Lakota (Sioux) and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois).

[fightinfrenchman]

If Alt+D isn't in the game I'm going to make multiple threads about it, and it will be entirely justified

[aaryngend]

Oh one more thing!
Actually, in aoe3 vanilla, the sioux as we know them were already called Lakota.. they were just unavailable as a playable civ, but the native settlement of the Lakota did exist.

In TWC and onward, they removed the Lakota native allies and added the Sioux civilization. I think the Cheyenne got added to replace them as native allies (can anyone confirm)?

[caleb15]

Oh one more thing!
Actually, in aoe3 vanilla, the sioux as we know them were already called Lakota.. they were just unavailable as a playable civ, but the native settlement of the Lakota did exist.

In TWC and onward, they removed the Lakota native allies and added the Sioux civilization. I think the Cheyenne got added to replace them as native allies (can anyone confirm)?

Can confirm. Lakota were replaced with Cheyenne, Iroquois were replaced with Huron, and Aztec were replaced with Zapotec.

[gibson]

Man its so funny. DE sees that a lot of the mechanics around native civs are historically inaccurate, and all the gamers come out of the woodworks crying about "PC culture". Like you do realize if these parts of the game were historically accurate, they wouldn't have been changed right? The primary purpose of these changes is literally by definition historical. A "PC" change would be if in a game like red dead redemption 2 some white guy called a black guy a nigger(historically accurate) and they changed this so as not to offend people, making the game less historically accurate. In this case we have stuff that isn't historically accurate that is being changed to be historically accurate. Its changing the civs from how other people viewed native americans to how they actually were. Not a "PC" change, or at least not primarily. There's an argument that they're focusing too much on the native civs, but it makes sense that you want to give special credence to people groups who have been shat on by Europeans( who became americans) for the past 400 years. That being said they need to find a way to make these changes in a way that doesn't negatively effect balance.

I'm just annoyed that they aren't updating other civs, but focusing so much on Iro and Sioux, france's flag is wrong the UK's name and Flag is wrong, The Netherland's flag is completely wrong etc.

Honestly if people care they should reach out to the devs about it, I'm sure they would.

[n0el]

This is a great change.

[chronique]

So from what we know, we have 4 new civ!! (great new) but 2 civ are removed from the game (but not otto / jap sadly).

[Mr_Bramboy]

I demand my civ be called Nederlanders from now on!

[RuinousEdge]

To be fair it's every player that lives in Europe (and by extension USA (colonization)) fault we have to have these overhauls to the Native civs to begin with, hence we have no right to complain as we are directly at fault for the behaviour of our ancesters, we should have known better!! and created time machines to make sure these historical travesties never happened to begin with!!, Shame on all us Europeans!

[gibson]

Honestly, this whole redesign of the native civs just rubs me wrong.

The game does not aim to be historically correct in so, so many ways. But when it applies to native civs it is a problem? It's bloody nonsense tbh.

Natives did not dance around a firepit to grant magical powers to their units? Of course they didn't, that's obvious. But it's a game, not a historical documentary. Were all French settlers male? Did only German settlers have strange large wagons with them? Did Uhlans roam the prairie? Did Ottomans reproduce automatically like robots, needing no food? etc.

But of course, when it applies to natives it is a huge issue that requires fixing. Natives didn't mine silver? Sure, but they also could not hold a candle to European weaponry. Does that mean they should have terrible units and be unable to compete? A game is a game first and foremost.

I don't get why historical simplifications and inaccuracies are only a problem when they apply to Natives.

@gibson well it is a PC issue. Just read the reasons for why they changed specifically the natives and what these "native advisers" told them. They changed it not primarily for historical accuracy (otherwise why not change other civs), but because it was deemed offensive to their culture. This is the definition of PC.

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

[[Armag] diarouga]

To be fair it's every player that lives in Europe fault we have to have these overhauls to the Native civs to begin with, hence we have no right to complain as we are directly at fault for the behaviour of our ancesters, we should have known better!! and created time machines to make sure these historical travesties never happened to begin with!!, Shame on all us Europeans!

[n0el]

I demand my civ be called Nederlanders from now on!

English only forum, check rules.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Honestly, this whole redesign of the native civs just rubs me wrong.

The game does not aim to be historically correct in so, so many ways. But when it applies to native civs it is a problem? It's bloody nonsense tbh.

Natives did not dance around a firepit to grant magical powers to their units? Of course they didn't, that's obvious. But it's a game, not a historical documentary. Were all French settlers male? Did only German settlers have strange large wagons with them? Did Uhlans roam the prairie? Did Ottomans reproduce automatically like robots, needing no food? etc.

But of course, when it applies to natives it is a huge issue that requires fixing. Natives didn't mine silver? Sure, but they also could not hold a candle to European weaponry. Does that mean they should have terrible units and be unable to compete? A game is a game first and foremost.

