Your claim of falseness is false. The formation of this confederacy is attributed to late 1500/early 1600, it is beyond the usual AoE2 timeframe.
Franks - 1534 (5 years after the Spanish interacted with Incas)
2 Likes
The Iroquois conferacy was founded between 1142 and 1450 - The game covers different people, not kingdoms. Iroquois existed hundreds of years before the foundation. This is the reason Umayyads and Fatimids are not seperate civs.
1 Like
Between those dates there is no connection to the current civs and Iroquois people which was my original point. The confederacy foundation is attributed to the late 1500âs, but that timeperiod is already better suited to AoE3. (This is actually the other problem with this civ - we know so little about them, that we donât actually know a whole lot from before the colonial ages)
2 Likes
The Aztecs, Mayans and Incas have no connection between non-Native American civs between 1142 and 1450.
The timeframe of the game is 476-1598 - Iroquois perfectly fit - The Aztec Empire was founded at the same time.
2 Likes
The Aztecs had clear interaction with the Spanish that at least still fits the end of the AoE2 timeframe. Probably also why the devs included them as part of the âConquerorsâ expansion.
1598 in general is really a stretch Iâd say. I know that the campaigns have a few outliers in the Historical battles that stretch beyond the usual timeframe, but these mostly cover places where technological progress was relatively stagnant for the time. Only exception that comes to mind for me is Lepanto, but in some way it makes sense why they included it regardless (due to its historical significance).
3 Likes
The Iroquois clearly had the same interaction with the Franks at almost the same time.
Burmese, Koreans and Japanese are not technologically stagnant 11
2 Likes
Looks like we are starting to go in circles. I recommend you buy AoE3, fire it up, play through the campaigns and then youâll also better see what I mean.
2 Likes
I recommend you understand facts: The Iroquois interracted 3 civs within the time period of aoe2 and they met Franks 5 years after Incas met Spanish hence Iroquois perfectly fit the game. Period.
2 Likes
I recommend that instead of clutching to straw-man arguments, you go and read up some stuff. Itâs getting boring to go around in circles explaining the same things over and over. The Iroquois simply wouldnât have anything to do with this game, due to the time period.
2 Likes
Explaining the same stupidity over and over again?
They interacted with more civs than Aztecs, Mayans and Incas - The Incas literally interacted only with the Spanish 5 (five) years before the Iroquois. They would have an obvious campaign and architecture, by your logic Incas should be deletedâŠ
3 Likes
Ah yes, strawman right off the bat, canât wait to read the rest of your magnificent post /s (but honestly, if you have nothing meaningful to add, just consider not posting?)
About the Spanish thing, I guess you havenât heard of things being thematic⊠sighâŠ
3 Likes
You should stop acting like a flat-earth believer rock and understand true facts. - If that doesnât help you should call a mental trainer - You couldnât deny any of my statements, I am not surprised since I was telling you the truth.
1 Like
Denying your statements was already done. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. (Also, Iâm done replying to you, this is a waste of time, and no that doesnât mean youâre right about anything, there is just no point arguing with a brick wall)
4 Likes
Denying? What are you talking about? You couldnât deny anything, I won again: The Iroquois should be added and that is an obvious, well-accepted thing in the community.
So you admitted I won.
1 Like
Simple solution would be to look at if xx civi had a conflict with currently ingame civis between 400 to 1600.
I think Eagle Warrior is quintessentially a Meso unit, so for North American civs they could still have access to it, yet it would be less powerful than Meso ones. Perhaps they shouldnât have access to Elite Eagle Warrior upgrade.
On the other hand North American civs should have access to another regional unit, Iâm thinking about a unit that could be trained at their Monastery, and it can both heal friendly units and attack enemies. Maybe we could call it Shaman or Warrior Shaman, since in North American native societies the warrior elite and the religious elite were often the same.
1 Like
Space for eleven civs, hereâs my proposal:
1 for India, either Tamils or Sinhalese, I donât see the point of adding a bunch of Indian kingdoms.
2 for North America, my proposals are Mississippians and Anasazi, Iroquois is a bit controversial since their confederation formed relatively late.
1 for South America, my proposal would be the Chimu, Mapuche is controversial for the same reason as Iroquois.
2 for Africa, my proposal would be Kanembu and Swahili, as for other African civs I donât think theyâve interacted that much with other civs outside of Africa.
2 for the Caucasus region, Georgians and Armenians.
3 for the Asia-Pacific region, Chams, Siamese, and Tanguts.
2 Likes
There are endless possibilities. I think Eagle Warriors are fine for any American civilizations. Only Nahuatl culture had Eagle Warriors: Aztecs, Tlaxcalans etc., yet Mayans have the strongest Eagles in the game. Incas are not even Mesoamerican, but they have FU Eagles with Unique Tech.
They still fit aoe
Kanembu: Interacted with Turks and Saracens
Somalis: Interacted with Chinese, Indians in general, Persians, Saracens, Turks and Portuguese
Zimbabweans, Kongolese, Yoruba: Interacted with Portuguese
Swahili: Interacted with Persians, Saracens, Chinese, Indians in general and Portuguese
Songhai, Mossi, Hausa: Saracens, Portuguese and Turks
Spanish met Mapuche the same time as Incas and they have recorded history from earlier centuries similar to Incas
2 Likes
Hi guys,
HAs anyone found anything in the game files that gives any hints for the DLCs TBA in the Fan Event?