Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
Unfortunately, I was already talking in this thread about the importance of sword-armed melee, and the importance of their alliances, to Cortez's conquests before you showed up in this thread with typical vapid one-liners. Also the point with 168 is that even that number of men will still benfit a great deal from proper formation especially if they are using pikes.
I'm sure you can find a thousand actual battles to make that point rather than the ambush at Cajamarca. What is the importance of pike formation in face of luring an enemy at false pretense at talk, shooting their leaders and driving all the civilians into a panic?

As mentioned, the actual conquest of Mexico and Peru happened via diplomacy, took decades of work as well as aid of thousands of local allies. Discussing wether a thousand slings or a handful of arquebuses hurt more in this or that stunt is silly. What matters is the unravelling of two civilizations. One solely by treachery of its people, with how the Aztecs toyed with the Tlaxcalans, and the other by Pizarro aided by an Incan civil war. And that over nearly a century the Spaniards as a whole, managed to capitalize on.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,688
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Unfortunately, I was already talking in this thread about the importance of sword-armed melee, and the importance of their alliances, to Cortez's conquests before you showed up in this thread with typical vapid one-liners. Also the point with 168 is that even that number of men will still benfit a great deal from proper formation especially if they are using pikes.
I'm sure you can find a thousand actual battles to make that point rather than the ambush at Cajamarca. What is the importance of pike formation in face of luring an enemy at false pretense at talk, shooting their leaders and driving all the civilians into a panic?

As mentioned, the actual conquest of Mexico and Peru happened via diplomacy, took decades of work as well as aid of thousands of local allies. Discussing wether a thousand slings or a handful of arquebuses hurt more in this or that stunt is silly. What matters is the unravelling of two civilizations. One solely by treachery of its people, with how the Aztecs toyed with the Tlaxcalans, and the other by Pizarro aided by an Incan civil war. And that over nearly a century the Spaniards as a whole, managed to capitalize on.
LOL, you think Cajamarca isn't an example of good discipline/organisation working in concert with more advanced technology? :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Are you tired of being retarded yet? Like I said, you will need to wait for a better opportunity for your effeminate needling.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
LOL, you think Cajamarca isn't an example of good discipline/organisation working in concert with more advanced technology?
Rocroi is an example of good discipline. Plassey is an example of good discipline. Gaugamela is an example of good discipline.

An ambush at a feast while your guys shoot at the panicking peasants from cover isn't. Its just a massacre.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,688
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
LOL, you think Cajamarca isn't an example of good discipline/organisation working in concert with more advanced technology?
Rocroi is an example of good discipline. Plassey is an example of good discipline. Gaugamela is an example of good discipline.

An ambush at a feast while your guys shoot at the panicking peasants from cover isn't. Its just a massacre.
I suppose an ambush is more a matter of military experience rather than any formal training or tactics. But from cursorily looking Cajamarca up, it very much looks like guns and cavalry were very important to it - I would far rather open an ambush with noisy, big weapons like those which they enemy don't understand, than with just an infantry charge. If the Incan retinue, with their small ceremonial axes, would have fought a more (to them) normal force, then that would vindicate my assumption that the military technology greatly enabled the other aspects of the conquest.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
it very much looks like guns and cavalry were very important to it
Like a tank was very useful in Tianmen Square. You're still just shooting at a mostly civilian crowd that is running around in a panic. Where every soldier is unarmored, nearly unarmed and leaderless. You could do that with bows. You could do that even without the horses. The key point being that it is an ambush from cover, under the pretense of talk. Its a massacre. The downfall of the inca emperor was his arrogance and that he fell for the ambush, not superior pike and shot tactics.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,688
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
it very much looks like guns and cavalry were very important to it
Like a tank was very useful in Tianmen Square. You're still just shooting at a mostly civilian crowd that is running around in a panic. Where every soldier is unarmored, nearly unarmed and leaderless. You could do that with bows. You could do that even without the horses. The key point being that it is an ambush from cover, under the pretense of talk. Its a massacre. The downfall of the inca emperor was his arrogance and that he fell for the ambush, not superior pike and shot tactics.
I am not convinced, because these are not peasants, but a royal retinue with basic melee weapons. From what I am reading, the Spanish used horses to charge towards Atahualpa and secure him - they did not reach him quite immediately - the cannon and the horses were likely a large cause of the panic, and I should think that metal armour is very desirable against impractical melee weapons such as ceremonial axes.
Without the physical strength of the horses, the noise of the cannon, and the impunity of the armour, I would expect the royal retinue of a Pharaoh-tier despotic God-King to be a lot more solid. Though I am now talking more about tech and not pike discipline, but tech is where this started anyway.
My assumption that the latest metal armour and weapons, including guns and cannon, give a big advantage over the Incan equipment, is a pretty obvious one to make. Just imagine trying to persuade Pizarro that he shouldn't bother with the luggage because he could get along with slings and leather armour instead. However annoying it might be if people simplify these exploits and alliances to just the military equipment, you don't need to go all the other way.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
I am not convinced, because these are not peasants, but a royal retinue with basic melee weapons.
Its five thousand* attendants running around and a leaderless host of two thousand people with tinfoil weapons. You can pickout any batallion of people from range and cover after killing all of its leaders and while they deal with the panic of a giant mob. The noise of the cannons only add to the general chaos that was already installed by the treachery and the 'impunity' of metal armor could easily be replicated with a wool brigandine. Its not the technology and its not the tactics. Its the fact that its an ambush and massacre.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
it very much looks like guns and cavalry were very important to it
Like a tank was very useful in Tianmen Square. You're still just shooting at a mostly civilian crowd that is running around in a panic. Where every soldier is unarmored, nearly unarmed and leaderless. You could do that with bows. You could do that even without the horses. The key point being that it is an ambush from cover, under the pretense of talk. Its a massacre. The downfall of the inca emperor was his arrogance and that he fell for the ambush, not superior pike and shot tactics.
I am not convinced, because these are not peasants, but a royal retinue with basic melee weapons. From what I am reading, the Spanish used horses to charge towards Atahualpa and secure him - they did not reach him quite immediately - the cannon and the horses were likely a large cause of the panic, and I should think that metal armour is very desirable against impractical melee weapons such as ceremonial axes.
Without the physical strength of the horses, the noise of the cannon, and the impunity of the armour, I would expect the royal retinue of a Pharaoh-tier despotic God-King to be a lot more solid. Though I am now talking more about tech and not pike discipline, but tech is where this started anyway.
My assumption that the latest metal armour and weapons, including guns and cannon, give a big advantage over the Incan equipment, is a pretty obvious one to make. Just imagine trying to persuade Pizarro that he shouldn't bother with the luggage because he could get along with slings and leather armour instead. However annoying it might be if people simplify these exploits and alliances to just the military equipment, you don't need to go all the other way.

Pizarro would, and indeed readily did, employ native soldiers. Assumption here is that you can easily procure gambesons or personnel able to use slings (remember, slings became outdated because slings are harder to use, requiring more training much like bows eventually lost to firearms for same reasons). Pizarro was working with what he had and what he knew of.

