[Poll] Should AoE4 get Native Americans?

Projectiles aren’t the only way to fight at sea. Boarding and ramming were viable options and boarding at least could work for canoes.

It seems to me that you can’t count on a large number of civs in AoE 4 (even from Europe or Asia). It seems to me that if there were any American DLC for AoE 4 at all, it would definitely add Aztecs - this civ is a sure thing. The Incas are in second place.

I think that more civs from America cannot be counted, because the development of AoE 4 is a failure.

1 Like

On the topic of How 2 Add American civilizations to AoE4.

That is pretty difficult.

In my personal opinion, there is 2 ways.

The easy way: Add them as AI “wild” units, on par with Wolves, that sometimes can be aggresive, but will only stay close to their “village”. They have a Neutral trade that you can trade with. But they also slowly contest resources / map control, they would be more on level with a Hard-AI without being expansionary, and running wild around the map with units. Instead play close and defensively in nature.
If you are to build to close to their area, they will turn aggresive and start attacking.
So to prevent random attacks like that, a option is to just defeat them and remove the threat.

The Hard way: Adding the Civs as a playable Civilization.
And to keep them somewhat historical, one isn’t able to give them cavalry or gunpowder.
A compensation for lack of mobility, is to grant them something akin to Eagle Warrior in AoE2.
Another addition is allowing them to build unique buildings, that allow one to “teleport” to the other side that structure is linked with.
Structures need to be constructed near forests. in order to use the “teleport” function.

This is to simulate the Mesoamericans often having small warbands roaming around the deep forests, that would be called upon when the need arises.

This should be a ok solution to their lack of mobility due to lack of horses.

A big problem is when it comes to siege and gunpowder, which they never had, and the few they grabbed are just stolen goods.
Not having gunpowder units such as bombard and cannoneers will severely impact their late game and something needs to either take their place, or allow some sort of hardcounter towards these?

Do you have sources for these examples of Inca sieges?

New World Civs never achieved the level of their conquerors.

Disease was a convenience, not a necessity during conquest.

1 Like

History of the Inca Realm by Mariah Rostworowski. (for info about smoke usage in warfare).
The Invention of Conquest (Six) - War, Spectacle, and Politics in the Ancient Andes (cambridge.org) (for the smoke, boulders, and diverting water canals strats. Also mentions that the inca empire is the only civilization of the New World that had real military doctrine and logistics).
The Rise of the Inca: From Rags to Riches (wondriumdaily.com) (mentions chimor water supplies were under inca control during the war).
native American civilizations – South America Chimu (histclo.com) (mentions that incas developed the strategy of diverting water from besieged cities).

Note that I wrote “siege strategies”, NOT siege weapons. Incas didn’t build anything that could be considered a “siege weapon” in the modern sense of the word. Like rams or trebuchets that ARE indeed siege weapons.
However, they developed strategies that helped them to overcome enemy fortifications. Like using smoke, burning crops, taking over enemy water reservoirs, diverting and cutting off supply lines, etc. If we have to compare them to European strats, it’s like a mix of ottoman posts takeover and roman scorched earth strategies.

1 Like

It was absolutely a necessity. Population of the Americas fell by over 80% because of disease alone, and even then there were Native nations that never fell to colonialist expansionism, like the Mapuche or Seminole.

If an 80%+ population reduction still didn’t guarantee a full win, I don’t think the colonial powers would have gotten more than a few hundred miles from the coast if disease hadn’t wrecked the Americas.

Also, to note, Europeans invading the Americas wasn’t “civilization fighting stone age warriors”. The sole field of technology the Europeans had that was better than the Americas was military-based technology. Americans had more sustainable agriculture with higher outputs, better standards of living, larger and cleaner cities, higher levels of education throughout the populations on average, and were no less sophisticated on a cultural level than Europeans.

Europeans won because Europe is a continent of nations mashed together that required the various powers to learn to fight or die, while the Americas were large enough that nations could simply move away from each other, no warfare necessary to settle disputes.

Also, even in the military aspect, Europeans didn’t “out-gun” Native Americans. Native warfare, especially at first, regularly trounced Europeans with little to no effort because the Europeans weren’t used to guerilla tactics or opponents that wouldn’t face them on an open field. Until the late 1800’s, Native warbows were often out-ranging European guns, often with a much higher rate of fire.

Disease is essentially the sole factor that won the Americas.

