Aoe3 DE Gameplay Interview

[BrookG]

While I could be arguing France should have female villagers, and no one would give a shit. How does this make any sense? Is it a dumb way to feel sorry for them or something? This just follows absolutely no logic.

Seems like an irrelevant comparison? Explain more about this.

Tbh it's not irrelevant, it is implying that the were no female colonisers in the Franch campaign, which I bet isn't true. And let's not forget the game's main concept is inherently wrong, it's a hymn to colonisation.

[forgrin]

While I could be arguing France should have female villagers, and no one would give a shit. How does this make any sense? Is it a dumb way to feel sorry for them or something? This just follows absolutely no logic.

Seems like an irrelevant comparison? Explain more about this.

Tbh it's not irrelevant, it is implying that the were no female colonisers in the Franch campaign, which I bet isn't true. And let's not forget the game's main concept is inherently wrong, it's a hymn to colonisation.

I don't think not having female villagers is a significant problem. They get CdBs instead which serve a significant historic purpose. I agree that the game, especially the campaign glorifies colonialism in a way that's unhelpful.

[BrookG]

Show hidden quotes

While I could be arguing France should have female villagers, and no one would give a shit. How does this make any sense? Is it a dumb way to feel sorry for them or something? This just follows absolutely no logic.

Seems like an irrelevant comparison? Explain more about this.

Tbh it's not irrelevant, it is implying that the were no female colonisers in the Franch campaign, which I bet isn't true. And let's not forget the game's main concept is inherently wrong, it's a hymn to colonisation.

I don't think not having female villagers is a significant problem. They get CdBs instead which serve a significant historic purpose. I agree that the game, especially the campaign glorifies colonialism in a way that's unhelpful.

well sorry but that's a very sexist comment. Were there zero female cdbs?

[BrookG]

Cdbs were deeply involved in the fur trade industry (after reading wiki in less than a minute), which makes that concept historically relevant for French. Will they have it too, how will it be implemented, how does it matter balance-wise, etc?

[Kaiserklein]

That's actually true. If we were discussing affirmative action, and you decided to ignore any arguments about historic differences between races in the US (ie slavery, redlining, education etc) that would be pretty racist.

You're just mixing it all up so hard here. There is zero relation between the fact they were discriminated and the fact they didn't mine gold. Thinking it's okay to have historical inaccuracies, regarding native civs or any other civ, is NOT racist. If you think that's racist, you just have no idea what racism is, and you're tilting at windmills.
It's always the same story. You're making their race the center of the debate, so in a way, you're the one being racist, as you seem to care about it. On my end, I don't care, because we're talking about a mechanic in a video game, and there's no reason to even think about races here. There's only history vs gameplay here, and usually in aoe3, gameplay is favoured over historical accuracy.

Seems like an irrelevant comparison? Explain more about this.

Seems like a perfectly relevant comparison? Pretending there were only male french settlers is arguably a much bigger inaccuracy than sioux/iro mining gold... Are you telling me it's fine cause the french weren't discriminated? How does that make sense?

It's not "bullshit". Minorities, especially Native Americans, have historically had their voices silenced or talked over. Part of not being racist is accepting that your life experience as a white dude isn't as important or necessary to conversations about race as the perspectives of a minority person.

My view on this is that anyone's experience is as important, regardless of "race", skin color, etc. Your view is that a person's "interest" is defined by their fucking skin color.
I see individuals. You see races.
You're racist

[Kaiserklein]

This bullshit just reminds me of what happened at the Evergreen college, how sad

[wardyb1]

This bullshit just reminds me of what happened at the Evergreen college, how sad

Lmao, idiots on both sides making a mountain out of a molehill?

[forgrin]

That's actually true. If we were discussing affirmative action, and you decided to ignore any arguments about historic differences between races in the US (ie slavery, redlining, education etc) that would be pretty racist.

