My bad. Yes, tarascans worked on metal.
Heh, tarascans. They had the most brittle bronze alloy formula in the pre-columbian americas and were relatively new to metalsmithing. They are ok though.
But after the open beta and seeing other civ designs, I think aoe4 should include only civs with blacksmithing, and strong bronze alloys at least.
Unless they rework some of the current civs or add more interesting mechanics. For example, if they add night/day dynamics, they can synergize effects with native civs.
They add aztecs and give them attack or speed bonus during the night. To represent the noche triste or their ambush strategies since they had no battle formations.
They can give incas the same kind of bonus but only from dawn to sunset, since their armies usually attacked during the first hours of morning, as the battle of chincheros and the siege of ollantaytambo prove.
I disagree. North American Natives made westward expansion a living hell for the US, and they didnât have metalworking - they had trade.
An idea I had for the North American Natives combined the Blacksmith with the Market. Make Blacksmith tech free, but you must trade X worth of gold with the neutral settlement or an ally to power the âresearchâ of the tech. In return, these cultures would get free trading caravans over time and access to the Market an Age earlier than other civs.
Similarly, you could have the Siege Workshop act as an empowered version that creates siege engines with the same mechanic, effectively giving the Natives two versions of the Market, which is a neat callback to their heavy emphasis on trading with Europeans and the networks that traveled the Americas.
Age 3 had very specific blacksmith and church techs to european civs. We still have asian, american and african civs, all with their own particularities. Sure, they can get a blacksmith through some bonus, though itâs not essential for them to win a game. To think the blacksmith approach denies the possibility of existence to american civs is a very AOE2 way of thinking this game.
Thatâs overstating things a bit. America and Americans absolutely had diseases of their own. Ones that got worse in all of the more settled communities like the various Mississipian cultures in the modern US, or the more famous Mesoamericans of Mexico.
The real problem was the disease which hadnât existed there prior. And this went both ways. While the Americas had to deal with measles or the bubonic plague for the first time, Columbus is credited with killing his own share of Europeans with the importation of syphilis and causing a major outbreak of a virgin pathogen there.
On the Mesoamerican side, Aztecs went through multiple outbreaks and while the first ones are obviously Old World, some of the later epidemics were alien to the Spanish chroniclers writing about them (and struggling to deal with them).
BACK ON TOPIC
Plenty of native people of the American continent used longbows. Longbows shred everyone and everything in the game. GG no re, theyâll be even more OP than the English.
I voted no. My reasoning is that I really like the Medieval theme, and itâs a draw for a lot of other people as well I think.
The theme is not just characterized by a time period, it is characterized by a certain level of technology, development and aesthetic within that time period.
My preference is that any civs that are to be added later should at least fit this theme as well, they should be within range of a certain level of tech and development, and they should have interacted with one or more of the current civs to tie them into the game as well.
Hello there
Have you seen a southamerican longbow?
Itâs just a little bigger than an english one, from 10 to 20 cm longer, and the arrow tips are made of bone, stone or wood carved in saw shape (to kill great animals such as tapirs and jaguars), they will not by any means whatsoever pierce a cuirass as the english longbowmen didnât do it either, but will eventually hit you in the leg or arm (if not the face) break your bones and bleed to death
About the shared statement of
âThe natives wouldnât stand a chance against full armored knightsâ (they sadly canât reply no more ) not sarcasm, I genuinely learn sometimes reading their ego-driven answers, as it makes one think about cockyness
Pizarro and Alonso wrote;
âneglected to cover his head with the shield, from the many shots throw, one reached his helmet and breaks it, he died in 15 daysâ
âtheir main weaponâŠused the most since born, wear in the head as a bonnet, which they use to throw fat(big) rocks that kills horses and sometimes his rider, even if hit in the helmet, they are little less than an arquebusâ
âI have seen a sword in the hands of a man, break in two from one (stone)hit from thirty (foot)stepsâ
Thats just the sling, the boleadora is for another topic
@AnaWinters@Darkillermon But then they wouldnât fit the theme of the game. Besides there are other pre-columbian civs that had blacksmithing and strong bronze for battle: the incas, the chimus, the waris, the moches, the tiwanakus, the nazcas, etc.
Iâm saying this because in aoe2 itâs ok to have aztecs and mayans since the game is symmetrical and all the added civs will get blacksmithing anyway. But aoe4 isnât like that. So it makes sense to only include civs that had professional blacksmiths and bronze weapons and armor. For example, the chimus fit the medieval theme the most because they had complete bronze armor sets from what Iâve seen on the aoe2 forum.