  1. We don’t even know what the Mississippians looked like, or what language they spoke. We know more about Neanderthals from 100k years ago than we do about Mississippians.
  2. The Muisca would make a good civ. I picked the Mapuche because they’re recognizable and known.
  3. The Puebloans are similarly as unknown as the Mississippians. The best we could do is base them off their more modern descendants.
  4. The Algonquins are too far south to have been met by the vikings. I have mentioned this before, but my best guess as to who the vikings met were the Mik’maq and the Inuit. More likely the Inuit, as they have long been very defensive of their land while the Mik’maq were more trade-oriented with their southern neighbors.
1 Like

This is simply untrue. Just think about where the conflict took place… Obviously the Europeans had better ships and navigational technology. Far more advanced metallurgy is another pretty obvious one. Yes, those technologies have military applications, but they aren’t solely military. The natives were on par or surpassing the Europeans in a lot of fields, but there are also many non-military technologies where they lagged behind.

The time period of the game is ~800-1500AD. Even the cultures you suggested would have been in similarly unknown forms at that time. You’d have to go off oral history of their descendants and archaeology. For the Mississippians and Puebloans there are a massive amount of ruins that can provide information.

I’m meaning a kind of proto-Algonquins which would include people like the Mik’maq and other speakers of Algonquin languages. Were the Mik’maq even around in the year 800, or was there an earlier tribe that they split off from or displaced?

The Inuit definitely weren’t around their present location in 800. The Vikings would have been mostly interacting with the Thule. And by the time the Inuit began expanding into the area, the North American and Greenland colonies were being abandoned.

1 Like

Those things all arose out of military technology, which is the point I was making.

I wouldn’t say “similarly unknown,” the oral history of the Lakota, at least, can be traced back to about 2k years ago with surprisingly high accuracy due to the religious nature of the culture orienting around stars. The religious rites in place base themselves off the stars, so it’s as simple as calculating how far the stars have moved since their beginnning.

The Thule, Inuit, and Mik’maq are the best choices, but please don’t lump them all into one category. It’s as bad as the people who keep trying to turn the Lakota into a generic Plains Native civ.

The navigation technology is not a military tech. Metal is not just a military tech. Steel tools alone are a huge technological advantage. Writing and organizational technology is not military.

You are just more familiar with that history. I would not be surprised if the Puebloan descendants have similar oral histories.

Only Mik’maq are Algonquin, I would not lump them together with arctic peoples. An Algonquin civ would be more of a representation of the peoples that preceded the modern Mik’maq or Algonquin. You’d probably have to draw from a few related modern peoples to reconstruct their precursor.

Como chileno te puedo decir señorita Ana, que los mapuches no cayeron por ser grandes estrategas sino por superioridad numérica, Pedro de Valdivia el Conquistador de Chile tendría como paje a Lautaro quien seria su mano derecha Pedro le enseño todas las tácticas de tercio y de combate de infantería Española lo que no pudo prever es que este le traicionaría y se iría con parte de su pueblo (por que si, se tiende a tener ese error que solo habían mapuches en la Araucanía cuando habían otros pueblos como los Huilliches, Tehuelches o promaucaes la etnia de la cual desciende Lautaro) es curioso ver en la historia como Lautaro mato a muchos caciques y poblados indígenas solo por no querer unirse a su causa de echar a los Españoles y a diferencia de los Británicos, los españoles no dejaban sabanas con viruela para que los indígenas se contagiaran, Los Españoles eran motivados por 3 cosas 1: La Gloria, 2: La riqueza 3: La evangelización. No por nada desde México hacia abajo hay tanto mestizo ya que gran parte de los conquistadores Españoles se mezclo con los pueblos indígenas que se encontraban en la américas. (.)

This is where I dislike your ideas the most; It’s all about reconstructing what was on extremely limited information instead of drawing on the known and concrete histories of people who could use the representation. Timeline-wise, most of these civs (really only the Seven Fires, of the ones I want the most), would be only slightly out of the timeline - the Chinese go till the mid-1600’s, and the Seven Fires would only push that by another 50-75 years at the most.

The game would do better to push their timeline a bit and represent people who could appreciate the representation over reconstructing possible examples of what could have been. When I chose the Haida and Seven Fires, I did so because those two civs were most oriented around interaction with other people - the Seven Fires were a trading empire, and possibly the largest one in North America, while the Haida were a slaving and raiding empire. From a gameplay standpoint, it would make sense for them to be able to attain weapons they didn’t historically have through raiding and trading, with both civilizations having civ-specific ways of gaining that.


But I wrote that in September of '21. At this point, I am 100% against Native Americans being in AoE4 because I do not believe that the devs could make a Native civ without resorting to making the civs living stereotypes. After seeing what they’ve done so far, I’d rather see no Native American civs at all.

1 Like

Do you love them so much as to not see that they’d be Civs with no cannons?

Disease was only a help, the essential thing was the native peoples themselves joining in our glorious conquest.

