Lakota (Sioux) and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois).

[bobabu]

I hope the plaza will just be a trading spot around the mines. Where instead of gathering, they will just trade around the mine. So that the gameplay doesn't change.

While I understand the removal of the conversion ability, I still don't like it aswell. Because now we really do change the gameplay. Also, it was a really cool element of the game. Maybe they give a conversion ability to the swedes? I mean we did domesticate wolves at some point.

[forgrin]

Tbh I'm glad the conversion ability is gone. It was a pure map/treasure RNG based mechanic and varied in strength widely vs different civs, making it hard to balance. The native explorers are already quite strong and scale much better than Euro and even Asian explorers (with the possible exception of China).

[[Armag] diarouga]

Tbh I'm glad the conversion ability is gone. It was a pure map/treasure RNG based mechanic and varied in strength widely vs different civs, making it hard to balance. The native explorers are already quite strong and scale much better than Euro and even Asian explorers (with the possible exception of China).

To be fair, the crackshot ability is also RNG map dependent. And having the convert ability was very important for the balance of some civs, especially Sioux (because without a bad age 1 Sioux is quite bad), and Aztecs because the explorer is very important and you only have melee attack, which means that you can't micro against the treasure guardians.

You can argue that it's a good political/historical change if you want, but it's objectively a bad balance change, as balance has been based on that for years.

[fightinfrenchman]

They'll just change other things around it! Why are people acting like these changes are taking place in a bubble

[[Armag] diarouga]

If they do then fine, but you don't know if they will.

[forgrin]

Tbh I'm glad the conversion ability is gone. It was a pure map/treasure RNG based mechanic and varied in strength widely vs different civs, making it hard to balance. The native explorers are already quite strong and scale much better than Euro and even Asian explorers (with the possible exception of China).

To be fair, the crackshot ability is also RNG map dependent. And having the convert ability was very important for the balance of some civs, especially Sioux (because without a bad age 1 Sioux is quite bad), and Aztecs because the explorer is very important and you only have melee attack, which means that you can't micro against the treasure guardians.

You can argue that it's a good political/historical change if you want, but it's objectively a bad balance change, as balance has been based on that for years.

I think you have to try hard with Sioux to have a bad age 1 even without guardians, that explorer is just so strong. Obviously they won't be as completely dominant but I don't know if that's really necessary.

I will agree that Azzie will get the short end of the stick here, the convert ability is probably most important for them. Maybe their explorer will get some age 1 stat buffs at some point if it looks really bad.

[fightinfrenchman]

Perhaps wait 20 minutes to see what other changes have been made before complaining about what you do know about

[[Armag] diarouga]

Tbh I'm glad the conversion ability is gone. It was a pure map/treasure RNG based mechanic and varied in strength widely vs different civs, making it hard to balance. The native explorers are already quite strong and scale much better than Euro and even Asian explorers (with the possible exception of China).

To be fair, the crackshot ability is also RNG map dependent. And having the convert ability was very important for the balance of some civs, especially Sioux (because without a bad age 1 Sioux is quite bad), and Aztecs because the explorer is very important and you only have melee attack, which means that you can't micro against the treasure guardians.

You can argue that it's a good political/historical change if you want, but it's objectively a bad balance change, as balance has been based on that for years.

I think you have to try hard with Sioux to have a bad age 1 even without guardians, that explorer is just so strong. Obviously they won't be as completely dominant but I don't know if that's really necessary.

I will agree that Azzie will get the short end of the stick here, the convert ability is probably most important for them. Maybe their explorer will get some age 1 stat buffs at some point if it looks really bad.

The sioux explorer is actually quite weak. He has area damage, but that's the only thing tbh. I'm not even sure you could take a treasure defended by 2 polar bears with crackshot instead of convert lol.

And ye it sucks hard for azzy.

[jap_jon]

Isn't Spain the english version of Espana? And I think the ingame Germany is a mix of several nations iirc
It's a game made for americans so it makes sense they would put more detail and nuance in american history.

If it's a game made Americans, then they'd leave it as "Sioux."

[chronique]

Idk about Lakota, but the people we call Iroquois called themselves Haudenoshone. Makes sense to change the name, same as it would make sense to change the name to France if it was "les baguettiers" in the original game.

Man, "les baguettiers" sound sooooo much better than France!!!!

[howlingwolfpaw]

I haven't read all the comments but I for one welcome these changes.

The fiepit really was a source of many problems to balancing the Native civs. Either they had to be too weak or it made them too OP in certain areas. And it did ruin the historical nature of the game compromising for more uniqueness.

Now perhaps they can balance the Eco and fighting strength of each civ a little less lopsided. (water fights on defensive dance, siege dance etc...) Lets just hope the sio... Lakota get a good long range siege unit.

As for coin I am curious but excited for these changes and whatever else they have come up with.

Changing the names well, that is a little more tricky to get around in daily chats. But I will try my best to start calling them the Lakota, and the ?? Iros.

[dansil92]

Im sure the warchiefs will get a replacement for the nature friendship, they're not gonna leave the euro and asian explorers with an ability and have twc have nothing. Goodness, the knee jerking is top tier today

[howlingwolfpaw]

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

[aaryngend]

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

[iCourt]

Well ofc. I remember learning about when China settled California, and India and Japan battled it out over Texas.

Yup, whole game takes place in America.

I also distinctly recall Siberia and Borneo being somewhere along the east coast.

[chronique]

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

But we have asian dynastie, and europeans had a lot of interaction with african country, like they have with asian.

[n0el]

Imagine the outcry if aoe5 came out and it was the war on terror timeline and centered in the Middle East, there were several nations including the pussies who happen to have a flag that looks like the French flag.