Now the accounts of Incans themselves do mention artillery and horses with much disbelief, so they were indeed terrifying. They also mention the armour of Spanish and their horses, as well as what I assume to be bucklers of Spanish soldiers who used them as plates also (which was common practice). As any explosion of gunpowder would be to someone who is not familiar with them (often, people today who are not familiar with noise of gunfire are very much terrified of it). While this did indeed have an initial shock, both to Aztecs and Incans, they got used to them shortly afterwards. This is generally the case everywhere, as gunpowder weapons did have a shocking effect, but were promptly adopted. After all, an arquebus is not nearly such a complex device, it requires nearly no precursory cumulative technology or knowledge beyond basic metallurgy. If people discovered gunpowder in bronze age, they could have very well made arquebuses in bronze age. In fact best cannons of 16th century were cast of bronze and fired stone projectiles until English found a way to mass produce iron cannons.

It was a brief advantage of shock and definitely of morale, but it wasn't nearly an insurmountable technological advantage had Pizarro failed to successfully execute his coup. Nothing that would justify average Incan or Aztec soldier being inferior in morale or spirit nor to be irredeemably cannon fodder. There are ample accounts of Aztecs coming up with methods to disable horses, mount the horses themselves or try to disarm the cannons. Moreover had the Spaniards there not succeed subjugating them in short order then there is no reason not to believe they couldn't adapt at some capacity to resist smaller forces. Southeast Asians for example, some of which had less organised societies than the Incans, started to rapidly produce cannons and muskets themselves after encountering them because of Portuguese, Spanish and Ottomans. Mind you, Portuguese accounts of Southeast Asians talk of them as being much less organised in warfare, they certainly didn't have the command structures the Incans had, though they also do mention of their bravery (Mendes Pinto especially).

Another point to contend here is that an arquebus, while fearsome due its noise and smoke, when it comes to tactical value, is not nearly as superior weapon to something as simple as a sling or a bow. Main advantage of arquebus and which lead to its proliferation was its ease of mass production and usage. Indeed, the pikemen of the time generally considered themselves to be the soldiers, while arquebusers to be tradesmen, this understanding lasted well into 17th century. Encountering an actual army on the field, while 12 arquebuses would have initially had an effect, once Incans got used to them they would not have such a great effect. Nevertheless, impact of few arquebuses and few artillery used in close quarters against lightly armed retinue or civilians would also have a similar dispersing effect in any European city, or Ottoman, or Indian.

Do consider this event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Antwerp

I wonder had this above event took place in some non-European city, would it justify Dutch only being cannon fodder?

Indeed, check nearly all of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Fury

There is some black legend in there, but overall its similar contexts.
 
Last edited:
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,688
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Pizarro would, and indeed readily did, employ native soldiers. Assumption here is that you can easily procure gambesons or personnel able to use slings (remember, slings became outdated because slings are harder to use, requiring more training much like bows eventually lost to firearms for same reasons). Pizarro was working with what he had and what he knew of.
But it's not as if Europe was unfamiliar with cloth armour or slings, we just acquired better things to replace them with. Now maybe a sling is comparable to an arquebus, because early handguns were crap, but then you also have crossbows which were very solid.
Doesn't the way the sling fell out of use earlier than the bow suggest that it's not just a matter of training-time, but also being pretty weak against armour (unless you score a headshot)?
At Ollantaytambo the Inca used some Spanish metal arms/armour they'd acquired, which is something of a statement about its usefulness.

Now the accounts of Incans themselves do mention artillery and horses with much disbelief, so they were indeed terrifying. They also mention the armour of Spanish and their horses, as well as what I assume to be bucklers of Spanish soldiers who used them as plates also (which was common practice). As any explosion of gunpowder would be to someone who is not familiar with them (often, people today who are not familiar with noise of gunfire are very much terrified of it). While this did indeed have an initial shock, both to Aztecs and Incans, they got used to them shortly afterwards. This is generally the case everywhere, as gunpowder weapons did have a shocking effect, but were promptly adopted. After all, an arquebus is not nearly such a complex device, it requires nearly no precursory cumulative technology or knowledge beyond basic metallurgy. If people discovered gunpowder in bronze age, they could have very well made arquebuses in bronze age. In fact best cannons of 16th century were cast of bronze and fired stone projectiles until English found a way to mass produce iron cannons.

It was a brief advantage of shock and definitely of morale, but it wasn't nearly an insurmountable technological advantage had Pizarro failed to successfully execute his coup. Nothing that would justify average Incan or Aztec soldier being inferior in morale or spirit nor to be irredeemably cannon fodder. There are ample accounts of Aztecs coming up with methods to disable horses, mount the horses themselves or try to disarm the cannons. Moreover had the Spaniards there not succeed subjugating them in short order then there is no reason not to believe they couldn't adapt at some capacity to resist smaller forces. Southeast Asians for example, some of which had less organised societies than the Incans, started to rapidly produce cannons and muskets themselves after encountering them because of Portuguese, Spanish and Ottomans. Mind you, Portuguese accounts of Southeast Asians talk of them as being much less organised in warfare, they certainly didn't have the command structures the Incans had, though they also do mention of their bravery (Mendes Pinto especially).
A pretty good argument for having the Inca in AoE3, complete even with their own cannon or handguns. Ironically it's the Red Indians' depiction in aoe2, complete with wheelbarrow tech, plate armour, trebuchets, etc which makes me the most butthurt, not aoe3 :argh:
But it doesn't really violate my assumption that the military-technological edge was vital in enabling the shock tactics of the conquistadors.

Another point to contend here is that an arquebus, while fearsome due its noise and smoke, when it comes to tactical value, is not nearly as superior weapon to something as simple as a sling or a bow. Main advantage of arquebus and which lead to its proliferation was its ease of mass production and usage. Indeed, the pikemen of the time generally considered themselves to be the soldiers, while arquebusers to be tradesmen, this understanding lasted well into 17th century. Encountering an actual army on the field, while 12 arquebuses would have initially had an effect, once Incans got used to them they would not have such a great effect. Nevertheless, impact of few arquebuses and few artillery used in close quarters against lightly armed retinue or civilians would also have a similar dispersing effect in any European city, or Ottoman, or Indian.
I did make an aside about it being retarded to say slings were as good as arquebuses, which might have been retarded of me:M, but I haven't mentioned them much besides that. Also I said the Conquistadors would be screwed if they'd have only native-tier missile weapons, but that was with the arbalests and cannon in mind too.

Do consider this event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Antwerp

I wonder had this above event took place in some non-European city, would it justify Dutch only being cannon fodder?

Indeed, check nearly all of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Fury

There is some black legend in there, but overall its similar contexts.
I find those comparisons a bit tortured, and besides I didn't use Cajamarca to argue that Inca should be considered cannon fodder, only that Cajamarca doesn't demonstrate the irrelevance of tech/equipment. Besides, it's not like the sackers of Antwerp felt the need to lie in wait for hours and then burst out in an ambush.
Like I said, from reading about Cajamarca I didn't get the impression that they could've pulled it off with only cloth/wood equipment. It sounds to me like a ceremonial club/axe would still be usable against cotton-armoured infantry, but once the enemy have cannon and cavalry to start things off, and then can persist under the cover of shields and metal breastplates, you're pretty much screwed. I'm not convinced that retinue would've folded if they had been ambushed by men using only (to them) 'conventional' weaponry.

Like you said yourself, in a large-scale battle of spain vs Inca, the Inca would be cannon fodder - and I really think the same applies even to a small-scale fight of equal numbers, though I don't know off the top of my head of any great example.
 