You're just mixing it all up so hard here. There is zero relation between the fact they were discriminated and the fact they didn't mine gold. Thinking it's okay to have historical inaccuracies, regarding native civs or any other civ, is NOT racist. If you think that's racist, you just have no idea what racism is, and you're tilting at windmills.
It's always the same story. You're making their race the center of the debate, so in a way, you're the one being racist, as you seem to care about it. On my end, I don't care, because we're talking about a mechanic in a video game, and there's no reason to even think about races here. There's only history vs gameplay here, and usually in aoe3, gameplay is favoured over historical accuracy.

Seems like an irrelevant comparison? Explain more about this.

Seems like a perfectly relevant comparison? Pretending there were only male french settlers is arguably a much bigger inaccuracy than sioux/iro mining gold... Are you telling me it's fine cause the french weren't discriminated? How does that make sense?

It's not "bullshit". Minorities, especially Native Americans, have historically had their voices silenced or talked over. Part of not being racist is accepting that your life experience as a white dude isn't as important or necessary to conversations about race as the perspectives of a minority person.

My view on this is that anyone's experience is as important, regardless of "race", skin color, etc. Your view is that a person's "interest" is defined by their fucking skin color.
I see individuals. You see races.
You're racist

1- Inaccurate representation is a form of discrimination, though depending on context pretty mild. Regardless I don't think having historical inaccuracies is in itself racist, especially in 15 year old media. Arguing against correcting a historical inaccuracy though, as you're doing, is the kind of obstructionist tactic that racists use. Especially since, as you say yourself, we don't have experience with the gameplay mechanic change anyways, so the only thing we could be discussing is the representation question. You can't pretend your contention is based on the game mechanics when you admit you don't know how it's been implemented.

Also I don't get the idea of yours that gameplay has always been favoured over historic accuracy. Surely gameplay sacrifices were made to allow Japan to be vegetarian, for India not to use livestock, for China to have so many units to represent the different kingdoms and dynasties, etc. If gameplay was really favoured over accuracy this would be AoE2, where civs only have relatively insignificant differences because gameplay is actually favoured in that community. Obviously concessions were made, but AoE3 is much more accurate than other games in the series for sure.

2- The female settlers point is such concern trolling. Obviously a central conceit of the game is that the women exist in the background, imaginary. Hint: every civ at max pop has 99 vills, 50/50 split gender, and 101 military pop which is all male, yet we know that boys/girls are born at equal rates, so where are the missing women? It's just a silly point that I thought was just a meme.

3- Your view that everyone's experience is equally important is centrally flawed, and is exactly the same view that got us into the "colourblind" era, and the "don't ask don't tell" policies. Pretending that we all have the same lived experiences, despite differences in skin colour or family background or sexuality, is just self-inflicted ignorance. It protects your ego as a white man because it allows you to believe (incorrectly) that you have no privilege.

[[Armag] diarouga]

That's actually true. If we were discussing affirmative action, and you decided to ignore any arguments about historic differences between races in the US (ie slavery, redlining, education etc) that would be pretty racist.

You're just mixing it all up so hard here. There is zero relation between the fact they were discriminated and the fact they didn't mine gold. Thinking it's okay to have historical inaccuracies, regarding native civs or any other civ, is NOT racist. If you think that's racist, you just have no idea what racism is, and you're tilting at windmills.
It's always the same story. You're making their race the center of the debate, so in a way, you're the one being racist, as you seem to care about it. On my end, I don't care, because we're talking about a mechanic in a video game, and there's no reason to even think about races here. There's only history vs gameplay here, and usually in aoe3, gameplay is favoured over historical accuracy.

Seems like an irrelevant comparison? Explain more about this.

Seems like a perfectly relevant comparison? Pretending there were only male french settlers is arguably a much bigger inaccuracy than sioux/iro mining gold... Are you telling me it's fine cause the french weren't discriminated? How does that make sense?

