Zapotecs, Mixtecs and regional unit proposition

I know that this was raised before numerous of times, but after watching a few videos:

I got an idea. What if we will use Robby’s version of regional units proposition. For example, I agree with him regarding making Slinger and Atlatl as a regional unit. I’m not agreeing with him making Jaguar Warrior to be regional, namely because they were elites of the Aztecs.

Now, a video by MantisAoE suggests Zapotecs to use Owl Warrior as UU, but I did my research and seeing it to be another regional unit which should replace Skirmisher line for the Americas. Particularly, Aztecs and Mayans used Owl Warrior skirmishers. Robby’s idea of using Macaw Guardian as a UU, sounds good, but because there’s no historical reference it might just become a fun UU. I also would propose to change it to Macaw Warrior, just like it was done with Eagle and Jaguar Warriors.

While doing my research on that topic, I decided to look at Eagle Warrior, and found out that Eagle Warrior should have been a UU of the Aztecs. There is a posibility that if Mixtecs and Zapotecs be introduced, Eagle Warrior might become their regional unit. I found nothing about Eagle Warriors in Mayan or Inca cultures, but I might be wrong.


1 Like

Eagle warrior is the cavalry replacement you cant remove it from civis without cavalry.

What you are saying is either Eagle Warrior or Cavalry? Did Mesoamerica have cavalry?

No, they didn’t. Which is why they have the eagle, they needed a substitute for cavalry, otherwise they wouldn’t have any mobility.

So, if we will remove Eagle Warriors from Mayans and Incas, then they will be toast? Because Eagle Scouts are used as a substitute for Cavalry Scout. Ok. Got it. Moving on…

What ingame use will this have? Slinger is a hand cannon replacement.making it regional will lead to balance issues.

Im assuming alt alt is a skirmisher replacement?again the question is what use will it have a generic skirmisher line wont have?

Bengalis and Dravidians left the chat. 11

And that’s why those civs are bottom level.

1 Like

None. For me it - the idea - comes from all people who don’t care so much about competition multiplayer, but only their medieval Sim City, which AoE isn’t and never was. AoE 3 went for this option - we are giving to all culture (and to all civilizations in some cases) their own historical units, and guess what? There are so many UU (in most cases just a reskin with some differences in stats - like civ bonuses do for standard units in AoE 2), that knowing what’s going on, when you fighting, for example, as Ottomans with Aztecs against Chinese and some ##### Native civ with changed name in DE so no one can pronounce it… It is hard. Don’t do that in AoE 2.

Ok, I don’t play multiplayer, that’s true. But, I don’t view AoE as a medievil Sim City, that’s completely not true! If you don’t like reskins, my idea would be to move Plumed Archers to replace Archers line for Mesoamerican civs, considering that archery and plumes weren’t endemic to one civ. Everyone had some plumage and archery was practiced by everyone there. Considering that Mesoamericans had no crossbows or arbalests for that matter, replacing archers with Plumed Archers and replacing skirmishers with Owl Warriors will at least provide historical accuracy. We still can keep the stats of an archer and skirmisher for balance purposes. :smiley:

And yes, that will make the Mayans have no UU what so ever. Is this what you are up against?

1 Like

We had this before. People used to scream that Genitours will be a balance issue, guess what? Nothing happened. My proposition will be to replace Slinger with Atlatl while making Slinger itself as a regional unit because all Mesoamericans used slingers. And no, it won’t cause balance issues if doing with care. The devs will know how to implement it without causing a fuss at the same time being historically accurate.

As I said before, Owl Warriors should replace Skirmishers. The skin of an Owl Warrior is a historical representation of a Mesoamerican skirmisher. Pretty much, I propose so-called cosmetic changes to Mesoamerican civs. I hope you understand what I am trying to get accross?

And that’s why I want to bring them up a notch while you all go surprisingly against such proposals. That’s fine though. I suggest a change, you don’t want it, fine. Case closed.

What? I was talking about Bengalis and Dravidians, replying to someone else’s post, not yours.

No need for personal attacks; we talk about ideas here and y’all can like/dislike them as much as you want.

Atlatl spearthrowers are already represented well enough by skirmishers, as well as the fact that all American civs currently have UTs that give bonuses to skirmishers. Their appearance is another discussion which has been had at length in threads proposing regional skins.

Slingers though I agree could be a regional unit - they’re far too generic to make much sense as an Inca-only unit. However I would not give them to Aztecs/Mayas as that would goof up the balance on those already strong civs. But AFAIC the door is open for new American civs to have them. In my ideations they have different bonuses based on the civ (e.g. the anti-infantry damage is an Inca-specific bonus). Or they could retain the same function for convenience and intelligibility.


It’s not about personal attack. The idea that any of the no stable civs are low tier is absolutely, undeniably incorrect false! Even new players should know that with any amount of research. If someone did believe this and started calling for buffs to Aztecs and Mayans well… do I even need to explain further?

Maybe I’m being harsh to this guy but others are dog piling without consequences either.

I deleted the post, as I realized that I posted in error without doing any research. I hope the community can forgive me those errors and move forward. :smiley:

Sorry, I just got confused of who replying to whom. Please forgive me. Speaking of Bengalis, I was thinking, maybe we should give Bengalis a different UU instead of Rata? Like, Rata does fit “cool unit” description, but it doesn’t fit “historical” description (at least for that time). Maybe Rata would have been more fitting for Age of Empires I, because that’s where chariots are used the most? On the other hand, I can’t find Bengal mentioned before 8th century which means that it was an integral part of Ancient India and didn’t have an autonomy.

Bengalis used them until 8th century.

Not really sure. They were independent for a while before that named “Gauda” kingdom.

Ratha fits perfectly for Bengalis. If you want to give them a different UU, let it be a 2nd UU as they are the only DOI civ that has only 1 UU. And 2nd UU should obviously be an elephant.

Never mind. I thought that the Dark Ages timeline was 900 AD to 13th century. Like, if I remember correctly, the game manual used to state “lead your civilization through a 1,000 years of human history. From Dark Age to Imperial”. If the Imperial Age is something that starts in 1500s or 1600s at most, then if we take of 1,000 years then we get exactly 5th or 6th centuries which the sources claim to be the beginning of the Dark Ages. So, if Bengalis used them until 8th century, then maybe it should be a Dark Age UU instead? Question is, if it will be Dark or Feudal Age UU, where it will be made? Feudal Age allows you to build a Stable, maybe it belongs there? But then it have an Archer and that alone (just like Cavalry Archer) will belong in the Archery Range. Either way, Ratha is clearly shouldn’t be a Castle Age unit because Castle Age is like late Middle Ages (something like 13th-14th centuries).

I hope you understand where I going with that?

Many civilizations let you use their unique units far sooner than they should, like the Turks and the Spanish. I see no problem.