Last edited:
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,688
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Now that I read a bit more, it seems like the Inca also put effort into learning the use of the arquebus, so however overrated the early handgun is, compared to a skilled archer, I do get the impression it's better than a sling.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
Now that I read a bit more, it seems like the Inca also put effort into learning the use of the arquebus, so however overrated the early handgun is, compared to a skilled archer, I do get the impression it's better than a sling.

It's definitely better than a sling because it has much more utility due to its ease, I think sometimes there is this compulsion to abstract things, especially in video games. However the comparison is actually quite simple and requires no abstractions, both sling and arquebus are projectile weapons, used to launch not very aerodynamic objects to deliver kinetic energy (though a sling's bullet as they were called, is a bit more aerodynamic). In the end the one which uses chemical energy to launch from a tube does a better job simply by the virtue of the fact it requires nearly no physical exertion, can be launched at pull of a trigger and doesn't need to any great deal of training by user. One thing doesn't have to deal so much more "damage" than the other to be "superior" in that way, a sling and an arquebus will both kill a man at range and sometimes in armour, but if one requires very little effort and can easily be mass produced and projected, then it is by definition superior. This superiority however doesn't translate easily in a context of small skirmishes as one would think, which is also why I feel it so bizarre why fantasy games are so strictly opposed to inclusion of early matchlock weapons.

There is also an ironic thing here, it was not bows but crossbows that were immediately outclassed by arquebuses, as they were very similar weapons but arquebus was simply cheaper to make, easier to use and had greater effect at closer range. While bows, saw much longer use due to their greater rate of fire. Crossbows had a secondary use on board of ships for a bit longer.

But it's not as if Europe was unfamiliar with cloth armour or slings, we just acquired better things to replace them with. Now maybe a sling is comparable to an arquebus, because early handguns were crap, but then you also have crossbows which were very solid.
Doesn't the way the sling fell out of use earlier than the bow suggest that it's not just a matter of training-time, but also being pretty weak against armour (unless you score a headshot)?
At Ollantaytambo the Inca used some Spanish metal arms/armour they'd acquired, which is something of a statement about its usefulness.

Equipment of warfare is there to meet the challenges of battlefield. Incas used what makes sense for their type of warfare, there wasn't much in there to make steel armour or weapons with, they used what's available to them. They used horses when they got access to them. Technology and societal advancement is also not nearly parallel with military prowess as it appears to us today as well, today you have to have a the human capital and cumulative technology to produce something like an airplane or modern artillery. Back in the day one guy who knew how to make something could teach many because there weren't nearly as many prerequisites. Nor is it a guarantee that more technologically or socially advantaged society would win a war necessarily, Turks of middle-ages were as bereft of technology as it gets yet managed to topple much more advanced societies in Middle-east and Anatolia.

This is another thing, Castile (and Portugal) of 15th and 16th centuries were very militaristic societies. Their hardiness and experience in near constant war as well as conditions of Iberian peninsula, even in comparison to other people of Europe, that had a great deal more effect in their actions, motivations and morale as well. It's not appropriate to compare conquests of Cortes and Pizarro to say, scramble for Africa which was an outright technological and systematic domination. While as I said the Spanish did possess a superior military organisation and technology, again as I said there wasn't such a case where 168 Spanish troops could just gun down an actual Incan army on the field.

I think all things the same, if Spaniards did have gambesons instead of steel armour, and bows instead of arquebuses, Pizarro doing the same things they did it would result in same thing. This including the implication that in usage of polearms and military organisation Incas were quite competent. Horses were definitely important here, so were the pieces of artillery, but not really in their killing potential nor for an inherent inability of Incans to utilise them.

Also as I said, AoE series is better seen as smash brothers all stars type of thing with history theme, including some famous or infamous archetypes from history. There is also no reason for Spanish galleons to be so beefed up in AoE3, yet they get so many bonuses to be floating fortresses. Spanish didn't have particularly good shipyards or shipmaking, indeed they often outsourced their shipbuilding to Portuguese, Low Countries and Genoese. Neither their galleons were special in warfare, aside from the fact because of piracy they were more prone to using galleons as their cargoships (I.E smaller cargosize, but more armed than a regular cargoship) and for longer, rather than dedicated cargoships like Portuguese, Dutch or English did. Spanish were also often carrying bullion of course, which requires less cargospace than the goods the latter traded in.

In the end, it's because stuff like eagle warriors or incan slingers are just cool archetypes, so that's why they get included and balanced up. If one were to try to seek too much of an accuracy in such a game, there would first need to be done something about ships. There is much more steeper gap between ship types in accuracy or method of usage than a Spanish pikeman and an Incan pikeman, that can be rounded down to some number balance. Yet the ships are fundamentally wrong.
 
Last edited:
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
6,688
Location
Mouse Utopia
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
It's definitely better than a sling because it has much more utility due to its ease, I think sometimes there is this compulsion to abstract things, especially in video games. However the comparison is actually quite simple and requires no abstractions, both sling and arquebus are projectile weapons, used to launch not very aerodynamic objects to deliver kinetic energy (though a sling's bullet as they were called, is a bit more aerodynamic). In the end the one which uses chemical energy to launch from a tube does a better job simply by the virtue of the fact it requires nearly no physical exertion, can be launched at pull of a trigger and doesn't need to any great deal of training by user. One thing doesn't have to deal so much more "damage" than the other to be "superior" in that way, a sling and an arquebus will both kill a man at range and sometimes in armour, but if one requires very little effort and can easily be mass produced and projected, then it is by definition superior. This superiority however doesn't translate easily in a context of small skirmishes as one would think, which is also why I feel it so bizarre why fantasy games are so strictly opposed to inclusion of early matchlock weapons.

There is also an ironic thing here, it was not bows but crossbows that were immediately outclassed by arquebuses, as they were very similar weapons but arquebus was simply cheaper to make, easier to use and had greater effect at closer range. While bows, saw much longer use due to their greater rate of fire. Crossbows had a secondary use on board of ships for a bit longer.
But if the Neo-Inca were interested in the arquebus, that would suggest it had other advantages such as range, accuracy or damage. The Neo-Inca would've had the spare time as a rustic society to continue their slinging tradition, and their guns would've presumably been obtained from the spanish instead of made themselves. "Damage" might sound crass like a videogame mechanic, but this is a bullet being propelled as fast as possible to hit something to damage it.

But it's not as if Europe was unfamiliar with cloth armour or slings, we just acquired better things to replace them with. Now maybe a sling is comparable to an arquebus, because early handguns were crap, but then you also have crossbows which were very solid.
Doesn't the way the sling fell out of use earlier than the bow suggest that it's not just a matter of training-time, but also being pretty weak against armour (unless you score a headshot)?
At Ollantaytambo the Inca used some Spanish metal arms/armour they'd acquired, which is something of a statement about its usefulness.

Equipment of warfare is there to meet the challenges of battlefield. Incas used what makes sense for their type of warfare, there wasn't much in there to make steel armour or weapons with, they used what's available to them.
What does that mean? The Spanish preferred spanish gear when fighting the Inca, and the Inca preferred spanish gear when fighting the Spanish. It doesn't seem contextual to me, steel swords, helmets etc are just better.

