Ah, yes. This argument again. I forgot Native Americans didn’t exist until Europeans stepped foot on the land and we spontaneously burst into existence.
1 Like
The first casualty, when war comes, is truth.
Even with “extended” history sources as medieval America did not have that tech.
North Americans did buy Europe Weapons after Middle Ages.
That’s why I think America should be represented by those factions.
What speaks against historical accurate (early Mesoamerica/ late Spain hybrid) faction? Like the Confederacy of Tlaxcala or Tarascans? They can be balanced for multiplayer.
Nothing. I thing Tlaxcala would be nice addition. (They are probably the most “moral” or relatable faction during Aztec conquest anyway). They are even descriptions of them using Spanish crossbows during battles with Aztecs.
Still they couldn’t probably replicate Spanish weaponry during timeline of the game but at this point who cares really since it would differentiate them from rest of Indians nicely in gameplay.
I think Incas Aztecs and Tlaxcala should be added for America later on.
Actually campaign from Tlaxcala point of view would be cool. It could start in 14th century with frequent battles with Aztecs constantly encroaching closer and closer and end in unexpected victory when Spanish arrive. Would be nice to have this historical event told from unique point of view.
I agree with your statement, but I want to add that Incas did use Spanish weapons during the Manco Inca’s Rebellion and during the resistance of Vilcabamba State that lasted until 1572. Also, the conquests of the Mexicas (Aztecs) and the Tawantinsuyu (Incas) were different. In the case of the Incas, the Spanish take advantage of the power void in the territory due to the “civil war” (that was actually a war of succession) between Atawallpa and Waskar. After the death of these two, they kept different Inca Nobles (e.g. Manco Inca and Paullu Inca) as allies while they were also forming alliances with other Andean peoples. In that sense, the Conquest of the Tawantinsuyu wasn’t achieved primarily because of the Spanish military force, but by the alliances with some Inca Nobles and other peoples’ Kurakas (Local Chiefs).
Btw, the use of Spanish weapons by the Incas is already acknowledged in some Aoe3’s game mechanics.
Happy indigenous peoples day, It’s today.
Sounds like the perfect day to launch DLC for Natives.
While there is proof for it, I rather would prefer a native to use his native weapons.
Otherwise, it kind of ruins the Emergence.
I think maybe Spanish troops could work differently for them?
Like to age as up as Confederacy of Tlaxcala or Tarascans you can build a camp for European units.
By Confederacy of Tlaxcala you can control the Spanish Allies, but only a handfull.
By Tarascans you can’t control the units directly, only select an area where they are suppose to aid you, but you get more Spanish units.
1 Like
Revoke promisses? They stayed true to their agreements with Tlaxcatlans in pretty much every way but some minor stuff.
Historically, they would be smashed as they don’t have any cavalry or a horse on the American continent.
If they add them, it would need a great buff to make them playable. Which is full of fantasy…
And we don’t need such things as the devs already said they are seeking historical accuracy.
The Amerindians did import many things besides diseases from Europe - they adapted cavalry, rifles, etc. I think that is really the biggest problem here tho. AoE is a game about progressing through ages, and Amerindian culture was largely static (I’m not suggesting it didn’t change or evolve at all - but speaking in terms of agricultural, military, and economic technologies - which are the primary facets of the game - there was not nearly the progression that we see from 600 to 1600 in Europe, so most of the innovations and imperial weapons and technologies they used were imported from Europeans. They also didn’t use defensive structures at all, that I am aware of. (Although my area of focus is Europe, so someone feel free to correct me if I’m off the mark there) While there are many fascinating Amerindian cultures, I don’t want to see them included in the game as some sort of political move, or out of misplaced guilt for something done by people long dead. I think the game would be much better served by a more logical inclusion like Lithuanians/Polish, Spanish, I suppose if they can include China, they can include Japan (even though they really weren’t a major player in Eurasian politics until much later - other than in the immediate sphere of China and Korea) I’m sure people could suggest a dozen other worthy inclusions… anyway, that is my two cents.
