Do we have to push them into PvP?
Why not make such factions as Co-Op and Single player?
Why not make for less advanced faction’s own seperated warfront?
So you could play America vs Africa vs Oceania?
we talk about amerindian or precolumbian here ??
Lads, its really the matter of balancing… Yeah Aztecs and Mayans were technologically and tactically much much much inferior than Europeans. So for example lets make em a dark age - feudal civ with really ■■■■ castle and horrible imperial. It is true that the quality of thei weapons were laughable vs european tech, so lets make them quantity vs quality civ.
1 Like
That is inaccurate on so many levels. A huge amount of the time, the Spanish ditched their own weapons and armor when they were fighting in Mesoamerica because what they had wasn’t nearly as effective for the environment and against what they were fighting as the weapons and armor the Mesoamericans had designed themselves.
You are absolutely right. Some Spanish used for example the armor the Aztecs were using, still you cannot deny that the technological difference was massive! Cannons, boats, gunpowder made a huge difference. Simple things like candles astonished the Aztecs. The difference in battle tactics, spanish trained the Tlaxcalans in European style army tactics and it gave them advantage.
1 Like
Yes. Historical accuracy is completely irrelevant to the longevity of the game. It only attracts history nerds who will play through the campaign but not really join the community and are too scared of multiplayer because it’s not free win every game. Additional fun civs however, that’s balanced for multiplayer and adds variety works GREAT. And will also make it a more fun game to watch
This thread vies for historical accuracy, but many of the “natives” detractor base their argument on so many biased “facts” that actual research and recent discoveries hace proved wrong. First off is the common belief that the conquest of American Big Civilizations (Namely, the Mexica and Incas) was a quick and easy process brought by a very small armed force against very undeveloped civilizations. First off, both the Mexica and Inca conquest wasn’t an easy and quick process, the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan took the conquistadors almost three years, and a final long siege of 90 days to be completed, and then it took them another 10 years to secure their hold on New Spain, with the Inca it took the spanish 35 years to end the Inca resistance in Peru, and both achievements could only be completed by a convergence of different factors:
- Circumstance
- Alliances
- Disease
- Technology and Warfare
With both civilizations, Circumstance was a Big defining factor, often disregarded when people talk about this topic. First, neither the Mexica nor the Inca were a big unified Empire when the spanish arrived, the Mexica was an alliance of three superior city-states that ruled over a multitude of others through a combination of terror and warfare. It was easy for the spanish when they arrived to find native allies eager to help them take down the oppresive Mexica. With the Inca something similar happened, with their previous experience in Tenochtitlan, they first secured native allies and interpreters for intelligence before heading off against the bigger and more organiced Incas, and then again, when they did advance against them, they were in the middle of a disastrous civil war and it was just a matter of taking off the weakened winning side by allying with the losers. It is often, mistakenly, thought again that spanish battles against the natives consisted of a few hundred valiant conquistadors against hordes of thousands of angry natives, however, recent discoveries on these old battlefields reveal that it was actually spanish commanding armies of thousands of native allies against armies of equal or even sometimes lesser size, but then again, history is written by the victors, luckily we have these discoveries to reveal the truth. Also, the American conquest could very well be one of the best examples of how disastrous biological warfare can be, although involuntary. Smallpox and other european diseases decimated almost 90% of the indigenous population over the next decades after their arrival, it wasn’t hunger or fighting that forced the surrender of Tenochtitlan, but the Smallpox that was eating up their defenders. When the spanish first scouted the Inca Empire and left off, they left disease spreading on their population, even the current Sapa Inca died off as a victim, leaving no appointed succesor, sparking off the civil war. Even counting these odds, the Spanish were on their way on becoming the biggest Empire on the whole world, they went through centuries of warfare on their own homeland, they defeated other major superpowers of their time like the English and the Ottomans, but even then, conquering the native civilizations wasn’t easy on any level. There is even evidences of native resistances adapting to european warfare during the years after their arrival, like they did on North-America and Vilcabamba, using horses, steel weapons and armor, even fireguns.
To summarize, there are plenty of historical reasons native civilizations should be added, as their period of splendor transcurred during the time setting this game is set on, and even when the Europeans arrived, campaigns portraying historical accurate depictions of their respective conquest proccesses would actually help disregard the biased views of so many people about these civilizations and time period.
2 Likes
They didn’t have cannons.
1 Like
You seem to have no sort of historical knowledge on the subject if you truly think the aztecs lost because of the few spanish.
En puras derrotas para los nativos, que te esperabas colega? yo siempre considere a age of empires una saga con unos tintes históricos solo para darle sabor, pero si lo hacemos 100% históricamente correcto se va al garete me sorprende la cantidad de gente que no conoce el termino “libertad creativa” a la hora de hacer un juego y si, lei el comentario anterior en donde hablabas de age of empires 3 en donde decías que como es posible que unos arqueros destruyeran un barco ding dong! en el age of empires 2 también ocurre eso xd
Al fin concuerdo en algo contigo, es verdad cortes llego a México con tan solo una fuerza expedicionaria de 1300 Hombres y en el imperio azteca se estiman que Vivian unos 7 millones de personas, creo que los numero no cuadran mucho, las alianzas de los españoles con los indígenas rivales de los aztecas ayudaron mucho, mucho más que la pólvora y el acero
(Me disculpo esa afirmación de concordar es que tu icono de perfil se parecía al de otro usuario xd perdón)
1 Like
Aztec, Maya, and Inca are a given, but are you seriously suggesting Mapuche, Haida, and Oceti Sakowin for AoE4? They are solid options for the AoE3 time period but were unrecognizably different in the AoE4 era (~800-1500AD). AoE4 has an emphasis on fortifications and monumental architecture and has similar civs with few unique units. Mapuche, Haida, and Oceti Sakowin would be a poor fit for a game that has those features as a cornerstone.
When it comes to native civs for AoE4 and AoE2 there are lots of good options that fit the style and timeline better.
Mississippians
They fit the time period perfectly and created giant mounds that are perfect for landmarks.
Muisca
An advanced civilization in the Andes. Their landmarks could reflect their connection to El Dorado.
Puebloans/Anasazi
A people from the American Southwest that created extensive irrigation networks to make the desert livable. Their landmarks could be structures like Casa Grande and Montezuma Castle.
Algonquians
The Algonquins would have been one of the peoples the Vikings referred to as Skrælings. Having an interaction between the old world and natives that isn’t just the Spanish conquest would be refreshing. They wouldn’t have as good of options for landmarks, but a big wigwam, sweat lodge, and maybe inukshuk could be options. If they have an equivalent to a sacred rock, that could also work.
1 Like
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.
- 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.
- The Muisca would make a good civ. I picked the Mapuche because they’re recognizable and known.
- The Puebloans are similarly as unknown as the Mississippians. The best we could do is base them off their more modern descendants.
- 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