The Inca were not in AoE3
Added last year, could be this too
1 Like
I know. I mentioned that too before 
Could be a trip to Machu Picchu . But as far as Iâm aware Relic had nothing to do with the definitive edition of aoe3
Hmm all good points. Iâd be ecstatic if we see the Inca. Well chosen and well designed civs is my favorite part of this franchise, and Iâve been pushing for this area on the council since I started.
6 Likes
Pretty sure they host the game servers (RelicLink) 
1 Like
First of all, they were Americans 
The Mississippians are worth adding to AoE 2, as they covered a huge area in North America and were the most advanced civilization there. This is a civ that will definitely take precedence over other North American players to be added to the game.
1 Like
You guys donât think thatâs sadâŠ? A lot of kids played Age of Empires and thought they were learning something, when in fact, half of the things are fabrications or completely wrong things.
I would 100% want that in the past I had played an Age of empires 2 that actually presented itâs campaign and information cards in a historically accurate way, instead of reading articles about the things years later (like Joan of Arc) and discovering that most of the things are wrong.
Do you guys want to add native civs� Fine, but actually present them in a historically accurate way: in the campaigns make them appear just like they really were. No more, no less.
In Skirmish, actually tell on units and technology info cards that these particular things are fiction, fabrications of a âwhat ifâ design just to make the game work.
Exemple: want to make an Aztec ship? Fine, create an Aztec ship like this, but actually inform that the Aztec did not have any navy or warfare ship and this is just an âwhat ifâ FABRICATION of the game. Do not mislead people into learning wrong things.
7 Likes
I think indicating that type of stuff is a great idea to balance this tension between history and gameplay balance.
I disagree. Historical accuracy must be balanced with fun. Also, if people are dumb enough to believe everything they see in fiction then that is their problem. Iâd rather NOT see a disclaimer every time I use a speedy eagle runner.
And it is awesome that kids learned what they did with AOE2. The tidbits of pop-fiction nonsense that kids learned in AOE2 is outweighed by the breadth of history knowledge (particularly the broad strokes) that they acquired. Better lots of knowledge and some âmisinformationâ than no knowledge at all. And if AOE focused on strict accuracy then they wouldnât acquire any knowledge at all from the game because the game would be boring, dull and broken.
2 Likes
I remember AoM (and maybe AoE3?) had a history section you could look at if you happened to be curious about the historical inspiration for units, and it definitely had a couple times where it basically said âYeah, this unit didnât exist in real life (or was heavily adjusted for gameplay reasons) but itâs cool and fills a role.â - maybe AoE4 could have something similar?
And yeah - I understand that that native ships in any realistic scenario probably couldnât stand up to the more advanced warships of the old world, but at some point gameplay takes priority over pure history here. Would you really want to play Aztecs on a water map and basically get told âSorry, you chose the wrong civ - now youâre helpless?â Just give them something like karambit-style canoes to have some sort of chance, or just a somewhat subpar normal navy for balance reasons.
4 Likes
Canât wait until I see all the historical accurate stuff in this game 
3 Likes
âI disagree. Historical accuracy must be balanced with fun. Also, if people are dumb enough to believe everything they see in fiction then that is their problem. .â
But then you are included in these âdumb enough peopleâ, you said yourself early:
âI learned lots of history from AOE2â
No, you donât. You learned a lot of wrong history from AoE2. You had to actually look at outside sources to actually learn history, because AoE2 presented most of his things incorrectly.
If you played the Campaigns, you would know that there is not a single one of them that does not contain errors and historical inaccuracies.
There is literally a part on every mission in the age of empires wiki just to point out the biggest errors.
Iâd rather NOT see a disclaimer every time I use a speedy eagle runner
No one is talking about gameplay abstraction. Everyone knows that a Farm does not grow in 20 seconds and a Knight is trained in 30 seconds or that a Swordsman demolish a wall hiting with his sword. Everyone knows that people does not have âhitpointsâ or things like this in real life.
Abstraction like a speedy eagle runner is not the problem, people understand gameplay abstractions. What is the problem is saying something as if itâs a FACT, like how the AoE2 campaign and information cards tells you.
Having an OP eagle warrior is not a problem. Having the Eagle Warrior using Plate armor is. You understand the difference?
And it is awesome that kids learned what they did with AOE2. The tidbits of pop-fiction nonsense that kids learned in AOE2 is outweighed by the breadth of history knowledge (particularly the broad strokes) that they acquired. Better lots of knowledge and some âmisinformationâ than no knowledge at all. And if AOE focused on strict accuracy then they wouldnât acquire any knowledge at all from the game because the game would be boring, dull and broken.
Yeah, learned a lot of wrong things when they could learn actually correct things. Misinformation is NEVER good and can poison the well. If someone take Age of Empires as a âfantasy gameâ like the guy said, why the hell they will listen to anything that appears in the gameâŠ?
And you can indeed focus on accuracy without sacrificing the gameplay. The gameplay is mostly abstractions, but the things that appear in the campaigns and information cards are not. There is no reason for the later to be innacurate.
