How do they not?
As @Rorarimbo3774 said, that’s more a support issue than a real issue. There are still plenty very strong boni left which can be balanced with the right tweaking on effect and tech tree.
I don’t consider balance changes a refreshment either, just a fix. You won’t see changes out of nowhere like Aztecs getting Light cav just to refresh them.
Better sooner than later for me but I understand your point of view.
Yes, you can. Here’s a topic about it.
The neo-Inca state of Vilcabamba comes to mind. However, you are probably referring to the natives of North America.
Personally I would like more American civilizations without cavalry and focused on eagle warriors. In the Mod AoK: Realms the Chimu and Muisca civilizations are very well presented (in addition, it seems to me that some very interesting Chimu units are going to appear in AoE 3 DE)
There are 0 reasons to not add Muisca, Chimu, Caribs, Mapuche, Zapotecs, Tarascans, Toltecs, Mississippians, Pueblos and Iroquois. Don’t forget Tupis and Tlaxcala.
Remember the civilization number is already the double of the original AoC and there are lots of bonuses left and we shouldn’t forget famous units that are not in the game, like Cavalry Crossbows, Flamethrowers, Mantlets, Assegai Spearman, Canoe, Catamaran, Siege Elephants etc… These units should never be forgotten.
Mapuche used Cavalry in aoe2 timeframe, possibly devs could give them a Cavalry UU.
@Josh1Axel actually I am not referring to any civ in particular. Honestly at this point I am more interested in good civ designs rather than which civs in particular deserve the most to be added to the game. I am sure there are few civs that once clashed/ were in contact with the Europeans adopted some sort of cavalry. Thats why stable access not early but in later stages of development makes sence.
Basically I was just giving two example that we still can get some civs with interesting ideas behind that dont just break every rule what a civ should look like.
Adding civs nice idea but alreadysome of bonuses used by 2 times (Like Aztecs and Burmese) Team bonus strong (i think i seems like if you don’t have Dutch ally you can’t micro) if we consider usually team bonuses weak. Also Civ bonus quantity low, there are no unique techs. If you try to find new kind of bonus you may not find because most of them already used. But you can make your dreams real by using tools in “^game folder^\Tools_builds” (i dont remember folder name well). There is Advange genie editor, with that you can test balance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that with the addition of new civs is that they need to have a clear “Castle Age” and “Imperial Age” heritage. I do not mean by imperial governance…but buildings and cultural achievements. For instance: the Iroquois natives did not have populations gathered in anything larger than clustered villages/towns. The Mississippi peoples can be added as a new civ with a proper “Imperial Age” since archeological evidence does show that some minor cities were established along the Mississippi River plains. But it would be difficult to justify adding any North American peoples as true “AoE2 civs” because they simply did not have the architecture sophistication that their Meso-American cousins had down south, in Central America. Like, what would the equivalent of a “North American Castle building”?
Simply put, adding some North American civs into AoE2 would be difficult, unless the game devs made them limited in Dark Age through Feudal Age. and gave them special bonuses so that they can fight off other Castle Age and Imperial Age civs…but even that would be difficult to implement into AoE2, which is a game that is well-known in striking as much as a game balance among all civs as any.
And finally…the new civs would have to be actual “medieval era civs”. That means that the Iroquois for instance would not really be truly “medieval era” civ, since they came about in the early Colonial Era. A lot of Oceania peoples also did not have true “Castle Age” and “Imperial Age” moments…until the Europeans themselves came and conquered/colonized over them. But that is more of AoE3 territory than AoE2.
Personally, if AoE2 is to have new civs added, it can only be from a few straggler European, Asian and African civilizations that are not already represented under the current 35 civs.
