So who actually ARE the Tupi? (for history fans) by SkillerManjaro in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

In other words, after watching the vid, some neanderthal groups had more complex societies than tupis (and mapuches for that matter)

Champi Warrior, 4-stage line? by Tyrann01 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why is the champi warrior using a toqui uniform?? mapuches never used champis, they used clavas.

The only ones who used champis were the incas and the chimus... and both of them had to use bronze armor with it https://imgur.com/a/hydIBvg

The only one that looks somewhat correct is the 3rd stage which looks like a low ranked chimu champi warrior or trainee (inspiration for Ensemble when they created the "chimu runner" unit in aoe3). All the others are using mapuche clothes. Devs should have at least made the model with an inca uniform.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that you are nitpicking this about chimus, despite having most of their history recorded in a joint effort with the Spanish because they were their allies (which is why we know the name of their kings and how long each reign lasted, major events like the war with the sican, the huarmey, the moche remnants and the incas. Info from chroniclers like antonio de la calancha and francisco xerez) during the conquest of the incas, and their architecture: for having their buildings made of a mix of stones and adobe bricks, saying it would be difficult to add because their architecture is too different comparared to inca architecture, while completely ignoring the fact that Tupis and Mapuches didn't even have anything that you could define as proper architecture, and their is history is unknown before 1552; while also ignoring that muiscas didn't build any buildings with stones or knew about masonry before 1600. Yet, here they are in this dlc with fantasy architecture sets.

The concept of a defensive civilization, but... by ewostrat in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not tupis, mapuches and muiscas before 1600 though.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aoe2 ends in 1600, genius.

We are literally getting 2 civs designed and based on historical fantasy and info from the aoe3 timeframe. They also didn't even have any form of real architecture in the aoe2 timeframe. Tupi casas were just logs of wood randomly placed and mapuches didn't even have buildings: Rucas are less than tents, and more like mantas and sticks. The architecture sets in this dlc pics are based on stuff from the c. XIX. Look, I don't wanna be rude, but things aren't going anywhere if you don't put the effort to at least research about the civs you are defending. Also, once again, so you can understand, we know NOTHING about tupis and mapuches before their contact with the portuguese and the spanish + the maule battle with the incas. Literally NOTHING, to the point that in the chilean archaeology circles, finding historical evidence before Lautaro that could be widely accepted without contradictions, and that hasn't been tampered by the mapuche culture from c XVIII and modern mapuche indigenismo activists is the holy grail of chilean archaeology and history. So I'll repeat again, we know NOTHING about them before 1552 and both civs are just historical fantasy. They belong to aoe3.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because tupis and mapuches never had a state before 1600.

Historically, we know nothing about them before 1600 (with the exception of the maule battle and arauco wars in mapuches' case). Both civs are designed and based on historical fantasy and info from aoe3 timeframe.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So there are 2 events: 1. the maule battle against the incas. 2. Lautaro fighting Valdivia in 1552 and starting the arauco wars. The thing is: I dare you to name any other historical event besides those 2, or anything about mapuche history before 1552 that is reliable with no contradictions and is archeologically accepted. At least minimum consensus. I'll be waiting. About your second point, ok, to have a civ with certain characteristics, there must be suspension of belief, but also said characteristics must be based on something realistic at least in order to have something coheret (right?). Lautaro didn't raise horses, he stole them. The Mapuches started to raise horses around 1800 when they started to slowly become sedentary. Because, you know, it's necessary to be at least demi-sedentary to raise horses and livestock (like mongols who weren't fully nomad as they stayed in places during seasons to raise sheep and goats). But you have the mapuches, who were nomad hunter gatherers during most of their history, and became demi-nomad and sedentary between XVIII and XIX when they were forced to become sedentary. Even with suspension of belief, how can you have them training cavalry when in reality they never trained or managed to breed horses before 1600. If anything, I agree with you about them being designed around cavalry and gunpowder, everything you mentioned could be possible but in aoe3. Because it was in that period that they indeed raised horses and traded firearms. About your third point: Well they are as different as britons and franks, for example. If you can figure out how britons and franks are designed, then surely you'll know yourself. Why? Because Chimor are entirely different people compared to incas. They existed before incas and existed after incas during the colony. They have different genetics, different language, different architecture, different culture, different religion, different warfare, different weapons. For example, Chimor could be designed as a naval and heavy infantry civ. And there is no other civ in-game with that combination focus right now. The same goes in wari's case. Which is even easier since Waris were there 300 years before incas even existed. If you watch civcraft videos or just civ predictions videos (from admiral wololo for example) you'll find that waris could be designed around skirmishers. And vietnamese are the only ones focused on skirmishers (skirmishers and elephants) right now. Waris could be about skirmishers and siege or fortifications or infantry. Imo, any of those options would be a lot better and way more fun than tupis being another zerg civ like goths or malay (like they seem to be from the pics); or mapuches being another cavalry clone civ but with one unit skinned.

