Should Native civs have the options of more captured artillery? [+Poll]

Well, Indians have more options than Aztecs due to the variety of units and the fact they can access artillery via consulate.

that artillery doesn’t really count, as its SUPER HIGHLY Inefficient. Its just for namesake. As India has the worst consulate of all. :slight_smile:

1 Like

So the answer to to have all civs play the same? That is what AoEII is for. It disturbs me how people want to neutralize AoEIII’s greatest strength which is asymmetric civ design. Japan has some of the worst artillery in the game and they’re still highly effective.

A wide variety of units? the unit rosters of non euro civs are highly unique unlike euro civs so I’m
not sure I understand what you’re getting it.


But is there if you need it, Aztec and Inca have zero access.

Nope it isnt ! calling a shipment from consulate take hell alot of time and block a humongous population! hence its almost never used. Also! Export is the most inefficient resource. So dont consider it. in treaty games 2-3 artillery counts for nothing.

I’ll rank Aztec and India both at the bottom of treaty games, for almost the similar reason.

1 Like

im talking about treaty too, trust me you are underrating them.

india is a high skill civ that requires the player to be using overwhelming numbers and mobility to use well.

Well, I main India and in treaty too, they don’t have 1 major flaw, they have 100 minor flaws.
on other hand I feel aztec have an advantage of being the more popular civ, and hence have chances of being heard and updated.

They dont have extra pop or eco, nor fast train times, like Japan dutch or china so I dont know what, overwhelming number you are talking about.

4 units cant do anything on treaty. What happen after you lose them?? Artillery for natives is a Hauds feature. Other natives need other methods


No, I didn’t say that. But they need equal units to function as artillery and they have none. AK’s are not as effective as culverins, and that lack of anti-mass infantry makes them one of the worse civs.

One thing is asymmetric but this seems unbalanced. Japan can access Euro units to somehow balance plus they have ‘factories’. But the thing is they can’t be compared because they stack a ton of improvements to make their units almost OP, Aztecs have basic improvements only not even arsenal.

They have the same function as euro inf and cav, they are not really unique.


I mean to access a maximum of 4 cannons, but with the option of replacing them if lost. Inca needs that too.

1 Like

you have the ability to make forts with sepoys and you have tigers.

Those are only useful in supremacy. in treaty tigers cant go near the artillery! Sepoys can build barracks stable and castle. (not the fort) and all these buildings have slow train time, and cost wood, so does vills and elephants :slight_smile: but there is no wood dance or factory available :slight_smile:
There is a reason why India unpopular! there is always a hidden useless pull down feature with India.

One solution would be to give coyote racers bonuses against skirmishers and cannons in the late game. Even a tolerance for the siege would do them good. I agree that each civilization remains original.

Also the Arrow Knights could have tolerance to the siege.
With all this there would be no need for cannons, although they could have some type of renegade unit from the metropolis that grants cannons, but I think that with mortars it is enough if they improve the units that I mention.


One of those options, fix their units or give them very limited access to euro units (artillery) and maybe improvements.

no they are useful in treaty, because they bulk your numbers.

castle, fort, meh close enough, point is the dmg.

india is unpopular cause they are hard.

Literally any militacy unit can kill 20 tigers in treaty crowd.

Different! not hard, but have alot of flaws.

Indeed, and those examples are what I am in favor of instead of just arbitrarily giving non euros access to cannons that to me is just a lazy way of handling it. I have never had a problem sacking a town as the Lakota.

The real problem I’m seeing is balancing for supremacy is tough enough but when trying to also account for treaty I think it just becomes impossible and AoE fans can quite fickle as it is.