By that âtheme,â literally the only civilizations youâre going to get are from Asia and Europe, as those were the only places with heavy emphasis on metallurgy because - and get this - those are the only places in the world where metal was easily accessible from the surface without first investing majorly into mining.
By setting such weirdly restrictive and European standards for consideration into the game, youâre restricting yourself hella by what civs can get into the game, all to fulfill some arbitrary tech requirement that isnât actually a huge player in the first place. Civilization doesnât require metal, it requires humans working together and acting for the common interest of each other.
This is a game. Any civ could be added and balanced through numbers⊠and frankly, your response kinda proves the need for diversity to show people that the history theyâve been taught is quite wrong.
I donât have any knowledge about mining, so I canât say much about what @AnaWinters claimed about that. Still I can say all the rest of her response is very good and I donât see much to add more than what I said previously about AOE 3 and the blacksmith. Btw, the game had a huge focus in gunpowder, should be even worse than this case about AOE 4, and there is still a whole civ without it and others with many non-gunpowder units.
What are you talking about? âthe need for diversityâ? " the history theyâve been taught is quite wrong"? All the civs I mentioned are from the americas lol.
Besides if you read this thread, youâll see that I was advocating for aztecs and mayans. But after the open beta, I donât know how they could be included in-game without butchering their history or turning them into pure fantasy; or even meme civs.
Isnât being forcefully inclusive more disrespectful in that context? And why? Just for nostalgia.
If people want pre-columbian civs by all means, then at least the civs in question should have blacksmithing for warfare and strong bronze: the incas, the chimus, the waris, the moches, the tiwanakus, the nazcas, etc.
Not like I literally wrote this out, which is entirely in-thematic for the Haida/Tlingit and the Oceti Sakowin. Trade was the big thing about the Americas that the Natives were extremely shrewd at. Basing their gameplay around it for European technology would be an excellent direction to go.
Ah ok. Since the whole thread was reduced to the âthemeâ being medieval and the civs getting such advancements on their own before getting in contact with europeans (for example, the previous debate about siege and ships), I thought you were following the topic under those terms.
But oh well, following your comment, then we can have all american civs with horses and gunpowder, right? Because by 1600, the Spanish had controlled mesoamerica for almost 80 years. Steel armored aztec knights and heavy mayans gunners, etc.
However, thatâs literally butchering their history and culture.
Nah, I specified the Haida/Tlingit and the Oceti Sakowin because thereâs specific things about their history that would make them work, imo, the best for Age4 as opposed to other civs like, say, the Comanche, Haudenosaunee, or Shoshone.
the Oceti Sakowin would work because you could design them around their transition from the Dog Days (a literal historical period), guiding the culture through the revolution with the horse and ending up as a late-game powerhouse with the a UU being an expensive mounted gunpowder unit in Age3. Age 1 and 2 would be infantry only, restricting them to a trade-based economy, transition to Age 3 and 4 with cavalry as the central focus.
the Haida/Tlingit would be centered on their raiding history. They were essentially the âVikings of the West Coastâ. They had slaves from the Aztecs all the way up to the Inuits, and this would go a long ways towards making them a strong naval Native American civ, which would be unique among the Native American civs currently in the Age franchise.
Other nations, like the Comanche or the Haudenosaunee, relied too heavily upon the Europeans for what they did, while the two I specified had a long and rich history based on both trade/raiding for technology and an interesting past that would give them an interesting and unique playstyle for the game.
But isnât the game timeframe until 1600 (Even though all the civs are designed based on 1550 at most, and the Chinese info mentions 1645)??
Ok, letâs ignore that and imagine they acquired horses and gunpowder by 1550 just for the sake of the thread.
Then the criteria will revolve around the same questions often discussed on aoe2 forums:
-Did they have a centralized government.
-Did they fully enslave (like aztecs, mayans and celts) or conquer (like all the other civs in-game) another kingdom/empire?
-Did they change the history of their regions with their military?
-Did they have professional soldiers?
-Did they have masonry?
-Did they have an organized state/fully controlled area of influence larger than 100,000 km2?
-Were they conquered/annexed or fully enslaved by another civ thatâs referenced or already in-game?
-Did they cause the fall/decline of another ethnic group/kingdom or empire thatâs referenced or already in-game?
