I wqould like to play as the civs but there is 30 or 32 I mean just the civs but take up a GB or more and AOE focuses on the good aspects so that is why I do not think it would happen.

Of course, I put way too many civilizations. That is why it says, "many to choose from". This is a brainstorm in process. I want to leave the AOE developing team some shoulder room to come up with their own creative way to represent these peoples properly. It is important to note that in these ages the biggest genocide of humanity took place which beat the Atlantic Slave Trade in death of innocent lives. A gig dedicated to 1,000 nations would be the least.

The expansion pack has no where to go but indigenous, so here is what I think would be crucial for that maximum experience of the these ages addressed in AOE3.

The idea here is to have the indigenous peoples of the following regions represented:
North America
Meso America
Deep South America
Caribbean
Maroons
and 1 to 3 Mestizo Countries contemporary to United States during colonial and industrial eras

The previous list were only examples of who can represent these factors.

So its two main things I'm arguing for; Native and Mestizo civilizations as players, and a focus on the perspective of "resistance" during this period.

The name by itself is guaranteed to take gaming to whole new levels in rpg war emulation and imagination (let alone the world wide sells) - Age of Empires III: "Colonial Resistance" Expansion.

It would be the first of it's kind. I feel the world waiting, don't you?

I agree that Colonial Resistance sounds good, but i beg to differ on the rest of the thread.

Firstly, the wars between colonial powers and native Americans were more like massacres. If this were to reflect in the game, it would offend many people. On top, there's the fact that most NA war training and technology was inferior to the colonial powers'.

ES must have thoroughly thought about including the NA before building the game. I trust they made the right choice

Feel free to write up what you like, but I doubt that native Americans will become playable civs in the expansion.

What I would like to see however is Independance. Another forummer (can't remember who exactly, sorry) suggested that after a particular age, an "Independance" upgrade becomes available, giving bonuses to the player, but relieving him of the HC. This would fit nicely with "Colonial Resistance"

Also, Venice, Sweden, Belgium and Austria should become playable civs

Just curious, but what benefit would come from being "relieved" of the home city?

I would rather prefer a Victorian-WWI expansion, with new units for the already present civilisations. Slaughtering Caribs with steam-powered airships - now that is colonialism :P

[This message has been edited by KaiserChickenPT (edited 10-28-2005 @ 06:37 PM).]

Shala, you only appear to make a good point. Unfortunately they are based on some common misconceptions due to centuries of ignorance and the simple fact that the winner is the one who writes our history. I'm not being condescending, I'm saying that your misconceptions are common. These wars between native Americans and Europeans were not at all massacres. You could have not been more wrong about that.

The Native American archer benefited from greater speed between arrow shots, accuracy and mobility as compared to their European enemies. Spanish rifles in the age of conquest were vastly too slow and took way too long for each shot to be effective against Incas and the Mayans. The Spanish armor were personal torture chambers giving fungus, heat strokes, and immobility in the jungle.

The massacres happened through massive outbreaks of European disease not war.

You have to understand that Incas, Mayans and Aztecs were empires who were oppressing scores of smaller nations. The Spanish effectively united these smaller nations to revolt against these well established empires. That is how it went down, don't get it twisted.

Do you remember the campaign on the fall of Tenochtitlan in the Age of Kings expansion? I highly recommend that you read about that war before you pass judgment on almost 1,000 nations not being viable to defend themselves. Here are some facts that will shake your understanding of history. And let's use the fall of the great Aztec city of Tenochtitlan as an example, since Age of Kings dealt with it.

1. Disease killed over 90% of the population in Tenochtitlan.

2. And after that, they still kept the Spanish and tens of thousands of armed Native American soldiers at bay for 11 months! They were times when they took the city back from Cortez for months and chased his armies and Native allies away. Obviously the Aztec's were a viable foe to the Spanish.

3. The Spanish would have never won a single war if it were not for the tens of thousands upon thousands of Native Americans taking this opportunity to revolt against the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas. The plaque weakened the Aztecs and allowed for the Spanish to return after they were BEATEN IN WAR BY THE AZTECS.

4. The Mayan, Inca and Aztec people were easily subjugated into slavery because they were used to imperial rule, corruption, class-ism, kings and law. It was impossible to enslave the smaller nations of the amazon because they never had to put up with such structured authority. The Spanish just couldn't conquer them with all of their technology and cannons. Most notable of them were the Untsuri Suara of Eastern Ecuador.

5. If the Native Americans did not put up a good fight how do you explain half a millennium of war? (ex. Pontiac Massacre where every single white person west of the Appalachian mountains were killed, or the Cholula Massacre where the Spanish used the Tlaxcaltecas to trick the Cholulans to come unarmed to a place where they were ambushed to extinction).

Shala, I could go on and on. You are very wrong about the Americas. Not only that, it is immoral to assume such things. Had it not been for the Tlaxcaltecas, the Spanish would have been kicked out of the Americas easily without any real competition with only 10% of the Native American populations.

That was the reality.

Yes many massacres did happen, but they were upon unarmed civilians at celebrations and gatherings or while children, women and elders were migrating for the lives. But in war, the Native Americans stood their ground and had it not been for disease, I am confident that things would be different.

Lastly Native Americans were already represented in Age of Kings, so why cant they be represented now? As you can see based on historical fact, the Native American nations can definitely rise against colonialism in Age of Kings III.

