Hindustani is to represent the hindu north
Afghans is to represent the ghurid invasions
Are there more deserving civs i overlooked?
Iâd love all of them, escpecially the Gifts of Gods DLC. But maybe Tarascans (PurĂ©pechas) would be a better choice than Tlaxcaltecs, because they differ more from aztecs, since the latter are both ethnically and linguistically very similiar to aztecs
1 Like
+1
Yeah the Tarascans were culturally more different than the Nahuatls to their south. Also at their peak they rivalled the Aztec Empire as the second most powerful polity in all of Cemanahuac.
Their campaign can feature the story of one of these rulers:
1 Like
Isnt hindustani the word used by invaders? Calling invaders as heros might not sit well with many.
1 Like
American DLCs:
- North American DLC - Mississippians and Tarascans civs
- South American DLC - Chimu and Muisca civs
Possibly one big American DLC - Mississippians, Tarascans, Chimu and Muisca civs.
1 Like
Mapuche instead of Muisca. The Chimu traded actively with the Muisca. A tech called âMuisca Tradersâ could be a concept.
from what i understood, Hindustan was used by the Persians to describe people living in India, so its actually a really broad term of the people living in the region, so if thereâs another name to describe the hindu north, then thats probably better.
i guess. i added the ghurids because of their skirmishes with the people who lived in hindustan, maybe switch ghurids with deccani in my civ list so they fit the name better
2 Likes
Mapuche is definitely more suited to AoE 3.
Muisca was an advanced civilization, Mapuche was not.
True, however we have huns, so fun-factor should definetly be considered
having a cav archer type civ (since mapuche raided) but âamericafiedâ would be pretty cool imo
iâve made a concept for the civ (that assumes we get a archer-scouting unit for future American civs) i could share it if you want
Cool, but adding Mapuche will open up Pandoraâs Box.
Since Mapuche, I also need to add the Iroquois. If you add Iroquois, add Cherokee, Cree, Huron, and Lakota. Then people will say there is a shortage of South American civs and they will want a Tupi. And so over and over again - just like we now have with Europe and Asia that there is still not enough of all of them.
In the case of America and Africa, we should choose civs that would really be able to compete with the civs already present in the game.
Therefore, I believe that new American civs should only be highly developed civs. AoE 3 is a place for Minor Civilizations - besides, it does it in a better and more interesting way.
2 Likes
IN my Historical Accuracy mod, I gave the Turks Sepahi skin for their cavalier.
imo the floodgates of america were opened with the conquerers
lol i want that civ along side the Mississippians and Mapuche for an American expansion
my only knowledge of these guys is from aoe3, i thought they were part of the iroquis confederacy
well the thing here is they didnât really have contact with a major empire, like the aztecs or incas, so i think we can ignore them for now, if we want a west coast civ it would probably be pueblans
if im not mistaken they were too isolated
btw you forgot to add Caribs 11
this is true, thats why imo Asia and Africa should be higher priorities than America, but if we ever âfinishâ with those continents the we will look past the atlantic towards the new world
Both were pretty advanced. The Mapuche manage to halt the southward expansion of the Incas and were pretty resilient to initial spanish colonization, which (if you played the Montezuma campaign of the AOE2 HD El Dorado campaign) occurs within the time frame of the AoE2
Acording to my knowledge only the Aztechs and civs further south had contact / conflict with international factions (Spanish, Ports) during this time frame, thus Iâd love another Central Americas. Souththren Americas and Caribian DLC but nothing to do with the tribes further north. (NA DLC)
Caribbeans are less advanced than North American tribes. We donât need naked cannibals in the game.
2 Likes
Iroquois could be fun, so would Mississippians
thereâs possibility for tomahawks, trackers, and so much more
Well, if we prioritize adding advanced civs, the easiest way is to complete the American continent - adding 4 civs there.
It seems to me that Africa is enough to give 5 civs (possibly 6 civs - 2 DLCs of 3 civs each).
It would be trivial to complete the only continent not represented in AoE 2 - Oceania. One single civ is enough there - Polynesians.
1 Like
I donât know. When I visited Puerto Rico and experienced their history, how the Caribs and such fought agaisnt and allong side the Spanish , how the spanish created guard towers and fortifications to battle those tribe ,and how those jungle tribes abushed and fought the Spanish and one another, I thought ,that is truly exciting history that I would love to recreate in game.
Perhaps, but Iâll never play a game with these tribes, having a battle between NA tribe and the Chin Empire just isnât my thing.
2 Likes
my only concern is that if i remember correctly, they wonât be able to access the archery range, Oceania is better left for aoe3 imo
would love to see Songhai, Zulu, Somalians, Nubians, Zimbabweans and one more
ya, i think thats a good number too, i would go for Musica, Mapuche, Iroquois and Mississippians, and maybe 5 so we get a new meso civ
well if you want to fight with spain just add tlaxcala, we could use a 3rd Mesoamerican civ, we also already have a campaign about Americans and Spanish, so it might cool to keep doing isolated campaigns, itâs not like you only have history once Europe comes for you
well everyone has their own opinion so i cant argue there, i for one still havenât bought LotW 11
btw i wouldnât generalize all of them into tribes, as some of them had agriculture and advanced societies (especially the ones we want in game)