As I said, I love the idea of adding some life to the battles between AIs, I think the game would improve a lot with some humor or directly with special interactions between the AIs
and I would be more than delighted to see San Martin represented in the game.
I would love for the developers to add the Guarani, they seem to be a great civilization to add alongside the Mapuche.
PS: I would have loved if the developers better represented the revolutions of Manco Inca and Tupac Amaru.
Ok, let’s avoid getting off topic, I think that to expand the South American continent they should add Argentina, Brazil, Mapuches and the Guaranís.
These civilizations could come in sets of two.
Brazil and Argentina DLC.
Guarani and Mapuche DLC.
Now we can only wait and find out that they actually added Persia and Poles-Lithuanians. XD
Everything about how they made the Inca doesn’t make sense. It’s like they started with a bunch of gimmicks that have nothing to do with Inca, and then just shoved those gimmicks into the template of the Aztec civ.
The Inca actually survived long enough to incorporate the use of cavalry and gunpowder into their armies. Their unit roster should have units like Bolas Riders and Light Cannons instead of being stone age like the Aztecs.
Completely agree, the worst of all is that the developers are not going to change them, I honestly hope they make Manco Inca and Tupac Amaru into a “double revolution” to give us an alternative fourth and fifth age, I think it’s the only one way in which the Incas will be well represented.
PS: I know you didn’t like this idea at the time, but I don’t think the developers will remake the civilization from scratch, this is the only way I can think of that could fix the problem of the Incas.
I think that if they add the Mapuches and the Guaranís they could add more maps or expand the existing ones, for example, I would love for the maps to have versions based on the four seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn and winter.
I’ve suggested splitting Andes, Patagonia and Araucania multiple times, but my complaint here is that there are very few natives for the entirety of South America, most of which don’t live in a lot of territories they appear in (including Zapotecs and Mayas, who only lived in Mexico/Guatemala irl but show up in South American maps).
Only Incas/Quechuas, Tupis, Caribs/Arawaks and Mapuches actually lived here out of the minor civs available in the game, plus Jesuits if you wanna be generous.
That sounds like a good idea.
I once saw somewhere that the developers think of features for the civ first and then find a civilization that they think fit those features. I don’t know if that was about Ensemble or FE, but if it’s about FE, it would explain why the incas and the European royal houses are so generically-designed.
Honestly, I think both of them are somewhat bad options for civs but for different reasons.
This isn’t really true. Several Tupi groups had mixed military success when fighting either for the Portuguese (Tupiniquins, Potiguara, Temiminós, Guaianás…) or against them (Tamoios, Tupinambás, Goitacases…) usually by allying with Portugal’s European adversiries.
Bandeirantes were little more than expedition groups formed by a mix of desorganized militias and native warbands. The only war (the Guarani War) the Guaranis fought against an actual organized European army on the Portuguese side (plus an army of Spanish irregulars) resolted in a massacre of the Guarani. So I seriously question their fit for a civ in AoE3 DE: they lack the military achievements of the Lakota, the longevity and local power of the Haudenosaunee and the least we compare them with the Aztec and Inca the better.
I agree that Guaraní on their own is a fairly weak case for a civ. To make them work they’d need to have a lot of Jesuit elements and become more of a proto-Paraguay by the later ages.
The Guaraní also have the potential for a full unit roster which is more than can be said for most native civs.
Imperial Age: Strong decline as a result of the expansion of South American nation states (1821-1892)…
And the most likely thing is that it is…
Yes, in fact he comes out in Civ 4 Colonization…
Of course…
It is most likely, as happened with TWC with the minor natives of North America…
Of course, if they put new South American maps with those dlcs, they can take advantage of placing more natives on those maps and thus be more accurate historically speaking… the Jesuits are missing yes or yes in the South American maps, especially Gran Chaco, Pampas and Pampas Sierras…
Of course, it’s a whole topic…
Yes, I would add the Portuguese-Brazilian invasion of the early nineteenth century where the Guarani were commanded by Andresito Guacurarí, adopted son of the Uruguayan procer, Jose de Artigas…
Of course, Tupi archers and blowgun throwers in second age, Jesuit conquistadors in third age,later in fourth age mounted Guarani lancers and finally in imperial age, Paraguayan gatlings…
Fought the Inca, win some battles loose others, still stablished a dominion of capitanías in the andean foothill with vassal states, declared enemy of the Corona, fought and win every battle against the Virreynato even until the 1900 when finally where defeated by a professional modern army
Fought the Conquistadores, landsknecht mercenaries with their carabels and win
Expelled the well equiped Bandeirantes and Dutch with literal thousands of manpower by their side, a little more than a warband would say
After loosing their comander, without gunpowder and being completely sorrounded, they loose? Who would thought it
M
A
L
T
A
You can’t see what you don’t wanna see
Better don’t add them tho’, I doubt their research will be more than the usual wikipedia scroll
They are not the same thing. They are a part of the same language family, that’s it. That would be like putting the Germans and Dutch as one civ because they speak similar languages.
