Yes, be that as it may, the game ends in the third quarter of the nineteenth century (1850-1875)…
Yes, that’s why they are strong civs when the European civs are in the early ages, after the industrial age the native civs have nothing to do, especially the Lakotas…
The Aztecs were added for the theme of connecting with the expansion The Conquerors of AoE 2 (also applies with the Japanese in TAD) and the Conquest of the New World…
2 Likes
Yes, let’s consider the games of AoE as alternative history or ucronia, of the type that would happen if such a thing happened; nor should we eat our heads so much considering that in AoE 1 we had Sumerians facing Romans and Yamato in the same game or Huns and Goths against Spanish and Aztecs in AoE 2…
1 Like
Yes, that’s why the early ages of the Americans are from the American Revolution and don’t have archaic units like Europeans or Native Americans…
I refresh the thread so that new users can vote.
2 Likes
It would be interesting to compare this table to the actual pick rate data we have, which shows that Haud is the least picked for example.
I love how I managed to pick favorites simultaneously at the top and at the bottom of the list! I love playing Sioux. They’ve been my favorite since the original. The US is probably my strongest. Mexico’s versatility is one of the most challenging, and for most beautiful art, Japan’s just spectacular with the cherry blossoms, the samurai, and their wonder art.
This is what gets me with the strict historical purists in Age of Empires. They’re trying to build a castle out of sand. There’s already so many anachronistic elements to the game that trying to push for something not existing because it’s not historically accurate is kinda absurd on the face of it. Age of Empires isn’t a History lecture, and never has been. Most of these units are in the game because they’re fun and iconic, and the game stretches across the Early Modern period into the late 19th century. It’s not taking a very strict approach to History, sure, but at the end of the day this is just a fun RTS game with a historical theme.
I was a bit weirded out by the US being in the game at first not because “it doesn’t fit historically”, moreso because the US was already in the game, with the Revolution mechanic. Mexico was even later than the US, timeline-wise, and they’re far removed from the Aztecs of the early modern period, but they’re a fun civ to play, so I don’t really care.
If they really wanted Historical Accuracy so bad, you could argue that certain civs should only be able to play on certain maps. Why on earth are the Lakota in Central China? Who knows.