In terms of training and technology, the Native Americans had great advantages like no fog of war (it was their land), they adopted European technology quickly, they had numbers, they were faster at shooting, they had better suited agriculture techniques for the region, siege weapons, they always had the potential to unite with other native American nations instead of allowing the Europeans to unite with them. The Spanish WOULD HAVE NEVER STOOD A CHANCE if they did not use rival Native American nations to fight their battles (ex. Tenochtitlan).

That was just one example. And I stand corrected, the expansion pack for Age of Empires III should be dedicated to the amazing saga of "Colonial Resistance" because the game right now is dedicated to "Imperial Colonialism". Resistance at this point is only just.

Here are some suggested readings:
"The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of Conquest of Mexico" - Leon-Portilla
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" - Jared Diamond
"The Legacy of MesoAmerica" - Carmack, Gasco, Gossen
"This Land Was Theirs: A Study of North American Indians" - Oswalt, Neely
"The Jivaro" - Harner
"Blood Ties" - Greenberg

[This message has been edited by CheTzu (edited 10-28-2005 @ 10:11 PM).]

Ok I agree with you CheTzu (by the way history was not written by the victorres with the mongols) and I would like to see them as a playable civ, but off-topic the aztec, mayans, and incas had suprior technology.

Hey, this idea is awesome!

CheTzu, you are a man of like mind. I love this idea. Being Apache and Navajo, I would love to see Native American civilisations, and see Natives being treated as powers in the game, and not just people that throw away their lives for you because you built some stupid little house in their village. That no fog of war idea is excellent too, only there should be the black, but all the map should be explored to them at the beginning, and knowing the land their units should have the best LOS of all civs.

How on earth does knowing the land give you a large LOS.

EDIT: spelling.

[This message has been edited by Joeking14 (edited 11-30-2005 @ 12:41 PM).]

I would like to play as Mexico, or one of the many South American nations which overthrew the Spanish in the 1820s.

Also, maybe the game's time period should be stretched to about 1890, so you could play as the Sioux defending your homeland against encroaching soldiers and settlers.

The only problem with this, is that there were no Native American emprires, other than the Aztecs, the Incans, the Mayans, and several other Meso-American civilizations. As much as the Aztecs and Mayan EMPIRES should be represented in the game, much like they had been in AoE2, all the other Native American tribes, such as the Yahi and the Seminoles, weren't empires. Therefore, I don't believe most of the Native American and Meztizo civilizations you want represented should be put in.

The Comanche? The Iroquois confederation? Both held massive amounts of land and despite not having massive "cities" per say, both had considerable amounts of power.

Quote:

The Huns didn't have an empire either, yet they got in AoEII.

Underpants Man Can I point out the Huns did have an empire.

Quote:

Not exactly a very civilized or developed one at that.

It is still an empire.

The Huns had an empire. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

Also, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire

"Firstly, the wars between colonial powers and native Americans were more like massacres. If this were to reflect in the game, it would offend many people. On top, there's the fact that most NA war training and technology was inferior to the colonial powers'."

Red Cloud defeated the United States. The US sued for peace after being repeatedly trounced.

Transference of technology/munitions came about in many ways, including the Natives taking it by force, with inferior technology.

The Osceti Sakowin (Sioux, which included the Lahkota) need to have their own civ. At the height of their civilization they had far more land under their control than most of the 'empires' represented in AoE 3.

It's a complete sham the only people to actually have defeated the US cannot fight for themselves, in their own land.

Too bad the white man could not keep his word after sueing for peace. :P

Great post throughout CheTzu.

AMSEC The native americans were not the only people to have defeated the US.

Well, being as this isn't a political forum, I won't bother debating you on your presumed point.

However in the case of the Sioux they acquired a total victory and got the US to concede to everyone of their demands/requests.

Red Cloud did what no one else ever could before, or since.

Now, do you have any points pertaining to the topic, or not?

The Seminoles did the same thing, in fact a fair bit of Florida is still Seminole lands. The US also lost the Vietnam war so saying Red clound is the only person ever to defeat the US is wrong on for several reasons.

Again this isn't a political forum.

But people like you want to drag it down to that level.

Vietnam lost? Technically perhaps, as in the end communism gained control of the south.

Were we defeated? Nope. We simply left an unpopular undeclared 'war', we were not forced out by anyone other than our own people and world opinion. We didn't even declare war on the north, if we had vietnam would resemble the Korean peninsula we see today.

The only people to lose that war were the south vietmanese.

Show me documentation of exactly what the seminoles did.

Nearly every tribe in the US still has land.

None other than the Sioux FORCED the US to comply to every single one of their demands.

However, if they did it just furthers the argument that the natives deserve to have at least one civ in AoE3.

Name one European scoiety where EATING PEOPLE was considered socially acceptable.

England cosidered eating people to be socially acceptable.

Also, CheTzu, the Mayans suffered from civil war, or something of the like, not Spanish invasion. The Mayan Empire ended in the Ninth Century, a good several hundred years before the Spaniards come.

[This message has been edited by Captain Snackbar (edited 12-20-2005 @ 04:01 PM).]

The problem with this is that if we were really to have the native americans fight the colonizers it would be like Pontiac's Rebellion, eventually ending in failure. I have no problems with this, I am a fan of the indeginous peoples, but I don't think this could work out unless suddenly you changed history and made the Amerindians uber.

Quite simply, it sounds like it should be a completely different game.

However, I'm all for adding more native tribes in the expansion pack (in particular the Navajo, why aren't they in the game already?).

Very interesting topic, and I really like this idea. Regarding gameplay, I was wondering how the home city would be implemented into all this. Would the native americans still get shipments, or would other bonuses (no fog of war, etc) compensate for this?