the date is usually between 1450 and 1660. there is one study that supports an earlier date. However we know nothing about what happened between this earlier date and 1450.
Even if they had been founded earlier, their important role in history occurred later.
You are just picking the earlier date because it suits your narrative, so that they can be added to the game.
it applies way less to them. Firstly because we have clear records of them existing earlier. Secondly because the height of their civilizations were earlier.
By 1600, both the Inca and Aztecs had stopped to exist as independent peoples, whereas the Iroquois reached their peak in the 17th and 18th century.
Using the official timeline from Forgotten Empires, these are the campaigns that begin after 1450:
Francisco de Almeida (starts 1476)
Montezuma (starts 1515)
Bayinnaung (starts 1538)
Lepanto (1571)
Kyoto (1582)
Noryang Point (1598)
That gives you six campaigns that clearly start after 1450.
Some players also count Dracula, since it spans 1448â1477, but because it begins before 1450, it doesnât meet the strict cutoff. If you include it anyway, the total becomes seven.
as for your feeling you need to exclude civilizations that are gone by the year 1600⊠thatâs completely irrelevant. so many AOE civs were gone by 1600, but also so many were still going strong by 1600.. you could stay Britons and Spanish reached their peak in the 17th and 18th century as well.
first of all, only 3 of those are campaigns, the others are standalone scenarios.
second, there is a difference between a campaign being set that late, and the entire civilization only existing that late:
Portugal has been around since 1000ish CE
Aztecs since at least 1300 CE
the Burmese are even older
Japanese and Koreans have been independent civilizations for millenia.
Nowhere am I saying that that we should exclude civilizations that are gone by the year 1600. Quite the opposite. I am using the fact that some of the civs are gone by 1600 to emphasize that their peak was in the middle ages. In opposition to the Iroquois confederacy who were only founded by the end of the middle ages (if not later), but their main contribution to world history happened way later, ie in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Spanish. Castile and Aragon united in 1469, forming the basis of Spain. The âSpanish Empireâ as we think of it (Columbus, conquests, etc.) begins in 1492.
That is an opinion. I would argue their main contribution to world history was the founding of the confederacy, which is one of the oldest continuously functioning democracies on Earth.
the point is. this game is a form of new media, and the developers use it to tell a story. Many others share my view that the founding of the Haudenosaunee confederacy would be a good story that can be told thru the form of Age of Empires 2: DE
Iâd just do a wider Iroquoian umbrella civ instead of just Haudenosaunee, so the founding date of the confederacy doesnât matter. Even if it was in the 15th century, there were other Iroquoian chiefdoms and policies around.
IIRC thereâs no consensus in how it happened, but the contact itself occured at least once or twice, there are Old World animal species remnants found buried throughout the Andean settlements and New World plant species cultivated in Oceania. Islanders of Rapa Nui have traces of Amerindian DNA. (Fun fact: Icelanders as well, so some Viking must have brought a wife on a return journeyâŠ)
The Spanish in game are an umbrella for Castille and Aragon, just as much as they represent the Spanish Empire. Statements like this make me question if you even play the game, considering that the Spanish campaign takes place way before the Spanish Empire was founded.
we donât even know when this happened, yet itâs their main contribution to world history?
aoe2 is a medieval wargame and maybe a city builder. what major wars did they fight in the middle ages, what major cities did they build in the middle ages?
I should have phrased that better. What I meant is that there is no evidence of a continuous exchange between the two (ie trade, wars, migrations)
The study about the DNA (Native American gene flow into Polynesia predating Easter Island settlement - PMC) suggests a âsingle contact event occurred in eastern Polynesiaâ. Donât get me wrong, this is super fascinating, and I recommend reading this paper to anyone. However it is not the compatible with the previous claim of âthe Polynesians were in contact with the Incaâ. That to me implies that there was an exchange of ideas and trade over a longer period of time. (also as a side, it definitely wasnât the Inca, since this event probably occurred about 200 years before the Inca had formed, and the DNA suggests it was native americans from further north)
This paper gives evidence that there was some DNA movement from the Americas to Polynesia, but not in the other direction.
It also leaves open another option:
We cannot discount an alternative explanation: a group of Polynesians voyaged to northern South American and returned together with some Native Americans, or with Native American admixture.
However at no point does the paper even entertain the idea of a pro-longed exchange.