They used horses when they got access to them. Technology and societal advancement is also not nearly parallel with military prowess as it appears to us today as well, today you have to have a the human capital and cumulative technology to produce something like an airplane or modern artillery. Back in the day one guy who knew how to make something could teach many because there weren't nearly as many prerequisites. Nor is it a guarantee that more technologically or socially advantaged society would win a war necessarily, Turks of middle-ages were as bereft of technology as it gets yet managed to topple much more advanced societies in Middle-east and Anatolia.
I think it's safe to declare a general rule that throughout history barbarians are worse off than their civilised opponents in terms of their equipment and mode of fighting, with nomadic cavalry hordes being the greatest exception. Possibly the only one? The counterbalance was that typically barbarians have a lot more to gain by invading a civilised land, than a civilised man has to gain from conquering a barbarian territory, often a wasteland.

In particular I'm sure the Turks had perfectly good bows, stirrups, horses, lances, etc, on the open field you could argue their gear is as good as anyone's.

This is another thing, Castile (and Portugal) of 15th and 16th centuries were very militaristic societies. Their hardiness and experience in near constant war as well as conditions of Iberian peninsula, even in comparison to other people of Europe, that had a great deal more effect in their actions, motivations and morale as well. It's not appropriate to compare conquests of Cortes and Pizarro to say, scramble for Africa which was an outright technological and systematic domination. While as I said the Spanish did possess a superior military organisation and technology, again as I said there wasn't such a case where 168 Spanish troops could just gun down an actual Incan army on the field.
But how many times more Incans would suffice to defeat them? And how much did their better gear give them the confidence and infamy they needed for such a quest? There were I'm sure some engagements much tougher than Cajamarca. When assembling some Indian alliance it must help a lot to have a heavily-armed kernel that can wade in and inflict disproportion mayhem, but I'll have to read about the Incan conquest to discover an example.

Also as I said, AoE series is better seen as smash brothers all stars type of thing with history theme, including some famous or infamous archetypes from history. There is also no reason for Spanish galleons to be so beefed up in AoE3, yet they get so many bonuses to be floating fortresses. Spanish didn't have particularly good shipyards or shipmaking, indeed they often outsourced their shipbuilding to Portuguese, Low Countries and Genoese. Neither their galleons were special in warfare, aside from the fact because of piracy they were more prone to using galleons as their cargoships (I.E smaller cargosize, but more armed than a regular cargoship) and for longer, rather than dedicated cargoships like Portuguese, Dutch or English did. Spanish were also often carrying bullion of course, which requires less cargospace than the goods the latter traded in.

In the end, it's because stuff like eagle warriors or incan slingers are just cool archetypes, so that's why they get included and balanced up. If one were to try to seek too much of an accuracy in such a game, there would first need to be done something about ships. There is much more steeper gap between ship types in accuracy or method of usage than a Spanish pikeman and an Incan pikeman, that can be rounded down to some number balance. Yet the ships are fundamentally wrong.
Yep, game has been a clown fiesta from the start, I read once that they didn't give the original janissaries hats because it would look like KKK:negative:
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
But if the Neo-Inca were interested in the arquebus, that would suggest it had other advantages such as range, accuracy or damage. The Neo-Inca would've had the spare time as a rustic society to continue their slinging tradition, and their guns would've presumably been obtained from the spanish instead of made themselves. "Damage" might sound crass like a videogame mechanic, but this is a bullet being propelled as fast as possible to hit something to damage it.

It's often not that easy, if you have skilled personnel in usage of a weapon, you use it. Ottomans were very quick to adopt matchlock weaponry, artillery and even war wagons but they used composite bow horse archers as long as they could. They only stopped when they essentially ran out of people who could use composite bows which required a great deal of strength and training on horse back since childhood, as well as enough people capable of making composite bows fit for war. Sometimes these things are societal and the superiority is not technical or tactical but simply ease of use. Of course guns later had more open-ended development for much more firepower but this wasn't apparent or relevant in 16th century.

What does that mean? The Spanish preferred spanish gear when fighting the Inca, and the Inca preferred spanish gear when fighting the Spanish. It doesn't seem contextual to me, steel swords, helmets etc are just better.

It means that Incans didn't have access to steel, thus their weapons and armours developed as such. However in terms of organisation, they were very capable and had very solid and competent military division and hierarchy. It's also not that simple because again it depends on type of warfare being fought. But nevertheless, the point is not that Spanish didn't have better equipment for dealing with the situation, I.E in a case of push of pikes, the side armoured with breastplates has an advantage over side armoured with gambesons, but that difference is not near vast enough. Also remember I was talking against the idea of such a margin of technological and organisational difference to render it a slaughter which is more of an 19th century occurence. The differences while apparent weren't that steep. It's not like British vs. Zulus or the Afghans, (and even in that case it was possible for them to lose).

I think it's safe to declare a general rule that throughout history barbarians are worse off than their civilised opponents in terms of their equipment and mode of fighting, with nomadic cavalry hordes being the greatest exception. Possibly the only one? The counterbalance was that typically barbarians have a lot more to gain by invading a civilised land, than a civilised man has to gain from conquering a barbarian territory, often a wasteland.

In particular I'm sure the Turks had perfectly good bows, stirrups, horses, lances, etc, on the open field you could argue their gear is as good as anyone's.

They had weaponry that was befit the type of warfare they were fighting but it certainly wasn't superior to metallurgy or composite bows of Byzantines, Iranians or Egyptians. This barbarians against civilised opponents thing also doesn't apply between Incans and Spanish, since Incans were a settled society with military organisation with plenty of population and advanced agriculture.

But how many times more Incans would suffice to defeat them? And how much did their better gear give them the confidence and infamy they needed for such a quest? There were I'm sure some engagements much tougher than Cajamarca. When assembling some Indian alliance it must help a lot to have a heavily-armed kernel that can wade in and inflict disproportion mayhem, but I'll have to read about the Incan conquest to discover an example.

In such case you don't need great many, if they were aware and fighting defensively from start. I reckon that Spaniards would have very hard time even invading. Spain simply wouldn't have enough troops or logistical capacity to field 40k men against Incans.


Yep, game has been a clown fiesta from the start, I read once that they didn't give the original janissaries hats because it would look like KKK:negative:

Eh, it's an arcade game, considering the mistakes and oversights more "comprehensive" games like Civ series or Paradox games make it's not surprising at all.

I am indeed upset about the fact they didn't understand what galleys were and how they worked however but then again neither did EU4.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,048
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I didn't know Pizarro mostly used pike, that makes it more important to be in good formation.

The pikes were also way more important than crossbows and arquebuses. A big wall of long spears is scary to attack in melee, which is the reason the Aztecs were reluctant to enter melee. Even a small pike formation is scary to attack unless you can outflank them, but when most of the fighting was done in urban contexts you can easily get yourself into tight positions where you're unassailable.

As for the armor, many of the Spanish found that their fancy mail wasn't very effective against native arrows and ditched it. The mail, not the breastplates - breastplates were pretty much unpiercable by native weapons and the Spanish tended to keep them on at all times.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Thanks FreeKaner, plenty of interesting & educational tidbits. I always appreciate historical discussion around the full breadth of situational factors that dont' get boiled down to artificial dick measures of "were longbows better than crossbows".

As for Age of Empires, indeed it's a Smash Bros. type RTS with no grand strategy element, so I don't think I ever worried about its historical accuracy. It's a game where massed longbows can one-shot a trebuchet and woad raiders bring down castles and there are pretty much entirely fictional units like the Korean war wagons, so.
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
86305

New empire added :incline:

Developer said:
When it comes to civilizations, Age of Empires III and its expansions featured 14 civilizations from across Europe, the Americas, and Asia, and we’re adding two brand-new civilizations exclusively to the Definitive Edition: The Swedes and The Incas!

