A Conjecture about the Next New Civilization

pleas refrain from calling other people names.

2 Likes

My prediction of future DLCs for 2023:

  1. December 2022 - Brasilians civ solo DLC

  2. April 2023 - Middle Eastern DLC (Arabians & Persians civs)

  3. August 2023 - Southern America DLC #1 (Argentinians & Gran Colombians) [Gran Colombians civ included Muisca like Mexicans civ included Mayans]

  4. December 2023 - Southern America DLC #2 (Mapuche civs & Tupi civs)

10 Likes

no way 3 out of the next 4 DLCs are south american.

9 Likes

Most people thought that about Malta and unfortunately, they were wrong.

I hope you’re right though. Canada would be a horrible option for a civ. The concept of a “Canadian identity” is very forced and modern. Even after confederation, people would still just identify as either British citizens, Natives/Metis, or Quebecois.

The only notable historical events to base a Canadian civ on would be the Red River Rebellion and North-West Rebellion. However, that conflict could be better covered by the inclusion of a Cree/Iron Confederacy civ with some Metis elements.

8 Likes

Dreams


Potentially add Prussians and Swiss civs and rename Germans into Holy Roman Empire.

I think that’s overkill. The Swiss are more appropriate for AoE2 or AoE4 since they weren’t really internationally relevant after the Burgundian and Swabian wars. The exception to that would be the Helvetic Republic but that was just a French puppet state.

Prussia and Austria cover the rest of the German realms quite well. Prussia covers northern Protestant regions that eventually became the North German confederation and later Germany. Austria covers the southern Catholic regions and the non-German peoples of the HRE and beyond.

2 Likes

I would bet a million of your currency it’s not going to be Canada.

We’re talking about the Early Modern Era, the age of exploration, the age of sail, the age of enlightenment and the age of revolutions.

Now looks at a few current civs:

British: famous for the redcoats, naval warfare and generally being very industrious during this time

French: for most of the time one of the strongest armies, with formidable cavalry and rugged colonial settlers

USA: civ that revolted from the mother country with its own identity and quirks - famously using militia skirmishing units to keep the Brits at bay as well as their own unique regulars.

Then:
Canada: Was part of the British ‘civ’ for the majority of AOE3’s timeline, becoming Self-Governing in 1867 but even then, still part of the British Empire until 1982.

3 Likes

And no way we’re getting six civs next year when this year we got two.

4 Likes

lets just say some have wild expectations, but ey, we’re not in 2023 yet, who knows how it’ll go

1 Like

Persians, Poles and Danes.

They might add Brazil, seeing as they already added 2 post-colonial civs which i’m personally not a fan but might as well do that one next.

7 Likes

Nothing should stop them from adding Prussia, but unfortunately, they have explicitly stated they will not do it multiple times. Prior to the last update, little would need to be done to split them, but now they’ve gone and added completely unnecessary cards like Landwhers that would best be removed and made into a unique Prussian musketeer.

I think you misunderstand me. Prussia and Austria absolutely fit and I am 100% onboard with having both of them. Prussia could even have the more modern state adding age up that the revolutionary civs have.

If you’re talking about the revolutionary civs then they 100% do not fit as full civs. Mexico or USA in 1500 are completely absurd and do not belong. The timeframe of AoE3 is more condensed, but that doesn’t justify having civs that only lasted for mere decades (USA, Mexico, & Aztecs). At least with the questionable civs in AoE2 there were longer lasting holdouts like the Crimean Goths or Hephthalites.

1 Like

No I understand you clearly. No need to be hyperbolic. The imaginary timeline is clearly something that only exists in fairyland as no one seems to have an idea of where the timeline of aoe3 takes place instead using their own biases as a basis. I’ve heard some hilarious examples of this.

1 Like

mmm siento que tener tanto a godos como Españoles en el aoe 2 si es incorrecto, incluso el termino de “España” naceria en los 1500, incluso hay facciones que por cronologia no deberian de estar en el juego tardio como los hunos

yo al aoe 3 lo veo como un gigantesco what if

3 Likes

its pretty obvious the game goes to ca 1876. like thats the last campaign/historical battle reference and there isnt anything more modern in the game (no machineguns, no battleships, no backloading artillery) things developed fast around this periode, if they saw the game as going to 1900 we would have seen more exotic units and tech than we do.