Saying they didn’t progress in agriculture and eco is very incorrect, both the Inca and Aztec had progressed in parts of these areas to a point superior to european technology of it’s era. Spanish sailors called Tenochtitlan the greatest city in the world, Inca had a sophisticated agrictulture and governance system despite lacking a full system of writing.
That said not really a fan of native civs since they don’t really fit aoe4 imo, would have to be completely unique like in aoe2 where they use their own units.
1 Like
Sorry, I guess I was too vague - I was thinking specifically of the North American civilizations. I’m familiar with the accounts you are referring to, and while many of the things which the Aztec and Inca accomplished were undoubtedly impressive, we don’t have any of their journals to go off of, and only very limited first hand accounts by foreigners, who saw their civilization as very fantastical - so there is a certain amount of bias there. (Which doesn’t mean that the statements were inaccurate, only that they are uncorroborated) What it comes down to, however, is that - as you already pointed out - I don’t think they fit the theme of AoE. AoE is essentially a game about the civilizations of the Eastern hemisphere - which had minimal interaction with the West until the “imperial” age.
True, however we do have indications of the agriculture and architecture of Machu Pichu which remains to this day and records of governance even if they aren’t as in depth or arguably as reliable as European history. The thing about adding native civs is how different their cultures were and the issues of what do you do for siege.
Did you mean AoE3 ? ?
Dude, what is your problem? The last thing I said to you was on October 7th. Why drag this back out?
I have brought up points of evidence multiple times that you just flat out ignore. Did you read the linked book in the comment you’re quoting?
You have shown that you aren’t open to looking at newly presented evidence, so go ahead and take my quote out of context and believe what you want. It’s a waste of my time to do research and put effort into my responses, when you’re just going to ignore it or take it intentionally out of context.
2 Likes
Historical accuracy would be like an upgrade for European civ, “Smallpox”.
Native American will lose 90% of their vils. 
1 Like
A simple way to work around their inferiority is to allow them to spawn units at a much lower pop cost. Replace some siege weapons with ones that offer the same abilities but make more sense. As far as ships, I mean, water maps are a disaster as it is, just add a mechanic where they automatically lose when they play vs France and they don’t have to waste their time playing them. Other civs… Maybe canoes can be decent early, and maybe they can count having larger ships as being imported/traded from other countries?
By that same level of detail, Chinese should start the game in imperial age, both them and Delhi sultanate need to have 400 pop and any European faction + Abbasids needs to get a Black Death event on Age3 age-up which randomly kills 75% of your units.
I think it would be good to have a separate balance in campaign and multi. For multi, I think we don’t need historical accuracy at all. This is a game to give us some fun, I don’t give a ■■■■ if native Americans can use trebuchet or not because of balance. Any kind of civ is good if they can add fun gameplay mechanics with them.
That’s why I don’t want to see ottomans in the game, their gameplay is already covered by other civs. There wouldn’t be any new stuff with them added. If there will be a next civ in the coming few years, then I hope it will be quite unique like mongols, delhi or HRE with the prelate system.
1 Like
I would very much like to see how the specificity of the Aztecs is implemented.
For example, make them 3 epochs instead of 4
in epoch 1 they could already fight, and in the second third epoch they would have been stronger than those of other peoples, but much more expensive.
They also had flower wars, sacrifices, and a constant search for gods for their rituals. And the best warriors very quickly climbed the career ladder and became noble people in society. Against this background, it would be possible to add a leveling mechanic, as in Armies of Exigo, when a unit kills someone - it becomes a little stronger.
(people have an aura of speed / damage / armor, the characteristics of the horde soldiers are greatly increased, the third nation accumulates experience in a special assembly and gives small buffs to the statistics of the entire army on the map), it would be possible to combine these mechanics to some extent.
Arrange a date with the first monks who restore health to wounded soldiers. And warriors again and again go into battle, kill enemies and become stronger. They can only be allowed to build rams from the sediment. A very aggressive nation that will only go through raids, sieges, taverns, etc.
1 Like
please no. do not mix natives into medieval era.
2 Likes
Incas, Mayas and aztecis all would more or less fit the timeframe from AoE4…
3 Likes