I play it since October 2000. Got it for my birthday along with Riven: Sequel to Myst. My first 2 games which I bought in USA after immigration from Russia the same year. 
How do I know. I will get it next month. I need a new hard drive so that Age IV and Age II DE (both of which require 56 and 43 gigs respectively for the installation) will work just fine.
Makes sense. The term imperial age (in a historical, non-aoe2 context) makes me think 1800-1850ish. The last hurra of the musket, Brittannia ruled the waves. Especially if you mention it within the confines of an early modern to late colonial era wargame.
It is a bit of a misnomer in aoe2 perhaps. But it sounds pretty badass, it calls back to how this is supposed to be about an age of empires and it’s not like “castle age” is a great historical term either.
1 Like
The Chimú UU could be a Maceman called “Alaec” (lord of the valley)
Remember that Andes was one of the 6 cradles of civilization, for AoE 1 the Moche would be more feasible (civilization from which the Chimú descend, something like Yamato => Japan, they even used the same language), there are also many other civilizations from the Andes that would work for AoE 1 like the Chavín (who spoke Quechua).
But going back to the Chimú, they have the achievement of being a civilization that managed to subdue the desert. His hydraulic engineering works are present until today.
They also built the largest adobe city in the Americas, with a centralized layout similar to medieval European cities.
And of course, we must also highlight the metallurgy.
It was also a Naval civilization, say the chronicles that used various types of ships, including 2-story boats made of wood and reeds.
I leave this Soviet movie about the Moche (subtitles in Spanish), you may have problems with the language but it’s worth watching.
Conclusion:
In South America there are civilizations that can be adapted for AoE 1 and AoE 2, Chimú is better adapted for AoE 2 due to its achievements and contact with other civilizations already present in AoE 2 (Inca, Spain)
4 Likes
maybe dont make grand statements about aoe2DE and aoe4 if you haven’t even played them?
1 Like
I played AoE II DE though. I just unintalled it though, assuming that AoE IV would be bigger and ended up not playing both. But I did played Age II DE and still have Age I DE.
I bet three of the five Malay offshoots I proposed will have 2 unique units, one on land and one on sea: Srivijaya (Karambit warriors+Borobudur ship that can conduct trade missions), Majapahit(fast-firing small cannons called Cetbangs+Jong that can both deal ballista attack and carry more land units than normal transport ships) and Aceh(female archers that ignore pierce-armour called Inong Balee+Ghali that fire three cannonballs per attack).
Another two unique land units will be Prajudit Gada(Macemen that have some chance to stun enemies they attack) for the Medangs and Pesilat(anti-cavalry spearmen that deal bleeding damage for some seconds) for Malaccans
Seems logical to me. I know nothing of Indian wars, so forgive me if I was blunt but uneducated in that topic.
No need to be ashamed, for several Southeast Asian powerhouses had already been experts of amphibious assaults as the Medieval Age begins 
1 Like
I don’t know why you think I want Guamar, Itza, Xiu. I was thinking more in the line of Mapuche, Kongolese, Songhay (both already in Civ V/VI respectively), Zimbabweans, Swahili, Tarascans, Mississippians, Hisat’sinom, early Haudenosaunee, Chimu, Muisca and similar.
Songhay could have the Mandekalu cav:
Mississippians a variant of the Eagle Warrior:
The Muisca the Guecha:
etc,
With a bit of research, you can find for every civ a unique unit. The amount of various African weapons is endless:
Just a selection:
The Mambele of the Mangbetu.
The Ngulu from the Congo Basin.
A Maasai Rungu
etc.
1 Like
Isn’t this the gebeto projectile?
The Mangbetu live in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Kongo), so no.
It kinda looks similar.
lol what’s up with some replies that are basically “buts” to deny african, american and asian civs; while those replies are lowkey trying to say those civs are “underdeveloped so no”, “too poor to afford steel so no”, “bronze is age I”.
I’m tired of this hollywood logic of medieval armies all clad in steel. Guess what, only nobles and the rich had all their armor made of steel because only they and their guards could afford it. Steel was hella expensive. Depending on the kingdoms, like 70~80% of their armies used leather, iron and bronze; or a mix of all of them. Is it so hard to open a book and read? geez. Personally, I have no problems with more african, american and asian civs. Splitting them is fair as long as they can improve the game. As other users said, there are still a lot of interesting civs in those continents. Before I said an african civ could have camels attacking faster and it would be fun, but now the bonus was given to hindustanis. And they are pretty fun to use. Just like that, there are cool bonuses that can be implemented. Like buildinds adding +1/+1 armor after advancing to the next age for a new african or american civ, or cavalry archers dealing 50% more bonus damage for an asian civ, etc.
4 Likes
Because you posted a map of EU4 (or it was another poster (hard to keep track of who posts what, you know)).
This is hardly a weapon - more like a pipe to me.
It have nothing to do with lack of knowledge. Some people just have a hard time to make every civ look unique. We already have castles for Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian and Korean civs look exactly like a Japanese castle. This issue was addressed numerous of times, but was never taken care of.
I too was surprised as to what camels are doing in India. Camels are common in Middle East (Saracens) and Africa. Makes me wonder if the camel bonus was given to India, maybe they (the devs) will give an elephant bonus to Africa? 
As long as African and American civs will be on one map, I too have nothing against it.
Agreed, but again, that bonuses should be destinct from other (including non-African, non-American, and non-Asian) civs.
You would be surprised how good hard wood weapons are.
1 Like
While I love rungus they’re hardly weapons of war. Even the warriors/shepherds/hunters that wear them rely on a throwing spear as their primary weapon (against lions and such) and usually carry a short sword for a final stand in melee. Their throwing clubs seem to mostly be a way to bridge that gap. To have something you can throw quickly after the spear misses. And apparently that was an important job, because the rungu gained symbolic and ceremonial use. Now that I think about it, it may be a bit like the Frank throwing axe (or the Roman plumbata/dart). So yeah, build a unique unit around it. I’m convinced. 
What I was going to say is that a longer version (walking stick length) of this type of weapon (I know it as a knobkerrie, but I’m pretty sure there’s a less colonial sounding name for it as well) was used in war by the Zulu, versus the Boers and the British, long after the aoe2 timeframe. So wooden bludgeoning weapons in and of themselves, totally plausible. Even though those guys threw a lot of bodies at the enemy to achieve victories that way. While earlier Zulu conquesta had been based on innovation, against the Brits they seem to have gotten stuck in tradition just a little.
(Another similar walking stick length weapon, the shillelagh, became popular in Ireland at some point, but that was as a civilian weapon after a ban on swords was passed.)
1 Like
Not as durable as an ax though.
No. Blunt force weapons don’t have an edge to loose like a bladed weapon.