4 Likes
Age of Empires, based on a true story movies, historically based movies are the same to me. Theyâve all given me an interest but Iâve always known not to use it as the basis for an essay or teach someone. I personally would like a 50/50 on the fun/factual approach. I donât play Call of Duty to learn about a gunâs effective range in real life or the details of what a certain gun has or doesnât have or if that is the correct model or outfit.
3 Likes
A movie is much more limited than a game. The movie canât simple present you an information card with an essay of information and wait you to read. A movie is a short narrative.
So why the game must present these information cards wrong⊠? Why canât they be accurate?
The same thing happens when DOCUMENTARIES present false information. There is a lot of documentaries with inaccuracies and errors. They pretend they are giving you factually correct information when in fact they are not.
I personally would like a 50/50 on the fun/factual approach.
What whould Age of Empires lose if it have itâs campaigns (outside gameplay) and information cards to be historically accurate?
I donât play Call of Duty to learn about a gunâs effective range in real life or the details of what a certain gun has or doesnât have or if that is the correct model or outfit.
But Call of Duty never pretends they give accurate information about anything.
Age of empires does.
1 Like
Wrong. Everyone learns some âwrongâ history but the game would clearly teach a lot of ârightâ history. Ask yourself:
- Are you you saying Joan of Arc didnât help lift the Siege of Orleans?
- Are you saying Saladin didnât didnât conquer Jerusalem?
- Are you saying Genghis Khan didnât forge a huge empire in Asia?
No because you know those things are successfully conveyed by the game. Learning those broad strokes is what matters to kids learning the game. Nobody cares that Joan of Arc looked more like this than that, or that Saladin did such-and-such on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday.
Obviously history in fiction and games should always been taken with a grain-of-salt before checking with more reliable sources and even then while maintaining a sense of skepticism and open-mindedness toward oneâs own ideas and perspectives on a subject.
All the campaigns contain inaccuracies but not all inaccuracies or details hold the same weight in relevance.
1 Like
Yes. Joan of Arc help lift the Siege of Orleans.
And the game told me that Duke DâAlençon helped lift the Siege too.
And that La Hire did not help lift the Siege.
Tell me, did the game lied and gave me misinformation�
- Are you saying Saladin didnât didnât conquer Jerusalem?
Yes, the game told me Saladin conquered Jerusalem before he conquered Ascalon and Tiberias. Or the game is wrong�
No because you know those things are successfully conveyed by the game. Learning those broad strokes is what matters to kids learning the game. Nobody cares that Joan of Arc looked more like this than that, or that Saladin did such-and-such on a Wednesday rather than a Thursday.
I donât agree with you. At no point Age of empires tells you that the last Scenarios of the campaigns are actually alternate realities.
When you play with Barbarossa, kids learn that they invaded jerusalem and buried barbarossa remains there. But this is not true. They did not conquer jerusalem and the king is burried in another place.
You have no idea how many become so disapointed (me included) in discovering the emperor on a barrel going to jerusalem narrative is a fabrication of the game.
And this happens in basically all the campaigns, you as the player win a battle that your character is supposed to lose and the game does not tell you this and act as if winning is the correct outcome.
And why� What the game have to gain telling you this bunch of lies�
All the campaigns contain inaccuracies but not all inaccuracies or details hold the same weight in relevance.
What Age of empires campaings will lose if we make them historically correct� Pick age of empires 2 campaign, how would them become worse if we change them to be historically correct�
1 Like
Well weâll see if this game retains the accuracy it promises.
What you think the devs care about regarding âauthenticâ and âHistorically accurateâ and what you personally care about as those words, I feel are two different things.
The devs donât care whether a man with an obsidian sword will win against a foot knight in platemail. They care that the representation of the first is done correctly and with appropriate information (one is upgraded with the words âlong swordâ the other with the words obsidian weapons"⊠both add +2 or whatever. Its a teaching moment, but the gameplay is the same.
that and that the associated campaigns and stories are told appropriately.
You seem to simple care that the dude in plate armour and a metal weapon should win because that aligns with your âhistorically accurateâ.
I hope they do include Aztec or Inca etc Civs, to be historic, all their units can have technologies named around their culture etc. I hope to learn more about the cultures and peoples by playing them, what kind of boats DID they make!? what weird and wonderful technologies were discovered.
Gameplay is always first, and with the gameplay for a variety of play styles at a clear forefront, the opportunity of include an american civ for that reason alone is too rich to ignore. Iâd be very surprised if they were not added in a future DLC.
They worked really well in aoe2, they felt more of an afterthought in aoe3,
they should be in aoe4, as they were part of the world, during the timeframe the game was set.
4 Likes
Not good enough reason to add them lol.
And yes i do want them to lose to armorplated pikemen, it iĆĄ the only historical way
3 Likes
Its true that the Mayans or Aztecs would have no chance of wining against a late medieval England. But its true too that the English would have no chance against Chinese so I dont see the problem of adding American civs in the game because the of the argument that they were too weak.
1 Like
No it is not. Late Medieval China was already behind 1400s England, in technology.
Medieval China was conquered by the Mongols, but the Hungarians alone were able to stop them in Europe.
The idea that Europe was a technological backwater in the Middle Ages, is wrong, and as far as military technology went, Europe was actually ahead of the curb, as expected of a highly fragmented region that practiced constant warfare.
4 Likes