Incas added as well?!?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

incas were almost in the stoneage then...i dont see any point to add such primates

I would not wade into a topic if you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. They were far more advanced than the Aztecs in military terms and had their successes against the Spanish also.

[edyzmedieval]

If you check the E3 video interview with some lead programmer(forgot his name), he said that the Aztecs are UNPLAYABLE. He never mentioned Incas or Mayans anyhow.

But he indeed mentioned tons of other stuff, including the fact that they worked very hard on the AI part.

[Keba]

Oddly enough, here's a quote from the site:

... the Aztecs and Mayans in the New World, ...

It's written when you open the factions selection thingy. Seems like 21 skirmish and multiplayer factions are not the whole thing.

[Avicenna]

I think the Mayans had disappeared by then. The theory is that temperature change brought a long drought which wiped out the civilisation. Anyway, I'll stop there since it isn't the Monastery.

The use of copper doesn't seem smart.. obsidian should be sharper and not dent as easily. It is also probably easier to extract and process, and won't gradually oxidise like copper will.

The Incans and Mayans were very advanced, in astronomy and mathematics. Don't be so quick to condemn them just because all you know about them is that they had primitive weapons. These weapons were enough to defeat quite a few Spaniards anyway, it was only the local hatred of the Aztecs which allowed the Spaniards to successfully conquer most of South America.

[Mikeus Caesar]

The Incans and Mayans were very advanced, in astronomy and mathematics. Don't be so quick to condemn them just because all you know about them is that they had primitive weapons. These weapons were enough to defeat quite a few Spaniards anyway, it was only the local hatred of the Aztecs which allowed the Spaniards to successfully conquer most of South America.

Yeah, theoretically, the Spaniards should have been beaten back by these 'primates'. It was only in-fighting between the Aztecs that allowed the Spanish to conquer South America.

[Colin Wright]

Yeah, theoretically, the Spaniards should have been beaten back by these 'primates'. It was only in-fighting between the Aztecs that allowed the Spanish to conquer South America.

Add smallpox. To a large extent, the Spanish were unwittingly following the chaos spread by their diseases and mopping up. Both the Aztec and Inca empires had been totally disrupted by this disease by the time the Spanish physically appeared on the scene.

Remember the Aztecs and Incas were both societies where the ruler derived his authority from the notion that he was a link between the people and the gods. If half the people are dying from some unknown virulent disease, nothing the High Inca does helps, and then newcomers appear who seem to be immune, (a) obviously the High Inca or whatever is out of favor with the Divine, and (b) those new folks must be right in what they're saying; they're in with the Man.

Add the horses, the guns, and the armor. These people look really strange, have magical powers, and God likes them -- in fact, they might be God. Sure: you go ahead and fight them.

[Watchman]

use of copper doesn't seem smart.. obsidian should be sharper and not dent as easily. It is also probably easier to extract and process, and won't gradually oxidise like copper will.

Copper's the first metal people started using after they got beyond stone. How the heck they came by the idea of adding tin to it to make bronze I've no clue of, but let me point out any quasi-decent metal has one major advantage over "lithic" materials - it's reusable. Copper axehead gets broken ? No prob, melt it down and cast a new one. Stone or obsidian breaks ? SUX 2 B U, get a whole new piece.

Metals are also a fair bit more malleable, and allow easier manufacture of many goods. I've no idea of how long it took to work out one of those "boat-axe" battleaxes of Late Stone Age Europe, but I'm willing to bet a whole lot of money casting the copper versions (whose casting seams, curiously enough, the stone types often imitate) was way faster and less labour-intensive.

Copper and similar soft metals would logically also have the advantage of simply deforming where a comparable stone item would break. If you're trying to get through some Spanish steel armour with a heavy "mass" weapon, I'd say the former is a way lesser problem than the latter...

[Trax]

IIRC the Incas already used bronze to some extent in 16th century.

And the Mayans were still around, just their golden age was over.
Their last city (Tayasal) fell to the Spanish in 1696.

[Colin Wright]

I would not wade into a topic if you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. They were far more advanced than the Aztecs in military terms and had their successes against the Spanish also.

The problem with describing people as 'stone age' is that acquisition of metal-making skills just isn't much of a benchmark for how civilized or sophisticated a people are.

If you read much in the field of pre-history, you'll find the terms 'stone age,' 'bronze age,' 'iron age' tend to have fallen out of favor. The reason's fairly obvious: who's more advanced, the Zulu or the Maya? The Zulu have iron weapons - they must be way ahead of the Maya, who only have stone? Well, what about details like cities, monumental architecture, a system of writing, a highly elaborated social system? It's like figuring some punk with an X-box is way ahead of the Pope because the Pope happens to be happy with his old Windows 95 computer.

Metallurgy by itself certainly is useful: aside from beating hell out of your neighbors with first bronze and then iron (copper by itself is great for jewelry and that's about it), once you have iron your agriculture will go nuts. However, using the metallurgy alone to judge how advanced a civilization is is like judging how wealthy people are by the car they drive; easy to be way off.

[Orda Khan]

None of the south American additions interest me in the least, I think CA could have concentrated more on the main map area and provided more historically accurate details and factions

........Orda

[B-Wing]

None of the south American additions interest me in the least, I think CA could have concentrated more on the main map area and provided more historically accurate details and factions

I actually agree with you, but if they are going to include some of the Americas, I would like to see as much as possible.

Before that preview, I assumed that the Incan empire was located too far to the south to be in the game. But since the preview specificly mentioned Brazil, the Americas map must be huge, nearly as big as the map of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. I'm guessing they don't intend to try to fit it all on the same map, but instead have two seperate ones, minus most of the Atlantic Ocean. At least that would make more sense to me.

So, if they're going to include the area of land controlled by the Incan empire, I'd think they'd include the empire. . . Or maybe the GameSpy guy just had his South American geography all wrong and misassociated some piece of land with Brazil.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Incans had a huge, well organized, well run empire, with an efficient government. To say they were in the stone age is absurd.

The only reason the Spanish beat the Incans was because they came in the middle of a civil war, and launched an excellent ambush. Before that, there are reports of the Spanish troops soiling themselves at the sight of the Incan army.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

To say they were in the stone age is absurd.

It is, however, technically correct. However you look at it, their technology base was stone period.

The level of sophistication found in other areas is wholly irrelevant to that. Put this way - however you look at it, Bronze Age Egypt was gazillion times as sophisticated, organized and cultured as Dark Ages Europe well into the Iron Age...

The "X" Age nomination is only an all-purpose header that describes the chief raw material for tools a civilization is based on (usually in terms of weapons manufacture), as well as acting as a rough but usefully linear era-divisor when talking about the Old World.

Anyone who takes it to signify anything more should really study a bit more IMHO.

[The Stranger]

It is, however, technically correct. However you look at it, their technology base was stone period.

The level of sophistication found in other areas is wholly irrelevant to that. Put this way - however you look at it, Bronze Age Egypt was gazillion times as sophisticated, organized and cultured as Dark Ages Europe well into the Iron Age...

The "X" Age nomination is only an all-purpose header that describes the chief raw material for tools a civilization is based on (usually in terms of weapons manufacture), as well as acting as a rough but usefully linear era-divisor when talking about the Old World.

Anyone who takes it to signify anything more should really study a bit more IMHO.

youre right but he calls them primates. he should get a history book or shut up. they were just as advanced as europe in those days. gunpowder doesnt equal civilisation