There’s a card called boxer rebellion in the chinese homecity. Aoe3 was a mess when it came to development so it’s not surprising to see such awkwardness. Also the DE devs have shown that they are willing to add units and the like to better represent the time period and who’s to say they won’t add things like breech loading artillery which were definitely something that could be added in late game in fact artillery units are completely dull and in no way indicative of development during the timeline.

It is not imaginary, there are tons of historical references in the game that can be used to pin down the timeline.

The endpoint is ~1900 since there are no references that did not exist before 1899. There are things like the Boxer Rebellion or Porfirato that lasted longer, but their beginning is before that. I think you can discount the Indonesian revolution as a hypothetical (like most revolutions).

The earliest possible starting point would be 1492 since the original game was set in the new world and only had European factions. There are a few references that are quite a bit earlier such as the Chinese campaign and the Italian Marco Polo card. The Marco Polo reference is such an outlier that I think it’s just a stand in for a Columbus reference since he has been demonized in recent times.

If a civ only appears for a small fraction of that time period it is a very bad fit. Civilizations like USA and Mexico certainly have a place in the latter half of the time period, but it is inaccurate and counterproductive to shoehorn them in centuries before their existence.

1 Like

Yes the timeline is aztec and Incan conquest by the spanish to the very end of the 19th century. As long as they are in the timeline they can be in the game. Literally no other aoe game has this needlessly nitpicky requirement that only biased players who think they know better than the developers of the game seem to have. Honestly this moaning and groaning about the timeline that everyone has their own version of is as embarrassingly funny as a bunch of white people getting mad that the native american dances were removed for obvious reasons.

1 Like

so few counter points:

  1. the boxers existed before the actual uprising.

  2. its a reference to a political movement not a technology, in fact boxers IRL often used melee weapons.

because its fundamentally a different world one lives in once that becomes a thing, the game is about line infantry, by the point of breech-loaders in artillery line infantry was dying out. by that point we might as well add cars and tanks into the game.

things developed insanely fast in the 1800s, a ship built in the 1850s was hopeless against one built in the 1890s, not before nor since has technology developed so fast and to such a degree that that happens.

1876 is already pushing it when it comes to the tech we actually see in the game, but reluctantly one has to acknowledge the campaign which is in 1876. after that we start seeing repeater rifles, machineguns, back loading artillery and battleships, things that outdid any weapon before it so badly small european armies could overcome forces 10s of times larger than themselves with ease.

as a civilian in 1750 you had about 20% chance to live in a city, by 1900 over half of europe lives in cities.

1 Like

Breech loading cannons have been a thing since the medieval ages and were used in the american civil war which is exactly the late period timeline. The first modern breech loaders can be traced back to the crimea war and even earlier which is 1850’s. Also the heavy cannon has an explosive round so a breech loader could just be a faster firing cannon with more emphasis on splash damage. We have ironclads that used breech loaders as their main source of armament in real life. Hell the mortars being used are based on civil war era weapons. Don’t just skim through Wikipedia next time please. No one uses this argument about gatling guns which were designed specifically to kill line infantry and render war obsolete.

Edit I have removed the unnecessary “you don’t know” comment. Sorry.

AoE2 would like to have a word. Those fans can complain about anything.

At this point, there is clearly no reasonable criteria to limit civ selection. Malta has demonstrated absolutely anything is fair game and a capybara civ is probably next. That being said, the ones that are wildly outside of the timeline are a big detriment to the game. Revolutions went from being an exciting way to get advanced and unique units to being a redundant mess. There is no unit progression based on technology going from archaic bow to early guns and finally advanced artillery. Now there are civs that start off with modern rifles and Gatling Guns at the same time others get primitive cannons. On the other end, there are civs like Aztecs that fight with sticks and stones because they simply didn’t exist in modern times.

1 Like