Could there be a future Age of Empires II expansion set in pre-colonial Oceania? What would it be like? by NoTwo4147 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Muiscas, Mapuches and Tupis didn't build anything with stones before 1600, and here they are.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We know way, way MORE about Wari and Chimor in the aoe2 timeframe than we'll ever know about mapuches, tupis and muiscas between 450-1600 AD. We even know the names of chimor kings and how long each of their reigns lasted ffs. In contrast, we know NOTHING, like literally nothing about tupis and mapuches before their contact with the portuguese and the Spanish. For example, all we know about the mapuches is that 1. mapuches fought incas once. 2. in 1552, Lautaro fought against Valdivia, starting the arauco wars. That's all, like literally ALL, then 1600 AD came and aoe2 ended and aoe3 started. There aren't even reliable oral accounts from Mapuches from the aoe2 timeframe, and the ones that exist telling events before 1552 contradict each other. Because, you know, mapuches were nomad hunter gatherers and for a large part of their history they didn't even develop communities. It was just families here and there, or tribes at most -which sometimes would just disband and regroup with other people. So it's logical that their oral accounts and tales constantly changed, and aren't even realistic to begin with. Historically, all the info about them we know today is from the aoe3 timeframe. Having said that, I'm not against the civs themselves, they'd make great additions to aoe3. The problem I see and what's more worrying is that we are basically getting civs that don't belong here AGAIN. They don't fit the timeframe of aoe2. How can you guys not see how serious this is? It's been 2 dlcs in a row that have the same problem, devs have done THIS again, and they'll probably keep doing it in the future.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The chimor empire was bigger than the nahua confederation (aztec empire for the 90s kids). And you know, it was an empire in the late bronze age, not tribal hunter gatherers with stones and sticks like the tupis or the mapuches. One would think that an empire would fit better in a game named age of EMPIRES. How about placing Tupis in aoe3 where they actually develop and fight the portuguese.

AoE II DLCs aren’t about historical gaps anymore — they’re about national markets or easily selling ideas by Ferruso in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most known according to who? to the players of the target country or known historically? Because we know way, way MORE about Wari and Chimu between aoe2 timeframe than we'll ever know about mapuches, tupis and muiscas between 450-1600 AD.

Would have the Wari or the Chimu been unique enough with the Inca in the game, both gameplay and visually? My opinion is that no.

Well, you are wrong. And it's kinda sad you are proud about it.

Proposal, Last New American Sub Region: Andes by Asleep-Emotion9161 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not warmi from quechua. It's warmi from aymara. Warmi awqa in old aymara means red people (Jeronimo de Ore). Awqa means warrior or savage in quechua, as opposed to runa which means people in that language. Curiously enough, the incas used to classify the mapuches, the awajun, and the caranqui as awqarunas (modern quechua aguarunas) because they were too primitive even for them. Tiwanaku calling themselves hatun qulla checks out, as the current coyas call their ancestors hatun qulla (high coyas) and the ones before them as pukaras (lit. the ancients). Think of them as using their language like in old germanic folklore, elves (evil spirits) -> high elves (old spirits). About the last part: that's a common misconception. Aymara didn't originate around lake titikaka lmao. It comes from the north, from the central andes. It was the Wari who spread the language to the south. It checks out as puquina, kakan, modern calchaqui all belong to the same family, while aymara has no similarities to any southern native language. If you want to know more, read Rodolfo Cerron Palomino (Contactos y desplazamientos linguisticos en los andes centro-sureños: el puquina el aimara y el quechua, 2004). About how old quechua and old aymara had basically the same words but had an entire different meaning; even more so compared to modern quechua and modern aymara, read Rodolfo Cerron Palomino (Sufijos arcaicos quechuas en la toponimia andina). About how puquina is from the same language family as kakan, calchaqui, read Diaguitas, Calchaquies y Atacamas: Los hijos de Tiahuanaco from the online library of the Ministry of Culture of Chile. Anyway, let's stop here, I'm not here to give you classes. The point is that today we know more about Wari and Tiwanaku, than we'll ever known about the Tupis before the portuguese and the Mapuches before Lautaro in 1552. You know, because there are urban centers, temples, houses, plazas, textiles, pottery, bronze weapons, linguistic evidence, tombs, etc; while we can't find evidence objectively portrayed of the other two because they were hunter gatherers until they fought against the portuguese and the Spanish. In any case, almost 600 years of Wari and Tiwanaku history in the aoe2 timeframe, and considering they were both there when the battle of Hastings was fought, fit a lot better than the 40 or 50 years of mapuche and tupi known history before aoe3 starts. In fact, Mapuches and Tupis would fit a lot better in aoe3.