By the way, Spanish are a gunpowder civilization and their UU is the Conquistador⊠i think that speaks to their designed timeframe enough.
we are a community here. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Obviously this is a fantasy thread of what civilizations COULD be added to the game. Its probably not going to happen anyway
I checked this. Itâs because Caribs were a warrior society similar to Spartans. So the premise is that military units ingame are the only actual Carib males and that the Villagers are slaves taken from other tribes.
Female Villagers still represent Carib women, who mostly took car of domestic affairs, but they were also trained in archery and would assist the men in war (often as two women per man), or just fight with them in desperate situations. Female captives also were more likely to assimilate into Caribs than male captives, who were often eaten after a while.
Itâs curious to notice though that out of all of these only the first Almeida scenario is set in Europe (in 1476), arguably Lepanto between Europe and Africa.
utterly false, there are many things Iâd like to see added to the game, and I have mentioned them in many different posts.
Things Iâd like to see added:
improved match making (better control over maps, civ selection etc)
better lobby system
more leaderboard challenges like barbarossa brawl and mangudai madness
optional skins
offical legacy datasets
more game modes
the list goes on and on.
the spanish are a gunpowder and monk civilization, not just a gunpowder civilization. Saying âspanish have conquistador, so that alone defines their timeframeâ is just as ignorant and wrong as saying âFranks have Throwing Axemen, so that alone defines their timeframeâ. If you want to know, who the devs wanted a civ to represent, at least also look at the AI player names. That will show you that the Spanish are meant to represent the different Spanish kingdoms all the way back to the 8th century.
you are the one calling me âignorantâ? at what point that I insult you?
there were several solar eclipses in that area over the centuries. Solar eclipses arenât that rare, among others there was also a solar eclipse in 1451 (which is the reason for that date). But be honest, that isnât the real reason why you are picking either date.
You are picking the date that suits your narrative. The only thing we will be able to agree on is that there is no consensus.
so how could you make a civ from that?
What AI leader names can you give? Hiawatha (âpossibly a real personâ), who else?
We know so little about them before European contact, so you will mostly be left with semi-legendary people like Hiawatha or people who are at the extreme edge of the aoe2 timeline, if not way after it.
very simple: what happened in Iroquois history from 1142 until contact with the Europeans?
where are you getting that number from? you are off by over a century
because for the Inca (and Aztecs) we have fortresses and monuments built in the actual middle ages. So even if the Inca had only started being a thing in the 1440s (which is something you made up), we can make a castle design for them, we can make a wonder design for them, we can make unique units for them. how would any of this work for the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee, if you prefer that name)?
well you missed the point, didnât you? and starting with name calling wonât get you very far.
To give him justice, the game still doesnât have the option to load an earlier version on Steam, even though itâs an industry standard at this point. He posted a couple times that he wouldnât be so adamant in the fight against changes if he had an option to load an earlier patch and play against people on that version.
Fair, but we are just pee-ons fantasizing. we are not devs. the game is what is it. arguing with me isnât going to change it. like any game on steam. vote with your wallet as they say. I just think its important to recognize that people are allowed to have different opinions on what they like.
Hey guys, can you all calm down a bit? Is it really that hard to have a civil debate?
From now on, Iâm going to monitor this thread and take appropriate action, so just calm down.
As we expand the scope covered by the Iroquois umbrella, their legitimacy as an AoE2 civ becomes stronger (regardless of how strong or weak it was previously). Just as a single Polynesian civ represents all of Oceania mentioned above, for the similar reason, perhaps this Iroquois civ could represent all of North America. Iâm not saying I think they are the only sufficiently decent group in the region at the Middle Ages, but it is clearly a practical approach for the game. Both of the regions are the most mysterious and unknown within the AoE2 time frame.
The concept for a DLC consequently emerged: The Uncharted Lands, with the Iroquois and the Polynesians.
Even so, its priority might still be quite low, perhaps even lower than the splits for European civs like the Venetians, because avoiding engagement with them to preserve their mystery and obscurity remains the simplest way to avoid controversy and problems.
Wont polynesians fit more with a malay themed dlc? I would like to see natives that can represent canada and usa more than polynesia.I like the dlc name,very cool sounding.
Eeeeh, North America is much more diverse. Iâm ok with umbrella Polynesians, but in NA we need at least distinct civs for Iroquoians, Algonquians, Mississippians â these would also be big umbrellas, but not as drastic as having everything North American in one. Thatâd be much worse than Khitanguts NGL.
(Iâm not counting Pueblo-adjacent nations here because theyâd need a different architectural set.)