  • The Swedes are a brand new addition to the franchise and cover one of history’s most unlikely great powers: a small European nation which eclipsed all military convention and became a powerhouse on the European battlefields thanks to their innovative military tactics.
  • The Incas are a more traditional Age of Empires civilization, covering one of the largest empires in South America, where they constructed mighty stone cities, citadels and palaces.

e: How do they balance nations such as Inca against Spain for example? Kind of destroys all suspension of disbelief if Incas are on pair with Spain. Or if all of a sudden you have Incas with guns:decline:

e2: Indian nations should just be cannon fodder that you can fight against for a laugh

e3: Other source of decline:

Developer said:
Speaking on civilizations, a key focus of our work at World’s Edge is to authentically represent the cultures and peoples that we depict in our games. While developing Age III: DE, we realized that we weren’t upholding that value as well as we could regarding our Native American cultures; so we set out to fix that: working directly with tribal consultants to respectfully and accurately capture the uniqueness of their peoples, history, and cultures. Returning players will find there’s been some fundamental changes to the Native American civilizations, and we hope you find them as compelling as we do!
Politically correct representation of indians.

e4: I never played AoE3 but I'm pretty hyped for this! Will definitely give this new version a spin.
They should also get in touch with Swedish tribal elders to make sure they respect their culture and traditions.
 

Theodora

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
4,620
Location
anima Bȳzantiī
I only got into AoE(/2) with their definitive editions, so not much useful to say besides I'm excited that they're making this. ^^

What stood out to me though is that they're selling this for half the cost of the original game + DLC.




Weirdly they're also selling the two as a bundle for just a teeny bit more than the original. Why would they do this? Why sell it at all and why keept the price high? Is it as simple as legacy multiplayer for people who don't like balance changes, or?
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
I only got into AoE(/2) with their definitive editions, so not much useful to say besides I'm excited that they're making this. ^^

What stood out to me though is that they're selling this for half the cost of the original game + DLC.




Weirdly they're also selling the two as a bundle for just a teeny bit more than the original. Why would they do this? Why sell it at all and why keept the price high? Is it as simple as legacy multiplayer for people who don't like balance changes, or?


If you already own the original, the bundle means you get discount on the definitive edition. It's a roundabout way of giving a discount to those who own the original game.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,048
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Weirdly they're also selling the two as a bundle for just a teeny bit more than the original. Why would they do this? Why sell it at all and why keept the price high? Is it as simple as legacy multiplayer for people who don't like balance changes, or?

They should keep the original up for sale just for those who have old computers or OSes.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
https://www.pcgamesn.com/age-of-empires-iii-definitive-edition/new-civ-sweden

If you “love Age of Empires 3, you’re going to love” new civ Sweden
age-of-empires-3-definitive-4-580x334.jpg


If you’re a strategy games fan, you’re probably counting down the days to the Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition release date. You probably also know that the RTS game’s overhaul will feature two brand-new civilisations: Sweden and the Inca. If you’re fan of the original, and wondering what the new civs will throw into the mix, you needn’t be worried – if you “love Age of Empires III, you’re going to love Sweden”.

That’s according to Forgotten Empires co-founder Bert Beeckman, who tells us: “Sweden is very interesting because it’s the first time we have Sweden in the whole franchise. So, it’s completely brand-new”. He adds that when the devs looked at the civ’s history they realised, “this is actually a small nation. But at the time, it really dominated the battlefields in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. We had to look up why that was”.

According to Beeckman, the reason was: “They were very innovative with gunpowder, with their use of cavalry and mercenaries” – and it seems this was a perfect fit for the game.

“Those are three things we have in Age III, let’s put that together in a civ,” the dev adds. “That also explains gameplay. If you play as Sweden, you’re very aggressive, trying to really get all over the map, trying to get mercenaries shipped from basically every nation in Europe at the time.

“It’s truly a civilisation for the hardcore Age III fans. If you love Age III, you’re going to love Sweden, because it uses everything from Age III, basically, in that one civ.”

“On the other hand, the Inca”, Beeckman explains, “I would say are more for the Age II crowd that wants to get into Age III, because it’s more of a city builder civ. You can build your huge empire, your stone walls, your palaces, your citadels, whatever you want.” This means there are two “very different civs, with a lot of variety” on the way, the dev concludes.

So, it sounds like whether you’re a long-time Age of Empires III fan or an Age II player looking to try the upcoming remaster, the Definitive Edition’s range of civs should have you covered. The game arrives on October 15, so you won’t have long to wait to try them out.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Here is the full interview: https://www.pcgamesn.com/age-of-empires-iii-definitive-edition/aoe-3-remaster

Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition – no other RTS “does what it does”
We speak to the upcoming remaster's devs about the challenges of overhauling the classic RTS

age-of-empires-3-definitive-5-900x506.jpg


Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition will, in many ways, be a world away from the 2005 RTS fans will remember. Like last year’s Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition, the upcoming PC game will feature a raft of significant tweaks and tinkerings. In this case, brand new civilisations, game modes, graphical and gameplay changes, new Art of War missions to show you the ropes, and updates to the Native American civilisation following consultation with tribal representatives.

The consideration that lies at the heart of every remaster remains, however: how to marry the spirit of the original with the look and experience of a new PC game. Developers Tantalus Media and Forgotten Empires, and publisher World’s Edge, have a tricky line to walk between delivering a nostalgic punch for the strategy game’s long-time fans and a big, shiny carrot to tempt new players on board.

To find out how the devs strike this balance, what makes this Age of Empires experience ‘definitive’, and why players old and new should dive in (clue: “You can see the cliffs!”) we spoke to creative director at World’s Edge Adam Isgreen, Forgotten Empires co-founder Bert Beeckman, and Tantalus director of development Joss Ellis.

PCGamesN: How has reception to Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition influenced Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition?

Adam Isgreen: Art of War is one of the best examples. We’ve been trying to listen to the community, be driven by what they want us to do, and what they’re responding to in our games. It’s always been our plan that, if something hit well, we’d put it into the next game. The thing I like is, not only did we move Art of War over to the new game because it’s so popular – and you can bet it’s going to show up in Age IV, as well – it’s not just the same stuff.



Some people would think if you’re going to make Art of War, it’s going to be the same [each time]. But no, that’s not the case. Art of War in Age III is specific to Age III, and will celebrate and teach you about all the nuances and deep gameplay that Age III offers.

PCGN: Age III is more modern than Ages I or II, with a fully 3D engine. How did that affect your approach to the remaster at a technical level?

Joss Ellis: Basically we looked at it and went, ‘Let’s just improve everything’. Every single model and texture has been remade. We illuminated paint textures. This one’s got advanced shaders and it’s a modern engine. It’s got little tiny touches, like when the guys walk through the grass, they leave their footprints behind them. All the physics have been redone, the multiplayer game’s been redone. We’ve completely overhauled the user interface, so it has a much more modern, floating feel. You can see much more of the game.

We’ve gone to efforts to make it work on old hardware, and yet still take advantage of super high-end hardware.

