I don’t think the Spanish’ technology had a big practical effect on the military advantage; It had more a psychological advantage. The Aztecs, theoretically, had all the tools they needed to win against the Spanish. Their problem was simply that they were viewing the Spanish through such a heavy religious perspective that they couldn’t think practically about how to fight what they were up against.
2 Likes
If anybody really cares about knowing more on how the conquest of the Mexica went on, there’s a lot of great books on your local library on that regard.
Aztecs are cool and definitely deserve a place in this game. I definitely agree with @AnaWinters though that only getting Aztecs, Maya and Inca gets kinda stale after a while. Why not include something else too? It’s not like they’ve added tons of Euro split civs lately for AOE2:DE, so AOE4 could do the same for another region. Revisiting the same factions gets kinda stale.
I’ll be honest with you, I’ll just wait until the game goes on sale and the obligatory Aztec DLC has already launched. Meanwhile, I’ll have a great time playing AOE2 and AOE3 
4 Likes
Because we (i would say historian) have a way less knowledge about other than those 3 americans “faction”. And tbh i don’t really want an other tiny small country ^^. Beside that, the way Amecians was done in aoe3 and specifically in aoe2 was absolutly not fun to me (one of the main reason i can’t enjoy aoe2 is because every civ shared the same euro-skin, i just can’t enjoy playing aztek or sarrasine when their champion carries a big steel armor with a big steel sword).
To me Incas and mayas was never be done in aoe series (iam not counting Incas from aoe3 ^^ )
2 Likes
A chest plate is not going to send my temperature sky rocketing
I’d like to see American civilizations in the game - especially the Mayans - but I don’t think “fair” and “unfair” are appropriate considerations here. We aren’t trying to hash out proper representation for the United Nations.
The game is set during a particular time period with a strong focus on powerful imperialistic nations and conquest. Historical relevance is the factor that should be prioritized when choosing civs, not geographic representation.
2 Likes
Well, middle age factions can be put into 3 categories.
1 “High tech” Factions with Gunpowder, Castles, Siege Weapons, Horses and Heavy metal armour
2 “something inbetween” like Scotland or Vikings, who didn’t really use that stuff
3 “Low Tech” Native Factions, who don’t have that stuff
I think American Conquest with Aztecs, Incas, Mayas, Sioux, Pueblo, Delaware, Huron, Iroquois League and Haida did a good job at historical accuracy vs Europe. Yes, they were weaker, but people most of the time played them against each other.
So why not simply have the Low Tech factions playable? There are many Asian, African, Oceanian and American Middle age factions that could play against each other.
Like Maori vs Zulu considering their tech sounds like a fair fight.
I don’t think it’d be accurate to call the Natives “low tech.” There’s no evidence to that we did nor didn’t use that tech - the problem is too much history of that sort just wasn’t known to start with, and that during confrontations with the Europeans, those types of weapons were already phased out. Natives largely proved they were capable of trading and using canons when necessary.
I don’t think it’s out of the question to give Native factions their own, unique ways to achieve siege engines. I have a few ideas on that that I’m too lazy to link to, but I firmly believe it’s a realistic approach towards the situation.
1 Like
No that’s pure fantasy. So far AoE 4 tried to use real units and technologies nation used in history. What you are proposing is speculating on what aztecs could have if they managed to stay alive for long enough. Well than I think they could have created first Gatling gun in 1560.
1 Like
Y’know, with that argument, North American natives are perfect then, considering they had access to every tech in the game in actual history.
Trade is a powerful thing, and something Native Americans hugely emphasized within societies spanning both continents. Base their gameplay on that, and stealing tech from enemies or trading for it with allies or the neutral settlements.
Otherwise, at this point, just admit you don’t want them in the game personally, because there’s realistically no reason they couldn’t be added. It is a game, not a history book.
3 Likes
Absolutely not. I want them in game for sure. Much more than another Indian faction when we already have DS for example. I just want them to be believable and as close to history as possible without compromising gameplay.
Aztecs like in AoE 2 just don’t cut it for me it looks ridiculous. No fantasy wanna be what if stuff.
Let them have weaker but much cheaper units. With superb economy (which is fantasy also but its less
crazy too look at than naked Aztec warrior with wooden club beating armoured MMA in 1v1)
I am talking about Aztecs Incas etc not small tribes in north America which we really don’t need before we fill Eurasia.
Also contrary what it might look like from my posts I quite like Mesoamerican civs I just cant stand that revisionist fantasy stuff which is happening here.
1 Like
This isn’t fantasy. When the mapuche rebelled against spanish rule they were using Spanish weapons and horses. The tlaxcalans, who were allied with the spanish retained some independance and were specifically given the right to ride a horse and carry guns.
While it’s true that the aztecs and inca didn’t use spanish weapons or horses due to their rapid defeat, the tlaxcalans and the mapuche did so there is no issue giving them cavalry and cannons. Since aztecs and inca didn’t use these weapons so you are right that if we want to stick to purely to historical units another way to balance them will need to be found.
Also please avoid using straw man arguments. Applying the methods other similar groups used for adopting new military tech is not fantasy and it has nothing in common with trying to claim that they would have invented gattling guns.
1 Like
“vikings” is a stupid term and only applies to a very small early medieval time period of people where NO ONE had gunpowder, big beefy castles etc.
4 Likes
Fr. A viking is a job. A Scandinavian is a person from there. I don’t understand how the misconception started, but it did.
5 Likes
Just not within the correct time period
2 Likes
While it’s the new hotness to know that viking is an activity not a group of people its also pretty commonly understood to refer to early medieval Scandinavians.
The terminology is good enough to get the point across. Not arguing that a northern European civ should be called vikings here, it just seems a bit pedantic to call someone out for using it in a informal conversation.
Sorry this is kinda off topic my bad.
Oh, I wasn’t calling anyone out. I was just agreeing that the term is misused. I know it’s incorrect to refer to them as Vikings historically, but I’m fine if someone says it. I just hope they aren’t a ‘Vikings’ faction if they are in AoE4. Sorry if it sounded like I was calling someone out.
1 Like
It didn’t, I was wasting time and not paying enough attention to what I was reading or writing. My bad.
1 scotland did eventually get gunpowder, they didnt come under the english yoke before around 1600.
2 hopefully we wont get something as vague as vikings, just call them Danes and add more of the history of the periode and you will have a more fun and full civilization.
2 Likes
Vikings sounds much cooler as a civ name as opposed to “Scandinavians” or “Danes”, regardless of accuracy.
i am pretty certain its because they are called vikings in AOE 2 so people for some reason seem to think that is what they should be called in aoe 4.
1 Like