayans situation was completely different, they were relevant trough a lot of the time period AoE2 was, their classical period spanned from 250CE to 900CE, and after the classical collapse, they still existed and were pretty powerful during the post-classical that spanned well into the Spanish colonization. The famous Chichén Itzá is believed to have been founded between 750CE and 900CE, which is perfect for AoE2
The Olmecs are a completely different story, they are believed to have existed from 1500BCE to 400BCE, their fall was literally 800+ years before the start of the AoE2 period, but they could be added to AoE1 I guess
1 Like
The representation of the Town of Teotihuacan on the map is also interesting, they are practically close to the Aztec capital town Tenochtitlan.
Tarascan definitely rolls off the tongue easier than Purepecha, but do you think the majority of people would be upset if the civ were called that, considering it’s allegedly offensive?
I don´t se why people would be upset by using either Tarascan or Purepecha. Both terms are used in Mexican and international academia but this is just a RTS game. I prefer Tarascan but either term is acceptable.
2 Likes
A quick reminder that Purepechas (tarascans) ancient territory and control area are in the western side, and their northern border crosses the part that’s undoubtedly known as “north” america today. So it’s not just one mesoamerican civ, it could be considered a northamerican civ too. Unlike aztecs and mayans who are conventionally just mesoamerican.
This means we could get a dlc labeled as “north america” that includes mississippians as a bonus civ together with purepechas, and other mesoamerican and caribbean civs. We’d get 4 civs instead of just 2.
North America: Physical Geography (nationalgeographic.org)
*mesoamerica literally means middle america. It’s the southern part of north america that connects the south american continent. “Meso” nowadays means nothing geographically because it’s just a part of “north america”, but it means a lot culturally and ethnically. Especially for anthropology and history. That’s the point I’m trying to make with Purepechas and Mississippians being “north american” civs, in contrast to the aforementioned distinction towards the mesoamerican ones already in-game I emphasized.
Not really, it is pejorative, I guess it’s not as big of a deal as a slur or something like that, but it’s best if it wasn’t used, afaik the world of academia prefers Purepecha for that reason
I guess you can make the case that the name of the Saracens is similar, but I don’t see how that justifies using another exonym applied by Europeans, also that one isn’t pejorative afaik, just kinda innacurate
Also Purepecha isn’t really difficult to say, just pure-pecha, easy
I´m Mexican I know how to pronounce Purépecha and Tarasco. Again I really don´t see how people can be so upset by that. What “majority of people” would be offended? The 127,318 Purepechas (according to Mexican government sources) living in the state of Michoacán (with a population of 4.749 million) will find offensive whether Age of Empires II introduces a Tarascan or a Purepecha civilization? That´s the least of their concerns. Tarasco was the term more widely used since the Conquest and there are academics who both favor and oppose its use. The same with Purepecha. Tarasco (from the term tarascue) means son-in-law because the inhabitants of that region offered their women to the Spanish Conquistadores. Some academics consider Purepecha to be degrading since it is the equivalent to villager, commoner or plebeian, the lowest rank in the social ladder. Anybody can use either term. I will keep using Tarasco and anybody else can say Purepecha. There is no need to impose terms. According to modest day-laborers in Michoacán: “we are Tarascos because we speak Purépecha" I’ll trust them 
It is an interesting subject but this is my last post on the topic.
1 Like
Okay, maybe Tzintzuntzans then? That would be slightly innacurate because it would kinda just refer to the capital city, but it doesn’t have any bad connotations
I still think Purepecha is the “least pejorative” and “most accurate” term between it and Tarascan, it’s also the one Wikipedia uses, so there’s precedent for it being the most widely accepted term (Wikipedia tends to pick those)
1 Like
Honestly, I doubt the Mayans need to be split between Lowland and Highland, they were still considered by their contemporaries to be Mayan. I voted specifically for the Purepecha/Tarascans, the Zapotecs, and the Mixtecs because honestly these three were the more defined or active missing cultures in the area currently. I think, while doable, a lot of people would scoff at the Tlaxcala simply for the reason that it would be reminiscent of the Franks/Burgundian divide; same main style of play, different timings.
Don’t know about the Tainos, but personally not interested in them, Otomi is a hard nah, they’re like the Swiss in regards to their merc trade. I would have to agree with the guy who said to include an Otomi Warrior unit in a kind of Flemish Militia or Condotierro fashion for their inclusion. The rest I don’t know anything of, so I wont speak on them.