AI: This is going to sound funny, but one of the things I love most is that we fixed the cliffs! In Age III before, sometimes you could lose height with the terrain. It would just blend into each other. All the art has been redone to the point where you never lose a cliff any more, so you understand the height a lot better. For me that was a huge win. You can see the cliffs! It just makes a huge difference.
PCGN: What are the main differences between the Age II and III communities?

Bert Beeckman: The community in Age III is just like Age II: really, really dedicated. But they’ve always known that they were the smaller game compared to the rest of the series. Nonetheless, they’re extremely passionate about it, and one of the things they did by themselves was continue to balance the game. They made new maps and made sure all the content can actually be seen – there were so many units and technologies in the game, and you just never used them because they were so poorly balanced. The community took care of that for a large part.

When we worked on this, we thought we just needed to look at what the community has done. Let’s talk to all those people, involve them in this process, and make sure that all the content – or, at least, a big chunk of it – they’ve been doing over the years gets into the Definitive Edition.



PCGN: What’s your sense of what the community wants from Age III: DE, and how are you going to deliver?

AI: One of the first things we did, behind the scenes, was reach out to all the dedicated, die-hard players of Age III that have still been going and keeping the community alive. We went directly to them and said, ‘You’ve seen what we’ve done with the previous Definite Editions. What do you want?’ They generated this huge list, and I think we got almost every single request.

JE: We have the original RFP – ‘Request For Proposal’ – from Adam. I go through it and make sure every single item has been ticked off. There are hundreds of items on it. Then we circled back to the community, double-checked, and added more things. I hope we’ve done everything they asked.

AI: The cool thing is we’ve had a little more freedom with Age III than we have with Age II in terms of being a little more radical, adding things, and changing things, simply because the community was more open to it. They are a slightly smaller community than Age II’s, though still a ridiculously huge amount of people. I think because of that they’re like, ‘We want our game to be better! We want our game to be bigger!’ So there are lots of people willing to let us go a little further.

You can see that in the user interface. We have options to let you go from a classic equivalent to a modern, floating interface that looks like something out of an RTS game released today. Aside from the graphics – you don’t want ten polygon wheels on things – we give you options for turning everything off and going back to as classic a look as you can get.

PCGN: You’ve consulted with Native American tribal representatives to improve the civilisation’s depiction in the game. What changes have you made?

BB: One of the most shocking things we heard from them was in Native American history they never had gold mining or metallurgy. They didn’t really use that – and that’s a big part of Age of Empires. It’s one of the four main resources, so how do you work around that? We removed gold mining from them, but we replaced it with a mechanic of fur trading, so that’s how they get their commercial resource.

PCGN: Looking back, what’s your personal feeling on Age III? Why do you think it didn’t achieve the same long-term success as Age II?

AI: From a high-level point, Age III is a radical departure from Age I and II. If you think about what people expect of sequels, they think it’s going to be a new version of the thing they love. But Age III was not that. It was a completely different game, and that’s not to say it’s a bad game, it’s just very different. I think Ensemble Studios experimented with things that it just wouldn’t dare put into Age II. I applaud it for that. It’s cool to see it just go off in a completely different direction, but it does mean you’re going to leave a certain amount of people behind that won’t want to take the time to learn the new way to play.



JE: Personally, out of the three, it’s my favourite. I think it depends on your personality as well, and the other kinds of games that have brought you to that point.

AI: It’s got a meta card game in it. What other real-time strategy game has that? With the home cities, and making decks, they tried a lot of things, and it’s crazy! I’m glad it’s still as popular as it is, and people still find it fun and unique. Hopefully with the DE, and especially some of the things like Art of War, people will be able to get into it a little easier, and realise this is why this game is so cool.

PCGN: The addition of gunpowder units arguably made for less intricate battles – what do you think?

BB: It makes it different. This is also something that I went through as a kid – this gun counters this gun, which is a bit weird. But there are still so many counter systems and intricate interactions between all the units – this kind of cannon is good against this kind of cannon – that it may look the same on the first signs, but if you dive into it, it’s so much more complex than any other Age game out there.

PCGN: How did you choose the two new civilisations (Sweden and the Inca), and what will they bring to the mix?

BB: Sweden is interesting because it’s the first time we’ve had it in the whole franchise. When we looked at the history we realised that, although this is a small nation, it dominated the battlefields of Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. We had to look up why that was. They were very innovative with gunpowder, with their use of cavalry and mercenaries. Those are three things we have in Age III, so let’s put that together in a civ.

That also inspired their gameplay. If you play as Sweden, you’re very aggressive, trying to get all over the map, trying to get mercenaries shipped from basically every nation in Europe at the time. It’s truly a civilisation for the hardcore Age III fans. If you love Age III, you’re going to love Sweden, because it uses everything from Age III in that one civ.

On the other hand, the Inca are more for the Age II crowd that wants to get into Age III, because it’s more of a city builder civ. You can build your huge empire, your stone walls, your palaces, your citadels, whatever you want. So we have two very different civs, with a lot of variety.



PCGN: Finally, what are your favourite things about Age III: DE?

JE: Destruction in the game is just fabulous. You never quite tire of having a whole ton of units just rolling over and destroying other people’s stuff. We made huge efforts to change the physics system to a brand new Havok system, and take what we’d already done up to eleven. It’s great, it’s really satisfying.

AI: For me, it’s probably the update on the home cities and some of the shots that you can get from them. They look like pictures you would see of these places in the past, when they were in their prime. They’re so gorgeous. I think it just adds so much to the culture of the game and to be able to identify with a civilisation, to see one of their cities in its heyday.

Everything from a Native American version of a city, which is very different to, say, the Incas. It’s awesome to see that we’ve got that scope in the game, and as someone that wants to get people excited about history, I found it fun and compelling to be able to do those.

BB: For me, one of the most exciting things is the AI improvement. I love to play against the computer and ‘comp stomp’. I noticed as we improved the AI – and we did improve it quite a bit; we added a new ‘extreme’ difficulty level – we did not make the AI cheat more. We actually reduced the number of cheats and just made it better. It can micromanage now, it’s much better at picking units, reading the map, reading its opponent’s army. I noticed when I’m playing, ‘Damn, I have to look up build orders, and figure out how to play well to now beat the best AI!’.

AI: Didn’t you guys find some serious bugs? Like, there were whole swathes of units that weren’t being used when you were digging in the code, and the AI just wouldn’t build things?

BB: Yeah, the AI basically ignored half of the content in the game! Technologies and units – it wouldn’t even look at them or consider them. Now it uses everything!

AI: We’re just really excited for new people to discover Age III. It’s funny to say that it’s not as popular as Age II because Age II is so ridiculously popular, but Age III is still popular, it’s just that fewer people have had the chance to experience it. We’re all hoping that through the Definitive Edition, people will be able to find and discover the magic of what makes Age III so great. Because it is a unique game, even among RTS games. I’ve never played an RTS that does what it does.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
One of the first things we did, behind the scenes, was reach out to all the dedicated, die-hard players of Age III that have still been going and keeping the community alive. We went directly to them and said, ‘You’ve seen what we’ve done with the previous Definite Editions. What do you want?’ They generated this huge list, and I think we got almost every single request.

This is quite hopeful.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Indians are now authorized by the diversity police: https://www.ageofempires.com/news/interview-anthony-brave/

An Interview with Age of Empires III: DE Consultant, Anthony Brave

Anthony_Brave_And_Armor-526x1080.jpg


Anthony at the Xbox Headquarters in Redmond
As we get ready to launch Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition on October 15th, we’ll be diving deep into the development process to highlight the changes and updates that make it a truly definitive version of the game.

