How about people stop being giant idiots about the entire thing and stop assuming that is the reason why it was removed. There are tons of reasons why the campaign was removed.
El Dorado was probably removed because the Campaign in general wasn’t great, a giant slog to go through and in general, wasn’t fun.
El Dorado was probably removed because out of all of the Campaigns (except for the original Honfoglalás and one of the Dracula Scenarios), El Dorado was the most scripted and trigger heavy out of the entire DLC, complete with complicated sidequests, “quest givers” and the like which doesn’t really work in AoE2 in practice. Not to mention Scenario 3, which is a complete and confusing nightmare.
El Dorado was probably removed because it was another Spanish Campaign in the guise of an Inca Campaign and the developers decided that an actual Inca Campaign would be much better.
El Dorado was probably removed because the Forgotten Campaigns were moving away from the “Hero Mission” / RPG Style gameplay that plagued and people criticized heavily about the original Forgotten Campaigns, into more traditional “Base Buidling” scenarios, which you can’t really do with the “Pizarro and Orellana Expedition”, which was basically a hundred Conquistadors and a couple thousand Allied Natives and “Allied” Natives going through the Amazon and that is about it.
But you guys are probably right. It was because of “Los Negros”. No way for the developers to get around that, gotta create a completely new campaign from scratch to avoid it.
I wasn’t going to comment further on it since people were starting to be idiots about the entire thing and I don’t want to be banned by other people taking things too far, for getting involved, but since people are not stopping to be idiots, I have to chime in.
There is no historical evidence that the hostile natives encountered at the mouth of the Amazon River were “Los Negros”, nor did they even encounter any hostile natives at that part outside of a few small skirmishes. The only mention of “Negros” in documents on the expedition, with regard to a human being, is when Francisco de Orellana explicitly stated that he sent “Two Negros” with a handful of his men to find food, sometime during middle-end of the expedition, but since the Spanish Empire did not have African Slaves during the era, nor did they use the word as a general insult (which is what everyone here is implying for some reason), the “Negros” in question were likely captives from the “Rio Negro” or “Black River”, which was named because the water in the river was unusually deep and dark compared to the other rivers encountered in South America.
In fact, there is absolutely no reason for the “Negros” name to be used in the first place for Scenario 4. It’s obviously not used in any other context besides referring to a name of a tribe that the Spanish gave them. But in order for that to work, the Scenario would have to take place near modern day Manaus, which is near the Rio Negro, which is just before where the Conquistadors constructed the second Brigantine ship. But that takes place before the infamous battle with the Amazons, which is Scenario 3 and the Scenario (4) clearly takes place at the basin of the Amazon River on the Marajo and nearby Islands and is an exaggeration of the crew taking over two weeks repairing the ships to take them to the Atlantic Ocean to Venezuela. There is absolutely no evidence that the Natives encountered there were given the name “Los Negros” and like I said before, they could easily change the name to “Marajoara”, “Caribs” or even just “Hostile Natives”, just like the first two scenarios.
Honestly, the entire thing is a mess when you actually look into the actual historical context of the expedition and compare it with the exact Scenario in question.