[fightinfrenchman]

Imagine the outcry if aoe5 came out and it was the war on terror timeline and centered in the Middle East, there were several nations including the pussies who happen to have a flag that looks like the French flag.

We should bring back freedom fries ngl

[howlingwolfpaw]

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

But historically the expansion was not all just in America, they were in Africa too.

[aaryngend]

Well ofc. I remember learning about when China settled California, and India and Japan battled it out over Texas.

Yup, whole game takes place in America.

I also distinctly recall Siberia and Borneo being somewhere along the east coast.

They were added by Big Huge Games to cash out on the game and its expansions. I know that Japan, China and India had close to no business being in the game, the game originally was only about Europeans colonizing America. Once the asian civs were put in, they had to bring in some maps located in Asia (Honshu, Ceylon, etc.)

Show hidden quotes

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

But we have asian dynastie, and europeans had a lot of interaction with african country, like they have with asian.

I know the Dutch, the French, etc. colonized Africa too. But the game is not taking place in Africa nor are any african nations involved.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Well ofc. I remember learning about when China settled California, and India and Japan battled it out over Texas.

Yup, whole game takes place in America.

I also distinctly recall Siberia and Borneo being somewhere along the east coast.

They were added by Big Huge Games to cash out on the game and its expansions. I know that Japan, China and India had close to no business being in the game, the game originally was only about Europeans colonizing America. Once the asian civs were put in, they had to bring in some maps located in Asia (Honshu, Ceylon, etc.)

Show hidden quotes

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

But we have asian dynastie, and europeans had a lot of interaction with african country, like they have with asian.

I know the Dutch, the French, etc. colonized Africa too. But the game is not taking place in Africa nor are any african nations involved.

the Game can expand like it has. from Euro To the Americas to Asia, its a tragedy to miss out on one of the largest land masses of the Earth that too had much expansion. And whos slavery built up the new world.

Africa is much more relevant to the Americas than India or Japan or even China.

[Squamiger]

Well ofc. I remember learning about when China settled California, and India and Japan battled it out over Texas.

Yup, whole game takes place in America.

I also distinctly recall Siberia and Borneo being somewhere along the east coast.

They were added by Big Huge Games to cash out on the game and its expansions. I know that Japan, China and India had close to no business being in the game, the game originally was only about Europeans colonizing America. Once the asian civs were put in, they had to bring in some maps located in Asia (Honshu, Ceylon, etc.)

Show hidden quotes

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

But we have asian dynastie, and europeans had a lot of interaction with african country, like they have with asian.

I know the Dutch, the French, etc. colonized Africa too. But the game is not taking place in Africa nor are any african nations involved.

the Game can expand like it has. from Euro To the Americas to Asia, its a tragedy to miss out on one of the largest land masses of the Earth that too had much expansion. And whos slavery built up the new world.

Africa is much more relevant to the Americas than India or Japan or even China.

yea that's true but there's no way the devs are going to want to deal with making African chattel slavery an ingame feature that is both historically accurate and also not insensitive. In fact I don't think there's actually a way to do it satisfactorily. WoL has the USA civ with slaves and it's just super cringey and weird tbh.

[iCourt]

Well ofc. I remember learning about when China settled California, and India and Japan battled it out over Texas.

Yup, whole game takes place in America.

I also distinctly recall Siberia and Borneo being somewhere along the east coast.

They were added by Big Huge Games to cash out on the game and its expansions. I know that Japan, China and India had close to no business being in the game, the game originally was only about Europeans colonizing America. Once the asian civs were put in, they had to bring in some maps located in Asia (Honshu, Ceylon, etc.)

Show hidden quotes

Surely if they really wanted to appease the pc culture. They would have implemented an african civilisation with Black skin color to diversify the game. I'm still sour we have no Mali in game.

I agree, I think originally they did not want to touch that subject, but I think denying it now is the elephant in the room. I wanted some African Civs.

African civs make no sense historically, as they didn't expand their colonies like the europeans did. The natives are only in the game because the whole game takes place in America.

But we have asian dynastie, and europeans had a lot of interaction with african country, like they have with asian.

I know the Dutch, the French, etc. colonized Africa too. But the game is not taking place in Africa nor are any african nations involved.

You say that as if ES had no involvement?

I would argue the game just evolved and will continue to evolve. I mean vanilla upon release only had European civs, and the lack of native civs was a huge oversight.

TWC and TAD expanded and enhanced the game for the better (balance issues aside).

Honestly, I would not be surprised if in the future the game rolls out DLC civs similar to how AOE:O handled it.

If not civs I could at least see African Maps/Minor Natives at the very least introduced.

Side note: Native civs getting a rework is good in my opinion given how broken they are during certain stages of the game.

Second side note: I think the game glosses over slavery fairly well given how cringe worthy it would be to include. It just simply doesn't mention or include it. Being married into an African American family, and newly dealing with sensitive issues I never have experienced before recently, I would imagine including that could only damage the games reputation. I'd be open to a renaming of the plantation in the game to something else. As my wife pointed out, there were not many European people picking cotton or tobacco during the games time frame.

[EAGLEMUT]

Honestly, I would not be surprised if in the future the game rolls out DLC civs similar to how AOE:O handled it.

That's never gonna happen. MS did a whole presentation on how that was the worst business decision they've ever made for AoE and how it killed the game from a business standpoint, leading to the ultimate shutdown of official AoEO servers.

[fightinfrenchman]

Honestly, I would not be surprised if in the future the game rolls out DLC civs similar to how AOE:O handled it.

That's never gonna happen. MS did a whole presentation on how that was the worst business decision they've ever made for AoE and how it killed the game from a business standpoint, leading to the ultimate shutdown of official AoEO servers.

You need to disclose whatever secret information you have about topics like this