I don’t think I’ve seen anyone talk about it, but I’d like to see Nazca lines on a potential Pampas de Jumana map. Anyone else?
2 Likes
Someone mentioned it in the thread I linked.
I mean, were the differences so substantial that they wouldn’t make sense on different maps? Didn’t they have more in common than what divided them?
I’m not trying to contradict you, I’m just ignorant. It’s not a rhetorical question.
I mean you could make a site that’s generic enough as to cover both Caribbean Arawak and those who lived in the Amazon, but you’d have to go really generic, like basically “these people used bows and lived in tropical weather” kinda generic in both technologies and units.
Otherwise Taino and, say, Yanesha people are so different that a site theme after the former would stick out like a sore thumb if placed where the latter lived.
Still, may be doable, like if it’s an Amazon map and there’s an Arawak site it’s kinda like… eh workable, particularly if the Arawak site is mostly taino flavored is mostly naval in focus.
It all depends on which maps they’d show up at the end of the day.
I was asking you because some time ago I made a proposal about the Arawak, so that the Caribs would be more exclusive to the sea or coastal maps, and the Arawak a more continental version.
1 Like
The thing is that the Carib-speaking peoples lived mostly in continental South America, while the Arawak-speaking peoples lived mostly in what we call today the Caribbean Islands, though both extended several thousands of miles into the South American continent. Still, almost all of the Indigenous peoples that inhabited Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and the other Caribbean islands when the Spanish arrived were Arawak speakers, such as the Taíno.
2 Likes
Does anyone else think that “strategic elements”, like the Spanish treasure ships or the Wind mills, could be added to some of the existing maps?
1 Like
I would also request to scale up base and large maps accordingly.
On 1v1 a little bit, 2v2 1.5 scale and you figure it
That’s a good alt name. Thanks for mentioning it!
I think it is a bad idea because that name was never used to call the region. Indeed Manaus was the name of a former native Amazonian people. Also, I prefer maintaining most famous name of regions, like it happens with Patagonia, for example.
I’m not entirely sure, but I think it was the other way around.
Eh I just think Amazonia is too big to be a single map (a lot of maps suffer from that, especially in Asia), and that if it got split keeping the name “Amazonia” while having two or more other maps based on the same region would be very awkward. I’m not dead set on the name Manaus though.
This is only if more South American maps get added like we want, but to avoid overuse, maybe Tupis could be “split” into more specific subdivisions? Guaranis are the most obvious, but there could be others. Maybe Quechua would need the same treatment, they’re already overused as it is I think.
I’ll admit I don’t have suggestions for units in case those divisions happens, though.
Quechua are mostly still there just because they are crucial for Andes gameplay, otherwise they should be replaced.
I think I’d have a little less problem with “Quechua” if it wasn’t obviously more generic than “Inca”.