It's not "bullshit". Minorities, especially Native Americans, have historically had their voices silenced or talked over. Part of not being racist is accepting that your life experience as a white dude isn't as important or necessary to conversations about race as the perspectives of a minority person.

My view on this is that anyone's experience is as important, regardless of "race", skin color, etc. Your view is that a person's "interest" is defined by their fucking skin color.
I see individuals. You see races.
You're racist

1- Inaccurate representation is a form of discrimination, though depending on context pretty mild. Regardless I don't think having historical inaccuracies is in itself racist, especially in 15 year old media. Arguing against correcting a historical inaccuracy though, as you're doing, is the kind of obstructionist tactic that racists use. Especially since, as you say yourself, we don't have experience with the gameplay mechanic change anyways, so the only thing we could be discussing is the representation question. You can't pretend your contention is based on the game mechanics when you admit you don't know how it's been implemented.

Also I don't get the idea of yours that gameplay has always been favoured over historic accuracy. Surely gameplay sacrifices were made to allow Japan to be vegetarian, for India not to use livestock, for China to have so many units to represent the different kingdoms and dynasties, etc. If gameplay was really favoured over accuracy this would be AoE2, where civs only have relatively insignificant differences because gameplay is actually favoured in that community. Obviously concessions were made, but AoE3 is much more accurate than other games in the series for sure.

2- The female settlers point is such concern trolling. Obviously a central conceit of the game is that the women exist in the background, imaginary. Hint: every civ at max pop has 99 vills, 50/50 split gender, and 101 military pop which is all male, yet we know that boys/girls are born at equal rates, so where are the missing women? It's just a silly point that I thought was just a meme.

3- Your view that everyone's experience is equally important is centrally flawed, and is exactly the same view that got us into the "colourblind" era, and the "don't ask don't tell" policies. Pretending that we all have the same lived experiences, despite differences in skin colour or family background or sexuality, is just self-inflicted ignorance. It protects your ego as a white man because it allows you to believe (incorrectly) that you have no privilege.

1 - We're not arguing against the correction of historical inaccuracies, we're arguing against a bad gameplay change. And yes, I believe that gameplay is more important than history in aoe3.
And Japan/India were designed around not being able to eat animals/cows. Natives were able to mine coin when they were designed, so this is simply going to be a balance issue.

2 - It's trolling for you, but to be fair, it's as significant, if not more, than natives being able to mine. And with your 200 pop argument, you're just showing that aoe3 has many inaccuracies, and we don't need to change that.

3 - What you're saying is that you shouldn't listen to someone who has less experience in a matter than others. Does it mean that only economists should be allowed to vote for an economical policy (directly or indirectly) ? That only militaries should be allowed to vote for the military policy and so on ? That's dumb.
Likewise, I could say that I have more experience regarding aoe3 than most people, and that people who haven't played as much as me shouldn't be allowed to discuss aoe3.

[Kaiserklein]

1- Inaccurate representation is a form of discrimination, though depending on context pretty mild. Regardless I don't think having historical inaccuracies is in itself racist, especially in 15 year old media. Arguing against correcting a historical inaccuracy though, as you're doing, is the kind of obstructionist tactic that racists use. Especially since, as you say yourself, we don't have experience with the gameplay mechanic change anyways, so the only thing we could be discussing is the representation question. You can't pretend your contention is based on the game mechanics when you admit you don't know how it's been implemented.

Unlike you, I do know how it's gonna be implemented... And more importantly, I know it's shit. That's what relevant beta players told me. And regardless, changing a core mechanic that has been used for 15 years, just to fix an inaccuracy among many others, is stupid.
I don't really know what to tell you anymore. Like you're thinking arguing against this change is a racist act, when in fact I only care about the gameplay. It looks like you've been brainwashed with that kind of crap all your life, or idk.