I just don’t want them to be purely tribal Guaraní. With Inca they modeled the civ entirely off pre-contact features and totally ignored their later adoption of European weapons and technology. A Guaraní civ should not ignore later developments and should have significant Jesuit elements as they get into later ages.
Yes, but ethnographically they are considered the same, as is the case with the Mohawks and the Iroquois/Hauds or the Sioux and the Lakota…
That is because the Incas we manage are those of the empire of Huayna Capac, who died in 1525 before the arrival of the Spanish…the only card that symbolizes something after that is the revolution of Tupac Amaru (occurred in 1780)…
Yes, that’s why I say that if we make a civ Guarani only we would have to start in 1604/1609 onwards…on the other hand, if we also put the Tupi we can extend the chronology of the civ at least until 1500/1567…
It’s not the same. Guaraní are not a subset of the Tupi like Mohawk is part of Iroquois. Tupis and Guaraní are on the same level, one does not encompass the other. Tupi-Guarani is a language family that includes two not at all united peoples.
I don’t understand why this would be the case. Guaraní obviously existed prior to 1600.
They are the same, not only on a semantic, cultural level, they are “literally” the same, how so?
There are letters wrote to the Jesuits Fathers in wich the “cabildo de indios” started expresing their concern because the slavers where in their area and say (resume) “our grandfathers fought them and we will too”
And that is without adding the constant battles against the Toba-Qom (Guaykurues in general) the Aché, their own inter-tribal wars etc
I’m not sure what you mean. According to Wikipedia their language at least is very different:
Tupi, Guarani and a number of other minor or major languages all belong to the Tupian language family, in the same sense that English, Romanian, and Sanskrit belong to the Indo-European language family.
Neither united beyond a tribal level before the Jesuits so it’s not like there was any overarching political or cultural unity between Guarani and Tupi.
Again and again, Tupi is just short for “Tupinamba” which was a single tribe, as was the Karijo, Paranaygua, Omagua, Guarambare etc
You want to know how the Inca called them? Chiriguanos, same language, same culture, an amalgamation of tribes that fought and allied themselves under different circumstances and for different purposses
How do you adquire vassals if not by a confederation
What exactly do people think a “tribe” means? A couple of family members?
There was up to 50 families in a single tapyi, 4 or more tapyi make a tava (city) each tava has a mburuvicha (president) and a group of mburuvicha design a tuvichaite who could order to adquire vassals from other cities or countrys, by war or marriages
Is that so? then it must be a miracle I can understand pretty much every word without having a bachelor’s degree in “tupi antiguo”
Ñe’engatu, ava ñe’e, guaraní ñe’e, mbya guaraní, all the same with some tweaks here and there (mbya is more poetic, ava is more formal, ñe’engatu is older, guaraní is estructuralized)
Wanna hear something funny?
When you search “jaguarundi” in wikipedia, right next to the etymological origin in Guarani, it says something that supposedly is “tupí”, but then you look the link and is just a portuguese dictionary with no relation whatsoever
And that sums it up pretty much
A few thousand from what I can tell. Certainly not a unified nation of all Tupi and Guarani spread out over all of South America.
I don’t think an exonym is strong evidence for their connection. The Europeans called most Asians Tatars regardless of whether they were related.
So you’re saying Tupi is mutually intelligible with Guarani? I’m not sure why they’d make such a big deal about the distinction then. I can see it being exaggerated by someone on Wikipedia, but they wouldn’t have made the distinction in the first place.
Even if they’re as closely related as you say, I still think a potential civ should be based on the Guaraní of the Paraguay region who interacted with the Jesuits, and the Tupi of Brazil can be represented by the minor tribe.
