stop this thing with the aura. it doesn’t exist in reality and in treaties it’s unfair. a warchief can’t destroy 4 cannons. you don’t become in reality. that’s how you don’t bring people, you drive people away
There’s a lot of trade offs with the native Civs. Like how they don’t get factories or forts & for the most part (excluding Haud) limited artillery access. Instead they get unique features like the auras & ceremonies. None of the 4 native civs feel like they’re wildly out of balance, at least to me.
Cant men 1 warchief destroy 4 mortals cants is unrealistic and boring
The simplest solution here would be to drastically reduce Warchief strength but increase the number you can get to 2 or 3.
one cannonball doesnt knock back 7 people standing side by side irl, it goes both ways
The 4 are wildly out of balance, but mostly in the sense of them being extremely weak except for some very specific gimmick strategy.
What you’re complaining about is the Sioux war chief. A couple of thoughts come to mind. First, you should read about the requirements to earn the title of chief. He has to lead a successful war party. That inspires his men. The aura makes perfect sense. Leaders do indeed inspire their men. He has to take an enemy’s weapon, which justifies the treasure guardian conversion mechanic. He has to steal a horse, and perform a counting coup, which is when you touch an enemy but do not kill him. The kind of guy who can do that shows extreme bravery in battle, but also extreme self-control when called for - good traits.
As for the huge bonus against artillery, play the Sioux without the war chief. Don’t research battle anger. Park your war chief in your town and never fight with him. Do that in a long game against any of the European civs that like to deploy artillery. You’ll very quickly find yourself being overrun game after game by large waves of artillery. They need the bonuses against artillery to even the playing field.
There’s nothing unrealistic or broken about this mechanic. AoE3 is a strategy game, not a history simulator. It’s mechanics are inspired by history, they don’t recreate it. If you want a recreation, go to a museum or someplace where they do historical reenactments.
Also, hint: he’s tagged cavalry. Protect your cannons with pikes, halbs, or musks.
He’s tagged as heavy cavalry, so dragoons work as well.
Seems very realistic to me.
A chief can inspire his people.
Imagine you are an artillery person responsible for cannon firing on the field. When the angry lakota warchief comes at you, you’ll leave the cannon and run away. You can’t fire it.
Stop complaining about auras, dokimos.
I really hate using the justification of “He’s a chief” here.
Among the Lakota, the status of Chief never meant a whole lot. War Chief meant even less - in any given group of Akicita, half would probably have the status of war chief.
On the other hand, a Chief’s main duty was to get all the Elders into one tipi and then ensure they actually talked about issues and solved problems and didn’t waste the days away gossiping, as old women do. Chiefs were not leaders. They were the voice of the Council, but held no power themselves, and the Council could strip a Chief of that power with very little effort.
Americans associated Chiefs with heads of state because Chiefs served an ambassadorial role - the Elders weren’t likely to go riding around to meet up with people, so they send the Chief in their stead.
That’s the Crow people, not the Lakota. The title of Chief means a lot more to them, because they’re a much more warlike people. To the Lakota, gaining the title of blotahunka simply meant you were allowed to lead other members of your own Akicita if your Naca needed you to - a title closer to that of Captain, or Major than anything else. It was not a particularly difficult title to get, nor a particularly sought-after title.
The Naca themselves would be part of a higher Akicita, the Wakichunza Society. The leader of the Wakichunza would normally be the Council itself.
You are way too hyper focused on your own conception of the Lakota to see that this is a perfect fit for the hero role.
The hero of every single other civ is an ambassador, minor official, or wartime leader. An Explorer is supposed to represent guys like Jacques Cartier or Samuel de Champlain, not a head of state like Louis XIV or Napoleon. When the most famous Lakotas are guys like Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Red Cloud, a Warchief is a very natural fit for their hero unit.
It’s the same deal with Medicine Men. Yeah their role is not really that of a doctor, but it’s pretty comparable to Priests and Imams so changing their name to “Healer” was stupid and confusing.
Yeah, sure, let’s assign some random ambassador to the role of an inspiring leader with a unique position who was expected to be doing their own thing and be one of the best.
Instead of the person who’s job was literally that and was limited to 1 or 2 per band and had the power to supersede and devalue the Council if they needed to.
This is unbearably pedantic and nitpicky. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Red Cloud are unambiguously warchiefs and are considered to be naca according to Lakota. Warchief is a perfectly appropriate title for the unit that is supposed to represent people like them and there is no reason to change it.
I see Dokimos is still speaking his own language.
I personally hate ceremonies. They’re dumb and feel too magic-y for something not in AoM.
I call bullshit on that. Asian civs have monks. They don’t fit any of those. Also I still think they should be replaced.
The Monks are still minor officials, especially the Brahmin. But they still suck and should definitely be replaced.
Aoe3 is just very unbalanced because of the big variations among civs. It does drive players away. Many many previous players have left the game permanently.
Despite that I don’t think lakota war chief one shot artillery is bad design.
Half of any Akicita member was considered a warchief at this time. The title was on-par with being a Staff Sergeant at best.
Sitting Bull was revered because he was Heyoka. It was the only title he had that had any real bearing.
Crazy Horse was Naca, but made his own Akicita.
Red Cloud was a Council member who took things into his own hands. He established himself as a Chief afterwards so he could speak for his band, and I’d regard his particular position as unusual - Chiefs were generally not part of the Council itself due to the conflicting power problems of the mouthpiece being able to make impactful decision on-the-fly without the Council’s approval.
Heyoka literally do all of these things as part of their religious duties. They were expected to be capable of leading the entire band if necessary, they were expected to be highly intelligent and clever, and they absolutely did speak for their band if the times called for it.
They have a lot of power in Lakota communities because they don’t lie within the official power structure of the band - they are not members of the Akicita, they are not of the Naca, they are not of the Council, yet they can clown any of those societies and have the soft power status to sway entire Akicita away from their own Naca if they do their job right.
Of any given Akicita, half would hold the title blotahunka, a handful would hold the title Naca, and a couple of those would be of the Silent Eaters, and one of those would be the Chief for the Council.
And yet, it’s the Heyoka that the people would pay closest attention to.
ADD: “Unbearably pedantic and nitpicky” - I might remind you this is the same forum that had a whole discussion over what type of hat the Musketeer wore in what age.
All you are arguing is that blotahunka doesn’t translate 1:1 as warchief. Warchief encompasses the roles of blotahunka, naca, and heyoka. I really doubt there is an Aztec or Inca rank that directly corresponds to warchief and that is fine. This is a game and it requires some level of abstraction and simplification and nitpicking things that aren’t even wrong to begin with is unproductive.
I’d love to see a Heyoka skin (or appearance change from the card) for the Lakota Warchief, but needlessly tinkering with ultra specific names is not an improvement.
Blotahunka is the direct translation of warchief. Naca are not warchief, they are more akin to magistrates or judges.
Akicita are not warriors, but Blotahunka specifically are. Akicita are led primarily by the Naca, who are not warriors at all by duty, though many carry additional titles relating to war and battle.
Heyoka are a religious position like that of a Bishop or Imam.
You’re just asserting that blotahunka translates directly to warchief and that therefore warchief connotes an equally low rank of blotahunka.
To everyone else warchief connotes a high ranking war leader. Blotahunka ataya seems to be the more direct translation.