Also I don't get the idea of yours that gameplay has always been favoured over historic accuracy. Surely gameplay sacrifices were made to allow Japan to be vegetarian, for India not to use livestock, for China to have so many units to represent the different kingdoms and dynasties, etc. If gameplay was really favoured over accuracy this would be AoE2, where civs only have relatively insignificant differences because gameplay is actually favoured in that community. Obviously concessions were made, but AoE3 is much more accurate than other games in the series for sure.

Because the entire fucking game is super inaccurate? Since when did the Ottomans even go to fucking america? Should some expert in the Ottoman history show up and complain about it, and have the civ deleted from the game?? That's just one example lol. Again that's a way bigger inaccuracy than iro/sioux mining gold, you cannot argue against that.
I'm not saying they didn't try to follow history. They just sacrificed much more history for gameplay than the other way around. Because who the fuck wants to play a shitty game that would be perfectly accurate?

2- The female settlers point is such concern trolling. Obviously a central conceit of the game is that the women exist in the background, imaginary. Hint: every civ at max pop has 99 vills, 50/50 split gender, and 101 military pop which is all male, yet we know that boys/girls are born at equal rates, so where are the missing women? It's just a silly point that I thought was just a meme.

Lol you're nitpicking so hard. It's obvious all civs have female settlers while france doesn't, but okay. Ignore this example, and answer about the Ottoman one, if you prefer.

3- Your view that everyone's experience is equally important is centrally flawed, and is exactly the same view that got us into the "colourblind" era, and the "don't ask don't tell" policies. Pretending that we all have the same lived experiences, despite differences in skin colour or family background or sexuality, is just self-inflicted ignorance. It protects your ego as a white man because it allows you to believe (incorrectly) that you have no privilege.

You think I don't know I'm privileged? And you think it's only due to me being white, lol? No, I'm privileged for multiple reasons. But that's irrelevant, I'm not going to shut up just because I was lucky at birth.
Also I'm not pretending we have the same experiences, that's your invention. I'm saying one experience shouldn't be valued over another because of skin color. What you're doing is just another form of discrimination. If you can't understand that, discussing any further is pointless.

[forgrin]

@[Armag] diarouga @Kaiserklein
1- As I said, you can't be arguing against the gameplay change because we don't know the implementation yet (or we're pretending not to). Besides arguing the core idea (replacing gold mining with an alternate option) versus the specific implementation are two different arguments, and we're talking about the core idea here not the implementation. The implementation can be patched anyways.

Re Japan/India, the idea is to give Iro/Sioux the same treatment I think, and what better time for a rework than DE? Are you really saying that you'd prefer the meta stayed the same for the rest of the game's lifespan? Specific balance issues can be fixed since the game will get ongoing support. Whatever problems you heard about balance-wise, it's a beta for a reason.

2- Which group of people do you think deserve more recompense for historical injustices? The French, who even after defeat by the British were allowed to keep most of their independence in Quebec to this day? Or the Iroquois tribes, who had their populations severely reduced by disease and were forced onto tiny reservations and actively discriminated against by the Indian Act and the residential school system (here in Canada).
Btw the 200 pop argument was intended to show that all civs have this intentional conceit; it's an intentional inaccuracy, not even close to a central misconception about how a native civilization lived and gathered resources.

3- Glad you Cba, because I guess it means that you have no logical response.

[Mitoe]

Politics and stuff aside, I'm just sad that there's a good chance that my favourite civilization as I know it on RE/EP will not exist in DE because its gameplay will be altered heavily enough that it is functionally a different civ.

I'm understanding of all the reasons you would make such a change, just really hope it isn't handled as poorly as I've come to expect from Microsoft products.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Since when did the Ottomans even go to fucking america? Should some expert in the Ottoman history show up and complain about it, and have the civ deleted from the game?? That's just one example lol. Again that's a way bigger inaccuracy than iro/sioux mining gold, you cannot argue against that.

@deleted_user5 Do you know any expert in the Ottoman history ?