That will be the case for all North American peoples. The Lakota may have even been part of the Mississippians during the period covered by AoE4 and AoE2:

Siouan language speakers may have originated in the lower Mississippi River region and then migrated to or originated in the Ohio Valley. They were agriculturalists and may have been part of the Mound Builder civilization during the 9th–12th centuries

You’re pretty much asking for peoples from the era depicted in AoE3 to be added to AoE4.

The Siouan language family is a massive one - it’s unlikely the Lakota specifically were part of that. Lakota is a newer form of Dakota, from what I can tell, but the culture itself has been on the plains for the last 2k years at least, if not longer - the religious rites of the people centers on the stars and being in specific places at specific times. One of the best examples involves the necessity of being in the Black Hills at a specific spot (that I will remain unnamed because the tribe doesn’t want tourists flocking there) at the solstices and equinoxes. Due to precession of the stars, a fairly accurate estimate can be made as to how long these practices have been going on; Precession for these specific rites puts their age somewhere between 2500 to 3000 years old. The original constellations that demanded we be there for no longer rise when they once did, but we continue to be there at the same time each year.

That far out-strips the age of the Mississippians. The Lakota culture has been on the prairie for likely thousands of years, but our Dakota and Dakhota siblings may have, indeed, come from the Mississippians fairly recently, and through their larger numbers, given us a new language - Lakota. However, due to the star-centric culture the Lakota have that isn’t shared with the Dakota or Dakhota, a good argument could be made that the Lakota culture has been on the prairie significantly longer than the language of the people has been Lakota.

It’s a really weird concept, that a people might keep their culture but take on a new language, but if Dakota or Dakhota became the lingua franca of the area, it would make sense for the old Lakota culture to drop what language it had and to adopt a new one, as the Lakota have always been a trade people while our Dakota and Dakhota siblings were much more static in their traditions and cultures.

From what I understand, Lakota has far more loanwords from the surrounding areas than Dakota, and much of Lakota acts as a shortened version of Dakota - for example, the Dakota word for “woman” is winyan, while the Lakota word is simply wi. The Dakota word for “chair” is chanakanyankapi, but in Lakota, it is simply oakanyanke - they share the same root words, but Lakota has vastly shortened it.

The Lakota culture itself is likely significantly older than the Mississippians, but we have as much physical evidence for this as we have cultural evidence of the Mississippians.

That’s some fascinating history, thanks for sharing.

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you’re making out. It’s very unlikely that Lakotas are a plains people that simply borrowed the language from their otherwise unrelated Dakota and Dakhota neighbours. I think it’s far more likely that Lakota, Dakota, and Dakhota are all overwhelmingly the same population and the original plains culture that imparted the star-centric traditions is only a small component of Lakota ancestry. Genetics should be able to confirm how related the Lakota, Dakota, and Dakhota are. If there are 2000 year old remains of plains peoples, genetics could definitively prove you right or wrong.

Either way, the Seven Fires culture you were proposing is far removed from the original plains people. The horse riding culture of the 1600s and 1700s (which is waaay too late for AoE4) came about after the apocalyptic decimation of the population by disease, and the introduction of horses by Europeans.

The Mississippians came out of the Mound Builder culture that’s as old as 3500BC. The Mound Builders may even be the origin of many Lakota ancestors as well. The distribution of Siouan languages covers both the Mississippi and Great Plains regions so there is some type of connection.

Despite being somewhat “lost” civilizations, Mississippians and Puebloans/Anasazi are by far the best fit for the AoE4 timeline and their architecture fits well with features like landmarks. Their successors may have changed since the days of their ancestors, but this is true of all North American natives.

1 Like

Native Americans didnt have horses xD
So it is gg from such a simple fact.

and if I add more, Native Americans didnt have much of a siege weapon that could break walls xD xD xD

1 Like

Not really.

We don’t know this one way or another. There’s plenty of evidence that Natives built heavy fortifications on par with early castles and that sieging them was a common thing, but we have no idea how they went about sieges. There’s no record of their strategies used in these sieges, aside from things like the Incan battles where they dropped boulders on walls. The Haudenosaunee in particular had remnants of the old, larger and highly defensive structures built into their smaller villages that the colonials encountered when they arrived in the Americas, but by that point, disease had reduced the numbers to the point where those large cities were no longer feasible, as there was no population to occupy them.

Could recover from OW diseases: Old World

Could not recover from OW diseases: New World

Could totally defeat any OW power at its zenith: New World

Add them all and ditch all historical accuracy; game will improve significantly from any additional content.

Rule of Cool+++

1 Like

Interesting. People really should think of this differently. OW had trouble fighting OW. Fighting NW would be piece of cake in OW eye’s