One area that’s seen a notable evolution from the original is the way we represent the Native American and First Nations civilizations. A key focus of our work at World’s Edge is to authentically represent the cultures and peoples that we depict in our games. In creating Age III: DE, we realized that we weren’t upholding that value as well as we could regarding the Indigenous North American cultures represented. So we set out to fix that: working directly with tribal consultants to respectfully and accurately capture the uniqueness of their peoples, history, and cultures. Returning players will find there’s been some changes to the Native American and First Nations civilizations, and we hope you find them as compelling as we do!

To give you some insight into the changes, why they were made, and how we worked with our tribal consultants, we’ll be sharing interviews with the individuals that helped guide us throughout the process. Our first piece is a discussion with Anthony Brave; we hope you enjoy getting to know Anthony and learning more about the work we did together.

♦ ♦ ♦

WORLD’S EDGE: A huge World’s Edge welcome to Anthony Brave—a Sicangu Oyate (Rosebud Sioux Tribe) and Chippewa-Cree descendant. Anthony was our lead cultural expert for the Indigenous peoples portrayed in Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition. He was also the writer of the new Shadow storyline (Act II of The War Chiefs). Thank you so much for spending more time with us!

WORLD’S EDGE: Could you please talk about the work you did with the Age of Empires team?
ANTHONY BRAVE: Sure. As a cultural consultant, I reviewed and then reported on Age III with attention to its depictions of Native American and Indigenous peoples. As for the writing, the request came as a surprise to me…but with a little encouragement, I decided to take the opportunity to change the narrative. It ended up being a lot of fun and a great learning experience too.

WORLD’S EDGE: We had fun too, and we learned a lot. Let’s dive straight into one of the biggest alterations in the DE based on feedback from our consultants: the name changes for the Sioux and Iroquois civs. Before we started working on the DE with our Native American and First Nations consultants, we didn’t know that the names Sioux and Iroquois were given to them by European settlers; so we have changed those civ names in the DE to their Indigenous names—Lakota (Sioux) and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois).

WORLD’S EDGE: Could you tell us what the word, Lakota, means, and why you still use the term “Sioux” in your bio?
ANTHONY BRAVE: We are Lakota, broadly, and Lakota people are historically made of up seven nations. One of those nations is Sicangu Oyate, which I belong to.

To oversimplify things, Sicangu Oyate eventually settled in a reservation called the “Rosebud Sioux Reservation.” Turns out the pejorative term, “Sioux,”* stuck and got bureaucratized in the treaty process. So, when I say I’m a Rosebud Sioux Tribal member, this is in reference to my official political status as a member of the Tribe. A bio is more of an official thing; when not doing the official thing, I prefer Sicangu Oyate, or simply Lakota.

* [Note: The name Sioux was first used by a rival tribe, and means “snakes.”]

WORLD’S EDGE: How did you come to work with World’s Edge?
ANTHONY BRAVE: Super randomly, actually. It was two summers ago in my role directing our annual summer Native youth camp (NY’EHE) at Washington State University. I had a meeting with our cultural advisors about how we could improve the camp while reviewing the draft of the schedule I came up with (even Native folks need Native advisors). I had put a video game-making workshop into the schedule, and after going over the workshop, one of our advisors from the Nimiipuu (Nez Perce Tribe), Josiah Pinkham, spoke on how important it was to have good Native representation in video games. He went on to share his story of how he worked with the team that rebooted Killer Instinct to improve Thunder and create Eagle. I immediately switched from being anxious that the advisors would approve the idea of a video game workshop to asking if he’d like to tell his story to the youth.

Long story short, it ended up being even better than I could have imagined as a camp planner: where Thomas tátlo Gregory (Nimiipuu/Nez Perce Language Team Leader) and Laura Hamilton (Global Readiness Manager, Xbox) gave a fantastic presentation to the Native youth before the workshop.

WORLD’S EDGE: You’re a hardcore gamer. What are your favorite games of all time?
ANTHONY BRAVE: HARDCORE TO THE MEGA!

Jokes aside, I have played a lot of games in my time…but what a tough question! I love playing Gears with my wife, Kate. Now that I think about it, many of my favorite gaming memories have been when games brought me closer to the people I care about: whether it was playing rummy with my grandma in Montana, playing chess with my step-dad, learning how to get through the World 3 dungeon in the original Super Mario Bros. with my older sister, or playing fighting games—like KI—with my best buds in the arcades. I now play Warzone—if only to chat with one of my best friends—as a more recent example.

Anthony_Brave_Gamer-e1600120552442.jpg


The young gamer, Anthony

Although it is certainly not everything to a game, representation means a great deal to me: not just on an intellectual level, but on an emotional level. Playing full-on Indigenous-made games like Elizabeth LaPenseé’s 2D adventure game, When Rivers Were Trails, gives me the chance to see myself and my people in a good way—which up until this point has been a rare case in video games.

WORLD’S EDGE: What was it about Elizabeth LaPenseé’s game that resonated with you as a person with Indigenous heritage?
ANTHONY BRAVE: There’s a lot of things. For starters, it is a space that allows players to react in Native ways. There are points in the game where you must make choices in how you handle a given situation, but one of the differences in this game is there are Native options to choose from as reactions to situations. For example, you can pull out a hand-drum and sing or offer tobacco in reaction to a situation, which I’ve never seen in any other game I’ve played up until this point.

Then there’s the sheer diversity of Native people you meet along your journey. Apparently there were around 30 other Native writers from a variety of Tribes as a part of the project—bringing their stories into the game. At first I thought it was cool—like on an intellectual level—but after hours of play and meeting Native people in a video game, something happened; I felt overwhelmed with a joyful feeling. At that moment, I realized I hadn’t played a video game made by and for Natives. I guess I had been wishing for something like this for a long time, but hadn’t fully realized it until that moment happened.

WORLD’S EDGE: Your work has been so valuable to our storytelling and representation of Lakota people. What were some of the most important changes you requested in Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition?
ANTHONY BRAVE: To be honest: there were times playing the game as a Lakota guy—as me—that felt pretty cringey. For example, the Fire Pit is pretty bad—not to mention the skulls on spikes at, like, all Indigenous villages in the main game. The mining was just nonsensical for Native people, too.

WORLD’S EDGE: Could you explain why having Indigenous North Americans mining made you feel that way? You’re not the only Native American or First Nations consultant who pointed that out to us.
ANTHONY BRAVE: Mining is pretty antithetical to Native values in general. We are taught to respect the land as our mother and be in good relations with it. Mining is a form of exploitation of the land, and we would never treat our mother like that.

WORLD’S EDGE: We ended up changing the Mining mechanic to the Tribal Marketplace, which allows for an alternative method to gather Coin. We then worked with top players in an early closed beta environment to ensure that it’s still fun and balanced. You mentioned the Fire Pit game mechanic too. What was it about the Fire Pit that was offensive and/or hurtful to Indigenous Peoples?
ANTHONY BRAVE: Although I don’t think the original creators intended it this way, the Fire Pit was pretty offensive…for a number of reasons. It hit me as soon as I saw it, and immediately brought to my mind these old stereotypes of Natives dancing around the fire like wild savages. Upon contact, Native people weren’t considered human by their western counterparts—but as wild animals without souls. If anything was wild, however, it was the imagination of colonists; we all had robust societies, cultures, governing structures, languages, histories, etc., and certainly weren’t wild or savage.