[princeofkabul]

Maybe it's just me, but when I heard that they will insert this fur trade thing, which I have no real information about, but has been a thing with american native tribes. Political correctness was the last thing that came to my mind of it.
Having said that I haven't listened the interview, nor I've no idea is the company driven by any kind of political agenda, because some gaming companies are.

I thought why not it can be cool, we'll see. Japanese can't hunt, india can't eat livestock and were balanced around that, why it wouldn't be possible that sioux and iro can't be balanced around it?

[Kaiserklein]

@[Armag] diarouga @Kaiserklein
1- As I said, you can't be arguing against the gameplay change because we don't know the implementation yet (or we're pretending not to). Besides arguing the core idea (replacing gold mining with an alternate option) versus the specific implementation are two different arguments, and we're talking about the core idea here not the implementation. The implementation can be patched anyways.

You don't, I do. If you don't know, don't talk. But I'll argue against the gameplay change.

Re Japan/India, the idea is to give Iro/Sioux the same treatment I think, and what better time for a rework than DE? Are you really saying that you'd prefer the meta stayed the same for the rest of the game's lifespan? Specific balance issues can be fixed since the game will get ongoing support. Whatever problems you heard about balance-wise, it's a beta for a reason.

1) These civs were made that way from the start. Not at all like ruining a civ after 15 years
2) The meta can change without ruining the civ
3) If you think these clowns will manage to fix balance issues, especially after such a massive change, you're extremely naive
4) This is not about the beta. It's gonna be released, they announced it. And it's horrible design for iro/sioux

2- Which group of people do you think deserve more recompense for historical injustices? The French, who even after defeat by the British were allowed to keep most of their independence in Quebec to this day? Or the Iroquois tribes, who had their populations severely reduced by disease and were forced onto tiny reservations and actively discriminated against by the Indian Act and the residential school system (here in Canada).
Btw the 200 pop argument was intended to show that all civs have this intentional conceit; it's an intentional inaccuracy, not even close to a central misconception about how a native civilization lived and gathered resources.

Ah okay, they "deserve" sioux/iro to fur trade instead of mining gold in aoe3 because they were discriminated. That really makes a lot of sense.
No one fucking deserves anything, it's a video game, not a history book. If it can be historically accurate it's cool, but not if it's detrimental to gameplay.
I get you're feeling guilty because your country's history is built on their massacres. Just like I do on my end for other reasons. But you live in a fantasy world if you think this kind of change in aoe3 is remotely helpful to anyone. It's really just about giving yourself good conscience.
And how do you know that inaccuracy wasn't intentional? Maybe they didn't want to bother creating a new resource for 2 civs. Maybe it's cool for gameplay reasons that Iro is able to build cannons from a fucking workshop? Does that look remotely accurate to you lmao, or would it be a big historical sacrifice for gameplay reason..?

3- Glad you Cba, because I guess it means that you have no logical response.

No, there's just a point you reach where you have to give up, there's no point arguing against someone who has an extremely flawed logic.
I'll stop now because this is a waste of time

[forgrin]

Politics and stuff aside, I'm just sad that there's a good chance that my favourite civilization as I know it on RE/EP will not exist in DE because its gameplay will be altered heavily enough that it is functionally a different civ.

I'm understanding of all the reasons you would make such a change, just really hope it isn't handled as poorly as I've come to expect from Microsoft products.

This is an argument I can respect and might share considering what I know about the implementation so far. I'm not super confident in the abilities of the DE team to make the implementation right.

The entire reason politics came into this was because some players blamed "political correctness" for the implementation being bad, which is just another way of blaming native people for changing their precious game. The only reason you'd immediately go to "PC bad" (as @princeofkabul points out) is if you had some racist agenda, whether conscious or unconscious.