Frisians for sure I think can be added, if the Teutons do not already represent the medieval Dutch peoples. Perhaps the Estonians, Latvians, Finnish peoples can have their own civs (maybe). Maybe the Ayrans as another Indian/South Asian civ (but I think that the “Indians civ” already pretty much covers medieval India). As for Africa, maybe Ghanas and Songhai peoples can have their own “civs” (but Malian civ already pretty much presents them)
Artworks by Kondrikthus:
We have 3 (!) Nomadic people which didn’t built much else than tents and you’re telling me that North American civs wouldn’t work? Iroquois were clearly more sophisticated if we’re going down that route than the Huns, Mongols and Cumans.
Foundation of the League roughly happened in the 11th century. Iroquois-speaking people existed before that. Why doesn’t that bother you for Portuguese but for Iroquois it does?
For further arguments why North American civs make sense:
We have enough Eurasia in my opinion.
EDIT: Added author references
WOW, I have to say it
Yous design looks pretty good, I would love to see in implemented by the devs in AoE3 DE
IMO is the first things devs should focus after the release of AoE3
First of all your design looks amazing!
But back to the topic. I don’t think there should be a North American civ and there is a simple reason for this: if I’m correct non of the civs you mention( the non American too) ever reached something beyond the early ironage at most. It’s not about being nomadic or not it’s more about the tools they used, and because of trade the technology In Eurasia was way advanced. That’s why the Mongols for example are included, aside from the masiv impact they had on world history. For me the civs you selected just fit more to aoe1.
It is not enough to just add civs in the game. The Bulgarians are crap in Realms and in Aoe 2 DE too. It is not enough to add one unique unit at castle. They must be changed to be some unique civ as they were.
Also, some of the European civs in Realms appeared in the time of Aoe 3…
Adding civs from that age is as adding Bulgarians to Aoe 1, or adding Teutons to Aoe 1.
Also, many of the civs( african and american ) in the game are fictional and the makers( game mod developers) gave them weapons, which they never used.
If somebody is hacker, he can make 100 new Fictional civs, but why he want others to play that TOTAL fictional game ???
I don’t think it is important if the civs are fictional look at the teutons or the Indians it’s more representing a culture witch had an massive impact. Same goes for the units in aoe2 especially.i don’t think the mayans, the Khmer or the huns ever used a trebuchet still they all get it.
Because
its not 100% accurate and acording to game everyone can go through 4 ages and get trebuchetsat the end
I think its more important to see that they tryd to mix both some realism and the core game mechanic
@WedBasket953249 can`t agree with this statement about Bulgarians. Arguably their civ design is rather boring fo r some ppl may be - dependant on standard infantry and Krepost but they have a clear theme going for them.The infantry/cavalry mesh up the less stone for TC nd a stone building ( Krepost) that even allows you to Age up to imp. Even the infamous lack of xbows is part of that identity than supported by faster blaksmith to easy that acward transition. Weak civ yes ( depends on balance) boring may be depends on preference but definatelly unique.
I have no clue how Bulgarians look like in that mod but to me its just a reference for some ideas there.
Those are not my designs. Artist is Kondrikthus. Should have credited him. Castle is by Omarr_gg. Drawings are from other artists.
We already have Non-Iron civs as in Meso civs.
That’s right but all 3 meso civs that are already in the game where far more advanced than the natives in North America. All 3 where incredible builders even without having iron tools( eg. the pyramids of the Maya decorated with reliefs are way beyond the earth pyramids of Cahokia), they all had at least a form of writing and a good understanding of mathematics, the Inca had a roadsystem nearly as impressive as the one rome build, and all had unbelievable good art skills. For me they are just not comparable to the north American ones.
If any new civs then pls fix Indians - - > split camels and Elefants
Huns, Cumans and Mongol are not famous for their cultural achievements yet they are in the game.
Those are all civs which had their peak within the AOE2 time frame, namely Mississippians (Cahokia), Hitsatsonim/Pueblo/Anasazi and Great Zimbabwe.
Formation of the Iroquois League is estimated at the earliest in the 11th century CE. Iroquois people existed before that too. They’re older than some of the civs which are already in the game.
Dont forget the Tatars who are just another name stepp nomads.
The moment devs added huns with their fictional wonder any civi became a possible add on.