I don't get why historical simplifications and inaccuracies are only a problem when they apply to Natives.

@gibson well it is a PC issue. Just read the reasons for why they changed specifically the natives and what these "native advisers" told them. They changed it not primarily for historical accuracy (otherwise why not change other civs), but because it was deemed offensive to their culture. This is the definition of PC.

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

The big issue is indeed that it affects the game in a bad way.

[fightinfrenchman]

Honestly, this whole redesign of the native civs just rubs me wrong.

The game does not aim to be historically correct in so, so many ways. But when it applies to native civs it is a problem? It's bloody nonsense tbh.

Natives did not dance around a firepit to grant magical powers to their units? Of course they didn't, that's obvious. But it's a game, not a historical documentary. Were all French settlers male? Did only German settlers have strange large wagons with them? Did Uhlans roam the prairie? Did Ottomans reproduce automatically like robots, needing no food? etc.

But of course, when it applies to natives it is a huge issue that requires fixing. Natives didn't mine silver? Sure, but they also could not hold a candle to European weaponry. Does that mean they should have terrible units and be unable to compete? A game is a game first and foremost.

I don't get why historical simplifications and inaccuracies are only a problem when they apply to Natives.

@gibson well it is a PC issue. Just read the reasons for why they changed specifically the natives and what these "native advisers" told them. They changed it not primarily for historical accuracy (otherwise why not change other civs), but because it was deemed offensive to their culture. This is the definition of PC.

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

The big issue is indeed that it affects the game in a bad way.

Were you in the beta?

[gibson]

Honestly, this whole redesign of the native civs just rubs me wrong.

The game does not aim to be historically correct in so, so many ways. But when it applies to native civs it is a problem? It's bloody nonsense tbh.

Natives did not dance around a firepit to grant magical powers to their units? Of course they didn't, that's obvious. But it's a game, not a historical documentary. Were all French settlers male? Did only German settlers have strange large wagons with them? Did Uhlans roam the prairie? Did Ottomans reproduce automatically like robots, needing no food? etc.

But of course, when it applies to natives it is a huge issue that requires fixing. Natives didn't mine silver? Sure, but they also could not hold a candle to European weaponry. Does that mean they should have terrible units and be unable to compete? A game is a game first and foremost.

I don't get why historical simplifications and inaccuracies are only a problem when they apply to Natives.

@gibson well it is a PC issue. Just read the reasons for why they changed specifically the natives and what these "native advisers" told them. They changed it not primarily for historical accuracy (otherwise why not change other civs), but because it was deemed offensive to their culture. This is the definition of PC.

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

The big issue is indeed that it affects the game in a bad way.

If that turns out to be the case than they aren't good changes, however I'm sure they'll get balanced out down the road. Realistically game balance is initially not going to be as good as ep balance because they are adding civs and making a lot of changes. This will change as time goes on.

[RuinousEdge]

Honestly, this whole redesign of the native civs just rubs me wrong.

The game does not aim to be historically correct in so, so many ways. But when it applies to native civs it is a problem? It's bloody nonsense tbh.

Natives did not dance around a firepit to grant magical powers to their units? Of course they didn't, that's obvious. But it's a game, not a historical documentary. Were all French settlers male? Did only German settlers have strange large wagons with them? Did Uhlans roam the prairie? Did Ottomans reproduce automatically like robots, needing no food? etc.

But of course, when it applies to natives it is a huge issue that requires fixing. Natives didn't mine silver? Sure, but they also could not hold a candle to European weaponry. Does that mean they should have terrible units and be unable to compete? A game is a game first and foremost.

I don't get why historical simplifications and inaccuracies are only a problem when they apply to Natives.

@gibson well it is a PC issue. Just read the reasons for why they changed specifically the natives and what these "native advisers" told them. They changed it not primarily for historical accuracy (otherwise why not change other civs), but because it was deemed offensive to their culture. This is the definition of PC.

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

The big issue is indeed that it affects the game in a bad way.

but....but..."We then worked with top players in an early closed beta environment to ensure that it’s still fun and balanced."

[fightinfrenchman]

@RuinousEdge Were you one of them?

[n0el]

How? They said in the article that they changed the name of the fire pit, but didn’t eliminate the mechanic. Renaming is meaningless to gameplay and I’m assuming that nature friendship would be replaced by something comparable.

[RuinousEdge]

@RuinousEdge Were you one of them?

unfortunately due to the nature of the NDA I am not at liberty to say either way. Think of it as Schrödinger's cat, I could have been in the beta or couldn't have been, we will never know til the game launches on Oct. 15th.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

Honestly, this whole redesign of the native civs just rubs me wrong.