All the civs in aoe2 de and the pre-columbian ones I mentioned before can answer with yes to all the questions. Except for the mayans who have to say NO to the first and the last questions; and the nazcas who have to say NO to the 6th and the last questions.
This post isnât an argument against your last comment though. Just food for thought.
Feel free to keep advocating for northern native americans and mesos. Just like I gave up about mayans first and now aztecs because both wouldnât fit in the current state of aoe4.
No, but thatâs kinda the point of a DLC in the first place.
Pretty sure the Haida/Tlingit can answer the same to all 8 as well. Also, pretty sure a lot of civs in AoE2 canât say yes to #6. Thatâs the size of South Korea, several kingdoms in AoE2 were little more than the size of Denmark at their largest.
-A council aka tribal confederation isnât a centralized government though. Thatâs why Mayans never had a centralized government. Even in the times of Mayapan. Centralized governments are more than just alliances or political agreements.
-Fully enslaving like turning another kingdom into a tributary state and degrading their population status forever. Conquering like annexing, administering the conquered kingom, imposing a language and religion, and replacing their culture. Going as far as wiping out or relocating the whole population. Like the ethiopians, the khmer or the incas for example.
-Self-explanatory. Something only an organized expansionist state can achieve. Because what else are they going to use their armies for, other than fighting other people to conquer them and change history.
-Self-explanatory again. Getting paid for their service or earning rewards periodically.
-In the medieval context, itâs complex stone architecture.
-In other words, large polities. Mayans kinda make it because they had independent city-states allied with each other, but sometimes fused in a confederation. Goryo (medieval north + south korea) makes it. European kingdoms make it because they overlap depending on the year and their ruling houses; or exerting control thanks to their dynastic/cultural influence. Nazcas donât make it because their kingdom was 17,000 km2; on the other hand, they didnât have any dynastic influence over other kingdoms. About their cultural influence, they got absorbed instead.
-Self-explanatory.
-Self-explanatory.
Just saying. Btw, I made a mistake before, the nazcas say No to the 6th, not the 5th lol
So⊠youâre making arbitrary restrictions now specifically to rule out Natives, rather than realizing that âHey, they werenât as disorganized as I thought.â
How do you think the Oceti Sakowin won control of the majority of the central plains of the Americas, exactly?
/4 Yes. The Akicita were literally professional soldiers, itâs what they did. Dog Soldiers are one of these such societies.
Again, yes, although it was largely against religious conduct to do such a thing anyway. Structures should be temporary, because humans are temporary. It is not our place to alter the body of Grandmother Mother in permanent ways. Itâs why mining is taboo.
Yes? The Oceti Sakowin is literally Confederacy of 3 distinct nations - the Lakota, the Eastern Dakota, and the Western Dakota. Each of those three Nations have their own leaders and political organization. Also, just so youâre aware, the areas largely under control of the Oceti Sakowin in particular was in the millions of square kilometers, not just hundreds of thousands. The central plains of the Americas are incredibly massive.
Yes, but not annihilated. Our own history says we originated in the Black Hills, but were driven away by the other nations in the area to the east. Eventually, we picked ourselves up again and drove them out, even going so far as driving many tribes in the area to extinction.
No. Again, that is the point of a DLC.
The only difference the Haida/Tlingit have is that their area of âcontrolâ is technically only a small-ish island chain on the west coast, but again⊠they had slaves from as far south as the Aztecs to as far north as the Aleutian Inuits. They were not a weak people.
No, a centralized government is literally the concentration of legislative and executive powers at higher levels under one faction. Like all kingdoms and empires. As opposed to confederations, where two or more factions gather to decide government matters and possibly at lower levels. Or tribal confederations, where such matters are decided by two or more factions and possibly at lower or even local levels. Like tribes being under chiefdoms, so their elders get a say in the decisions as well.
So when I say a confederation (mayans for example) or a tribal confederation isnât a centralized government, I say that based on the definition. It has nothing to do with being disorganized or âsmall/savageâ (like the second half of your comment makes me suspect you thought I was implying).
Those questions are just the criteria commonly used on aoe2 forums anyway. Some agree, others disagree. And I agree with them, thatâs why I brought them up. The name of the franchise is age of empires after all. One would think only kingdoms and empires will cut it.
But your posture is fine though; as I said before, you are free to keep advocating for them. I gave up about mayans and aztecs even though they are included in aoe2 just because of the current state of aoe4, for example.
) not sarcasm, I genuinely learn sometimes reading their ego-driven answers, as it makes one think about cockyness