[Kaiserklein]

Note that I personally blamed favouring historical accuracy over gameplay, not politics. In fact it didn't even come to my mind it could be a political change, that's too stupid to imagine. I'm not blaming native people either, I'm blaming the devs or whoever decided to do that.
But yeah that surely means I have a racist agenda!

[[Armag] diarouga]

The entire reason politics came into this was because some players blamed "political correctness" for the implementation being bad, which is just another way of blaming native people for changing their precious game.

Don't think I'm blaming the natives here. They don't care at all about the gameplay of a game they're not going to play (because let's be honest, very few natives play aoe3 for social reasons). I'm blaming Microsoft, and at a larger scale the PC people (like you) who changed society in a place where you have to give oppressed people whatever they want, else you're racist.

The only reason you'd immediately go to "PC bad" (as @princeofkabul points out) is if you had some racist agenda, whether conscious or unconscious.

Here we go again. I'm racist because I don't want political reasons to ruin the gameplay of aoe3 xD.

[harcha]

...Regardless I don't think having historical inaccuracies is in itself racist, especially in 15 year old media. Arguing against correcting a historical inaccuracy though, as you're doing, is the kind of obstructionist tactic that racists use. ...

I would like to remind you the simple phrase "gameplay is king". Now please continue calling me a racist because I don't think that completely changing the coin mining mechanic would result in good gameplay. I am sure that arguing like that is totally not breeding toxicity here whatsoever.

Now with that said of course correcting the representation is important. I just think making sure that the game remains fun is more important for a video game. I hope they can balance these concerns well in DE. I certainly think it's a bit late changing the Iro/Sioux gameplay, but I guess that this is the only real opportunity there is.

Good thing there are old articles still available where we can gain insight into what was going on in the minds of the original game devs.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/age-of-empires ... 725p1.html

[harcha]

I do think @[Armag] diarouga is projecting thinking that devs are somehow insterting PC-ness here, when they clearly stated their reasons.

[edeholland]

I do think @[Armag] diarouga is projecting thinking that devs are somehow insterting PC-ness here, when they clearly stated their reasons.

That's the devs in 2005 though? I don't see the relevance to the current project, it's a completely different studio.

[harcha]

I do think @[Armag] diarouga is projecting thinking that devs are somehow insterting PC-ness here, when they clearly stated their reasons.

That's the devs in 2005 though? I don't see the relevance to the current project, it's a completely different studio.

In this post I'm referring to DE interview and articles, which state that they are changing natives coin mining into some new mechanic due to historical inaccuracies which they learned from consulting with experts.

[helln00]

tbh with the fact that we have 2 new civs coming in, I expect balance problems to be a thing anyway that we will have to feedback and adjust accordingly. So the fact that reworked Iro and sioux might also introduce problems as well seems like not that big of a deal tbh.

Like look at aoe 2 DE, they also made some changes for "historical reasons" (giving china blockprinting) that apparently made them too op but that was fixed (not reverted). Also like Cumans and steppe lancers were so op that for a few months that was what everyone playing aoe 2 was doing. Now we can argue that its different because aoe 2 and not aoe 3 but its still a game, it can be changed.

I can understand people not wanting their civs as they know it to be changed and they don't trust the devs ( look at how ep development was handled and treated) to do a good job or even support us going forward but to just focus on any supposed reason for the changes that they made rather than the changes themselves seems unproductive to me.

Like does it even matter the reason for the change if the change is bad and should be reverted? If its for people to have a self satisfied wank about it then good for you but it does nothing for wanting the change gone.

[edeholland]

I do think @[Armag] diarouga is projecting thinking that devs are somehow insterting PC-ness here, when they clearly stated their reasons.

That's the devs in 2005 though? I don't see the relevance to the current project, it's a completely different studio.

In this post I'm referring to DE interview and articles, which state that they are changing natives coin mining into some new mechanic due to historical inaccuracies which they learned from consulting with experts.