The game does not aim to be historically correct in so, so many ways. But when it applies to native civs it is a problem? It's bloody nonsense tbh.

Natives did not dance around a firepit to grant magical powers to their units? Of course they didn't, that's obvious. But it's a game, not a historical documentary. Were all French settlers male? Did only German settlers have strange large wagons with them? Did Uhlans roam the prairie? Did Ottomans reproduce automatically like robots, needing no food? etc.

But of course, when it applies to natives it is a huge issue that requires fixing. Natives didn't mine silver? Sure, but they also could not hold a candle to European weaponry. Does that mean they should have terrible units and be unable to compete? A game is a game first and foremost.

I don't get why historical simplifications and inaccuracies are only a problem when they apply to Natives.

@gibson well it is a PC issue. Just read the reasons for why they changed specifically the natives and what these "native advisers" told them. They changed it not primarily for historical accuracy (otherwise why not change other civs), but because it was deemed offensive to their culture. This is the definition of PC.

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

The big issue is indeed that it affects the game in a bad way.

but....but..."We then worked with top players in an early closed beta environment to ensure that it’s still fun and balanced."

I guess the cultural expert are more important than top players.
It's good they worked with top players though.

[gibson]

How? They said in the article that they changed the name of the fire pit, but didn’t eliminate the mechanic. Renaming is meaningless to gameplay and I’m assuming that nature friendship would be replaced by something comparable.

But than I can't cry about pc culture ruining my life :( I guess I'll have to find somewhere else to be a victim.

[gamevideo113]

After hearing they removed (?) firepit i kinda want to cancel my preorder tbh

[dansil92]

To be fair dancing around a magical fire is really really bad, and i can see that being pretty insulting. A lot of the reason the spanish dominated the battlefield early, if you do some research from historical documents, was that a large majority of aztec weapons were designed to capture, not kill, like the wooden clubs (coyote runners in game). The obsidian weapons and atlatls were quite deadly but only used by the nobles.
The Iroquois aquired gunpowder weapons through trade (largely from the dutch) and remained a very important power alongside the british amd the french for over 100 years. The myth of the natives getting swept aside in just a few years is actually extremely inaccurate. They were intelligent, well organised people.
Sioux is a train wreck right now anyway so a redesign is totally ok with me.

I'm on board with the changes to be less gimmicky and more true to form. I hope it will be balanced at release (it wont) or at least a patch or two in. I see it as a positive change.

[Astaroth]

I largely agree, but you have to understand that the changes were deemed offensive to their culture BECAUSE they were a historically inaccurate. They were the 16th century european's inaccurate interpretation of native americans. Its like if the dutch civ revolved around wind mills, wooden shoes, and whatever those flowers were. Obviously there are historical inaccuracies in all the civs, and still will be in the native american civs, but( to my knowledge) none of the other civs were based upon inaccurate historical stereotypes. If removing inaccurate historical stereotypes is considered pc, than sure, its a pc change. But to me a pc change would be like taking an all male group of soldiers and making them female. I have no problem with any civ in the game being changed to be more historically accurate. Now balance is a completely separate discussion. If they can't make changes to be both historically accurate and balanced, they need to reevaluate how important that change really is.

Sure, but I mean many civs are largely caricatures of their real history. They are random tidbits thrown together that really make little sense, particularly with regards to the context of the game (colonization, time frame etc.), see e.g. French (male only) cdbs.

The reason natives are being focused on is not that they are "particularly poorly represented". The issue is not that the difference between their "real history" and their "in game design and appearance" is larger than with other civs. In fact, I would argue that many other civs deviate from their real history in a similarly large way.

The literally only reasons for the change are: Currently, there is a large awareness of the "historical injustice" which was done to native Americans (and other native people) in the context of colonization. Therefore, aoe3 as a whole is particularly "problematic", because it is entirely based around (mostly/originally) Europeans conquering the world. A game like aoe3 would probably never be (originally) made in the political context of 2020.

In order to somewhat "remedy" this situation and to avoid a big backlash (as in, "how dare you glorify colonization in the time of BLM etc."), they did everything to show "good will" regarding native civs.

However, all of that is really nothing but PC. Now, that doesn't mean it's the end of the world, that it will ruin the game or anything. But I personally just dislike cultural sensitivities (especially when it is so one-sided and focused on one issue) shaping every aspect of the world nowadays.

[n0el]

After hearing they removed (?) firepit i kinda want to cancel my preorder tbh

Seems more like they renamed it

[Squamiger]

iroquois isn't inherently easier to pronounce than haudenosaunee, you're just used to one and not the other. it's fine and good, it's historically accurate.

yes, you could also change Germany to be Preussen or Dutch to be Nederlands or something, but how is that an argument against changing iro and sioux? isn't something better than nothing?