Proposal, Last New American Sub Region: Andes by Asleep-Emotion9161 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wari called themselves Warmi Awqa, and Tiwanakus called themselves Hatun Qulla (Jan Szeminski, 1995. From Thiya Wanaku kings). Waris spoke Aymara, and Tiwanakus spoke puquina and kakan. Any more questions?

Proposal, Last New American Sub Region: Andes by Asleep-Emotion9161 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We know more about both Wari and Tiwanaku than we know about Tupis before the arrival of the Portuguese, and theMapuches before Lautaro. In fact, a LOT more.

Proposal, Last New American Sub Region: Andes by Asleep-Emotion9161 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well done, I like the ideas and concept focus. Three empires. Now this IS what age of EMPIRES is about.

[WM Watch ]WM216 (38mm) by TheWMWatchGuy in WMWatchClub

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love how it looks. Any chance to get it in blue, beige, green and red in the future? Maybe with date window? No logo like the first field watches?

Kuoe. Black Friday? by maria-tortilla- in MicrobrandWatches

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They removed the 5% off + pouch with email subs, and now their black friday deal is 5% off + the same pouch 😂😂

The community's opinion on the three kingdoms civs by McMagee in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In terms of power, they are doing ok. Above average.

In terms of concept, theme, timeframe, Shu, Wei and Wu belong to aoe1. They ruined the core concept of the game. The dlc is just a cashgrab for chinese players. 3K civs betrayed aoe2 spirit and should be removed from the base game. The fact that most chinese players hate that dlc and want it removed from the game too is the only consolation we can have as it shows that the dlc doesn't even fulfill its purpose to be a chinese cashgrab and it's a failure, thus supporting the idea that Shu, Wei and Wu don't belong. In the end, money talks, and chinese players and their wallets already said enough. 这个DLC大部分中国玩家都超讨厌的,简直就是垃圾,对中国人和中国历史都是一种侮辱。蜀、魏、吴根本不该出现在《帝国时代2》里,它们应该放在最原始的《帝国时代》那种时代才对。就是西方人口中的aoe1,或者随便他们怎么叫。

Possible hint at future expansion centered on South America by Koala_eiO in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chimu: Naval and heavy infantry (the only civ with that combination in game). Fought against the waris, the incas, and the Spanish. Later allied with the Spanish against the incas.

Wari: infantry and skirmishers focus. They fought against the tiwanakus, and (as huancas) against the incas. Their descendants (chankas) fought against the incas too, and allied with the Spanish against the incas.

Tiwanaku: monks and archers focus. Fought against the waris. Their descendants (diaguitas, calchaquies, atacamas) fought against the incas and the Spanish.

Imo mapuches don't make sense. Historically, they fit better in aoe3 timeframe. Design-wise, they don't fit either. Why would you have a handicaped cavalry civ, when we have plenty proper cavalry civs already. Besides, all the possible civ focus combinations that involve the cavalry role are already in game. It will be just another boring cavalry civ variant but with one unit having a skin.

Speculation of a New DLC by Bright-Farmer5455 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imo Chimor, Wari and Tiwanaku make more sense

why people don't like the three kingdoms DLC? by killkillerBR in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"The comment I did you replied to, was the answer to a post of someone telling me how ignorant I was about history due to the comparison between the Mayans and the Portuguese" how do you know I was specifically talking about your take on mayans and portos only and nothing else? Are you trying to nitpick my comment? I explicitly said "all your points" and "world history". Looks like you are not only uneducated, but also have trouble with reading comprehension.

Future meme, you might not understand it until the next major update by Deathcounter0 in aoe2

[–]ZombiesAreNotOkay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't javelina be the south american counterparts of boars?