Yeah I agree the current devs are transparant in their reasoning, just didn't see the relevance to the 2005 devs

The one thing I will always remember from the development of AoE3 is when they made home cities and the designer made hills/mountains in the background in the Amsterdam home city and he got corrected by everyone because The Netherlands is as flat as can be, so they removed the mountains. I feel so accurately represented.

[forgrin]

@[Armag] diarouga @Kaiserklein
1- As I said, you can't be arguing against the gameplay change because we don't know the implementation yet (or we're pretending not to). Besides arguing the core idea (replacing gold mining with an alternate option) versus the specific implementation are two different arguments, and we're talking about the core idea here not the implementation. The implementation can be patched anyways.

You don't, I do. If you don't know, don't talk. But I'll argue against the gameplay change.

All I'm gonna say is "NDA". This is a public conversation after all. I don't see how you can argue against the gameplay change without breaking the NDA though. I'm not even saying I necessarily like the way it's implemented.

Re Japan/India, the idea is to give Iro/Sioux the same treatment I think, and what better time for a rework than DE? Are you really saying that you'd prefer the meta stayed the same for the rest of the game's lifespan? Specific balance issues can be fixed since the game will get ongoing support. Whatever problems you heard about balance-wise, it's a beta for a reason.

1) These civs were made that way from the start. Not at all like ruining a civ after 15 years
2) The meta can change without ruining the civ
3) If you think these clowns will manage to fix balance issues, especially after such a massive change, you're extremely naive
4) This is not about the beta. It's gonna be released, they announced it. And it's horrible design for iro/sioux

1- Made and made poorly? I would argue neither civ is very well designed and could use a rework.
2- A fair point, but to be fair the EP reworks have been most of the driving force behind meta changes. The meta moved much slower between FP and EP.
3- I don't see how being pessimistic is useful. You could be right, but if you are then you won't have a game to play.
4- The implementation could easily be changed before release, that's the point of a beta, to receive and act on feedback. I would be very surprised if it was released in its present state.

2- Which group of people do you think deserve more recompense for historical injustices? The French, who even after defeat by the British were allowed to keep most of their independence in Quebec to this day? Or the Iroquois tribes, who had their populations severely reduced by disease and were forced onto tiny reservations and actively discriminated against by the Indian Act and the residential school system (here in Canada).
Btw the 200 pop argument was intended to show that all civs have this intentional conceit; it's an intentional inaccuracy, not even close to a central misconception about how a native civilization lived and gathered resources.

Ah okay, they "deserve" sioux/iro to fur trade instead of mining gold in aoe3 because they were discriminated. That really makes a lot of sense.
No one fucking deserves anything, it's a video game, not a history book. If it can be historically accurate it's cool, but not if it's detrimental to gameplay.
I get you're feeling guilty because your country's history is built on their massacres. Just like I do on my end for other reasons. But you live in a fantasy world if you think this kind of change in aoe3 is remotely helpful to anyone. It's really just about giving yourself good conscience.
And how do you know that inaccuracy wasn't intentional? Maybe they didn't want to bother creating a new resource for 2 civs. Maybe it's cool for gameplay reasons that Iro is able to build cannons from a fucking workshop? Does that look remotely accurate to you lmao, or a big sacrifice for gameplay reason..?

You're back to the same old argument about "nobody deserving anything" because it's a video game, not a history book (nevermind that more people will play this unpopular game than will ever read history books about the Iroquois but w/e). Also who are you to decide this change isn't helpful? The Native American consultants obviously thought it was important and helpful, and I value their opinion more than yours. The balance is an entirely different topic which we probably agree on as I already said, but the idea of the change is not centrally flawed as you insist.

3- Glad you Cba, because I guess it means that you have no logical response.

No, there's just a point you reach where you have to give up, there's no point arguing against someone who has an extremely flawed logic.
I'll stop now because this is a waste of time

I'm glad trying not to be racist is "extremely flawed logic". Try a little empathy.