Yea because China was a peaceful place with no war, right…
Put it this way:
In a 200 pop limit, with around 50% of that being Villagers, would a 100 strong English force beat a 100 strong Chinese force?
Quite possible!
Would a 100 strong Aztec force beat a 100 strong English force?
No. It never would. The Battle of Otumba had a greater than 40 to 1 kill ratio for the 500 Spanish that faced between 20.000 and 40.000 Aztecs. It was impossible to win with similar numbers.
3 Likes
Watch out he will start to attribute the victory to a few hundred allied natives 
5 Likes
Of course the Americans were underdeveloped and they lost to the Spanish very badly, but the Russians lost to the Mongols in the kalka river battle but you are not going to say that is unrealistic that they are featured in the game.
Who says that? They were a a important factor yes but just one of many and not even the most important one.
This loss was one battle and against a fierce force of well armed and more populous horsemen.
Every single battle a native is in would lose. Not just a one off, but every time.
Bronze age armies could beat them with way lower members even
Yeah that’s because the most important factor was the well equipped and trained Spanish
3 Likes
This is pretty naive. Would you say that Vietnam is more (or equally) technologically advanced compared to Japan because they were able to stop the U.S. with only a half of their country?
This case you are speaking about is even worse, Song China fell like 30 years after the Mongols lost interest in Europe.
Edit: would you make the same inference between the Mississippians and the Incas based on their conflicts with Europeans?
1 Like
I’d be happy to see them eventually. But theres plenty of Old World civs I’d like to see first. I can play Age of Empires 3 DE if I want to see Aztecs and Incas in shiny graphics for now.
1 Like
I would be ok with a “compromise” where native americans make units about 5 times cheaper and faster and have during the game 5 times more soldiers.
This is unlikely, as tehy will not give any civ a 1000 pop limit, to fight a 200 pop limit.
However, faster training, double/triple batch training, resource conversions and discounts, built in the unit line upgrades, would be not only referencing to their actual History, but good compensatory mechanics that would allow the Nat-Am civs to keep their number up, through replenishment.
1 Like
I hope Aztecs, Maya and/or Inca are one of the first DLC expansions. They deserve it considering how unique and exotic they are.
5 Likes
I think the balance with the native american civs should be that it needs to win before the enemy reaches even 100 pop or getting some heavy castle age units with some upgrades. It also could be so aggressive that it slows down your castle age time significantly. They should raid you so hard, that you have like half the resources than usual, so half the military too. In AOE3DE if the opponent with an aggressive civ rushes you in the second age, and the pressure is always on he is in your base constantly you cant basically cant go up to the third age. You have to keep making units constantly. Same could be done here. In AOE3DE native american Lakota has bad eco and really struggels late game. It needs to do significant damage before idk 10-15 minutes against more passive civs. These are just ideas they can be totally off but I like them.
1 Like
They should be balanced to have better Economy, and Age Up faster, to win in Age 3 or early Age 4, which has a lot of precedent in this series.
This is exactly the design of Goths and Malay in AoE2, and no one complains about it.
2 Likes
I feel that we have more late game civs already, and for me less advanced civs fighting in early ages not “advanced” ages seems more reasonable, but a civ design you described could totally work too. Maybe if it will be like how you said I will feel it more, but now for me a second age full aggression civ feels more appropriate. 
1 Like
It seems we will stay in ages a lot longer before progressing as well, which makes this optioin viable i guess
But
If all civs start at same time (800s, Age 1; 1000s, Age 2; 1200s, Age 3; 1500s Age 4)), are natives even weaker or ? @JonOli12
1 Like
They would always be weaker. Even after teh Fall of Rome, most European armies had and made Chainmail and Steel weapons, so any of them could take a similar number of Nat-Ams, easily.
It would never be a contest.
1 Like
18:00 - Age of Empires IV: Showcase Recap
Also reaffirming they want to be “as accurate towards history as possible”
@RadiatingBlade edit: Be respectful towards other users.
5 Likes
I really wanted to know where she got the ideia of Joan as a “feminist icon of history” that she talked about in the stage presentation.
EDIT: Why this post was reported…? What I did wrong…? I received this message: ’ Your post was flagged as inappropriate : the community feels it is offensive, abusive, or a violation of our community guidelines.’
I don’t understand, what rules are broken by this post…?
EDIT 2: Looks like the staff restored it. Thank you.
6 Likes
Depends which civs, most mesoamerican civs are fine for an age title. But civs like Inuit or Sioux dont make much sense seeing their lifestyle and the general basebuilding AoE IV seems to go for. (and not the natives becoming the mongols 2.0)
2 Likes