The Fire Pit works magically in that having people dance around a fire somehow gives warriors on the battlefield more power. On the other hand, the Western people get power through logical means: like the development of technology or increasing their capacity for war by developing their forts. This perpetuates the old, tired “savage vs civilized” dichotomy.

It’s also like, for all Indigenous people, there is the Fire Pit: like a one-size-fits-all thing, which just doesn’t work given how different we all are as Indigenous peoples.

Having something like the Fire Pit be so central to the game’s play continues to reinforce these rather pernicious notions about us. With its presence, it subtly says, “it’s okay to utilize these kinds of images of Native people.” Unless we change these kinds of representations—big or small—in a way, we will all be stuck dancing around a Fire Pit.

Anthony_Brave_Noble.jpg


Anthony meets with Age of Empires Narrative Director Noble Smith to discuss Age III: Definitive Edition in the World’s Edge QA lab
WORLD’S EDGE: Based on the feedback we got from you and other consultants, we changed the Fire Pit to the Community Plaza (a building where Villagers work together to create benefits for your civilization) and went through the same beta process to balance this.

WORLD’S EDGE: We also removed the “Nature Friendship” ability from the Native American and First Nations civs in the game. Can you explain why this was an important and necessary change?
ANTHONY BRAVE: This trope seems particularly prevalent in video games to the point where it seems like if there is a Native character in a video game, that character must have animal powers. When it gets that entrenched, it would be good to stop the dancing around that pit as well.

WORLD’S EDGE: Just so our readers know, the removal of Nature Friendship has also been adjusted in the game with alternative abilities that have also been through the same balance testing as the other adjustments.

WORLD’S EDGE: Now, let’s talk about Crazy Horse—who means a lot to you. Who was he? Why was he such an important figure in the history of this country?
ANTHONY BRAVE: First off, when I saw Crazy Horse, I was also like “Who’s this Iron-Eyes Cody looking Crazy Horse?!” I had a hard time following the story, at times, because every time I saw Crazy Horse I was so perplexed. There were no known photos taken of Crazy Horse, although there are oral descriptions of him…and this was nothing like I had imagined.

Iron-Eyes Cody (for those who don’t know) was this Sicilian guy who masqueraded in Hollywood as a Native American. He was cast as the Native guy in a now infamous commercial from the 70’s with the tear going down his cheek after someone threw trash at him…which is actually hilarious if you think about it.

Crazy Horse was an issue for me: not just in the way he looked, but the fact that he seemed to be appropriated just to spice up a “Native” storyline. Crazy Horse being this great Lakota leader was a hero of mine growing up—as closely as I can say I had any heroes—and his role in the original Shadow storyline trivializes who he really was.

WORLD’S EDGE: And so when you saw him portrayed in the game, you felt like a game was not an appropriate place for a revered personage like him?
ANTHONY BRAVE: I think a game can have Crazy Horse in it, but it has to be done right: with great care, thought, and research from the beginning…not just in how he is represented, but also with the kind of context the game creates. In this case, it just didn’t seem very dignifying for someone of his standing. I would also add that if you wanted to depict Crazy Horse, you should reach out to his maternal family to get permission.

WORLD’S EDGE: You rewrote the Shadow storyline. Could you explain what was problematic about the original story and what changes you made to the plot?
ANTHONY BRAVE: The main things I wanted was to have Chayton be more relatable and to offer another kind of mentor for him in the form of his uncle…who is an intentionally fictional, but bit more rounded-out character.

The original story wrote Chayton as a Native guy who wasn’t really Native. He knew nothing about Lakota culture, history, or his family; on top of that he was just incredibly naïve—to the degree that he was somehow shocked there was trouble between Native folks and settlers. Like, what timeline are you living in, bro?

WORLD’S EDGE: We love the new version of Chayton, and also your creation of the Lakota elder, Uncle Warbonnet (aka Uncle Frank), to replace Crazy Horse. Could you talk about Uncle Frank and what he means to you?
ANTHONY BRAVE: Uncle Warbonnet is Chayton’s Uncle. We kept the fact that Chayton’s father was Lakota. I wanted to lean into that. I wanted Chayton to have a mentor figure who had a natural connection to him. In Lakota culture, it’s not uncommon for an uncle to take care of his nieces or nephews if their father is unable to do so. This being the case, I decided to create a new character—which was Uncle “Frank” Warbonnet—in replacement of Crazy Horse.

Folks might wonder what’s up with naming him Frank. The history is that many native folks were “given” missionary names back in those days, which were obviously not their traditional names. Given this history, I took the opportunity to put a little ironic humor into it and flip things around; for a people who have been misnamed as “Indians” for over 500 years, it’s hard not to have a sense of humor about these things.

UncleFrank_FeatureLogo-1080x608.jpg


Chayton meeting with his Uncle Warbonnet (aka Uncle Frank)
WORLD’S EDGE: What elements of the story change—if any—resonated strongly or personally with you?
ANTHONY BRAVE: I like the buffalo (bison) theme…which kept coming up in my mind when I was writing. To me, they are a symbol of strength and resilience. They also don’t hesitate to teach someone a lesson if that person gets too close.

WORLD’S EDGE: If our players are interested to learn more about the Lakota people and the breadth of Native American people and cultures, what further resources would you recommend to them?
ANTHONY BRAVE: My advice: if you want to get to know someone or a community, it’s about building good relations—which, as we know, can take a whole lot of time, energy, and care. And like all relationships, there aren’t any guarantees.

It’s hard to really do justice to the incredible diversity and dynamism of Native and Indigenous peoples, but I’m happy to give a couple recommendations:

One is a podcast called “All My Relations,” which (at this time) is in its second season. It’s great for Native and non-Native folks alike. It’s not only filled with tons of laughter and love, but is a great crash course on the contemporary issues Native communities and people are facing. I highly recommend it.

If you want to dig into representation a bit more, give the documentary out there called Reel Injun a watch; it’s not hard to find.

WORLD’S EDGE: We’ve found working with Native American consultants to be incredibly educational and we’re so thankful for your help and support. We hope that this improved representation will inspire and educate others as it has us. Are there any examples of media that better represent Native American peoples and cultures that you could recommend our players seek out?
ANTHONY BRAVE: It’s the media made by and with Indigenous folks that do the best job with representation. For a start, go play When Rivers Were Trails, Thunderbird Strike, Umurangi Generation, Terra Nova, and Never Alone. If you want a contemporary book to read, check out Tommy Orange’s book,There There, or Heart Berries by Therise Mailhot. For the movie buffs out there, I would suggest The Fast Runner, Powwow Highway, and Smoke Signals is still a good one.

There’s really so much out there, way more than these suggestions…

WORLD’S EDGE: Is there anything you’d like to communicate directly to people who’ll be playing our changed and new Native American and First Nations content in Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition?
ANTHONY BRAVE: The entire team put an incredible effort into improving this game. I hope you enjoy it…especially the Lakota parts.

♦ ♦ ♦

Another huge thanks to Anthony Brave for joining us! Watch for more interviews with Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition Native American and First Nations consultants in the weeks to come, and be sure to pre-order Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition to check out all of the changes for yourself this October!
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom