I would accept Greece as a México revolution if it means having them in the game
Muy interesante, conocía la historia pero a grandes rasgos; sabía que la República de Argentina aprovechó la Guerra del Pacífico para reclamar la Patagonia, incluso en videos como este (entre otras fuentes) se insinúa que la República de Chile negoció entregar la Patagonia a la República Argentina a cambio de que esta no se involucre en la Guerra del Pacífico.
Sea como sea el caso, en teoría quienes deberían tener la mejor cartografía de esa época deberían ser los imperios de ultramar que tenían el monopolio de las rutas comerciales, sin embargo se tienen ejemplos como estos:
Tal vez dibujaron el mapa según la situación diplomática del momento ̶o̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶v̶e̶z̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶e̶s̶t̶o̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶e̶r̶i̶o̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶o̶r̶t̶a̶b̶a̶ ̶l̶a̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶u̶a̶c̶i̶ó̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶p̶l̶o̶m̶á̶t̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶s̶u̶d̶a̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶a̶, y es obvio pensar que cada país va a contar su propia versión de la historia, y es por eso que en muchos libros escolares iban a mostrar la aspiración máxima territorial de su nación… pero bueno, no quiero entrar en polémica 
1 Like
Yes, the history of Gran Colombia could always be extended, uniting it with that of New Granada and Colombia itself at least until 1903, which is when Panama became independent…
Sí,Roca aprovechó la coyuntura de ese momento y Chile no le quedó de otra que aceptar o sino habría sido invadido por Argentina y hasta podría haber perdido la Guerra del Pacífico en pocos meses…Un historiador argentino,Rosendo Fraga,escribió en su primer libro de ¿Qué hubiera pasado si?,de que si Alsina sobrevivía a su peste habría seguido siendo ministro de Guerra de Avellaneda hasta 1880,la Conquista del Desierto no habría sucedido y ya durante la presidencia de Alsina en 1883,la Patagonia habría sido dividida entre Chile y Gran Bretaña y sin Roca en la presidencia,el período de la Argentina conservadora de la Generación del 80,no habría sucedido o habría sucedido de manera muy distinta (no Juaréz Celman,no Revolución del Parque,no radicalismo ni socialismo y ya el siglo XX argentino habría sido muy distinto al que conocemos,quizás hasta el peronismo ni existiría y Argentina mantendría una fuerte estabilidad y sería hasta potencia a principios del siglo XXI)…quizás Chile con la Patagonia hubiera tenido la inestabilidad política que tuvo Argentina durante el siglo XX,incluso hasta hubiera tenido más golpes de Estado (contando además los de 1924,1932 y 1973)…
Claro,claro…se entiende…
Sí,obviamente,además de que luego de la independencia todo en Sudamérica fue un caos político,exceptuando Brasil luego de 1845 y las colonias europeas en las Guyanas…
1 Like
Chile fue tambíen mu estable en el siglo XIX solo unas cuantas pequeñas sublevaciones, haci que la probabilidad de grandes guerras civiles a gran escala eran bajas, lo que si hemos tenido son varios golpes de estado, que en si mno duran nada XD exepto el de pinochet
2 Likes
If Greece becomes an option, the civs need to exchange an option for Greece.
For the Ottomans, maybe it would be the Barbary States, since the Corsairs didn’t seem to have rebelled against Istanbul, and there are a lot of civs that share the Barbary States. But it would also be a pity to deprive them of the opportunity to visit North Africa.
For the Italians, it should be the Argentina. After all, the reference is only that more than 60% of modern Argentines have Italian ancestry.
For the Maltese, it should be the Hungary. Its availability to the Maltese is just a reference to the commanderies of the Protestant branch of the Knights Hospitaller in Central Europe, which should be a Tongue card rather than a revolution. But the people of Rhodes did not rebel against the rule of the knights, making the reference to the Greece’ availability to the Maltese is not strong too. By comparison, the availability of the Egypt is a reference to the conflict between the Egyptian locals and the Maltese community.
Already in my list above.
I’d love to have it named “Kazakhstan” to bring in more Central Asian flavours, if there’s no Polish-Lithuanians in the future.
In my list above, I’ve removed Argentina for the Germans, so it is “lack 2” instead of “lack 1” there.
Adding the removal of Argentina for the Italians, it would become an unique option for the Spanish.
The Gran Colombia’s availability to Germany is a reference to the Klein-Venedig. I think it’s a decent reference. If the Switzerland is an option, it could also be available to the French (and even to the Italians). But I feel that the devs might want to try to keep this mercenary land from being some sort of playable civ, and only let their mercenaries serve the other civs to highlight its neutrality.
The Gold Coast as an option although symbolizes the European colonization in West Africa, the name is a specific term for a region where is part of modern Ghana and the Akan people are the natives, so it might not be appropriate to be broadly called as Guinea.
There were also Portuguese colonies on the Gold Coast, so even if it is not called Guinea, it could still serve the Portuguese. It’s just that I introduce it to serve the civs with few colonies like Germans and Swedes, not like the civs with many options like Portuguese, Dutch and British.
The Iberian Union is indeed a far-fetched reference, but it is barely acceptable to me. If one is swapped for the Gold Coast, the other could be swapped for an option featuring a potential minor civ located in South East Africa.
I don’t see the reason any civ would need to swap out a revolution. Yes Ottomans would have lots of options, but they all have strong historical justifications.
Italians and Maltese could definitely replace revolutions, but that’s because some of theirs are extremely weakly justified. Argentina is far from the worst option for Italy. America and Brazil are also only justified by a large Italian immigrant community but with even less of an impact compared to Argentina. USA is by far the least appropriate revolution for them since they’re only a tiny percentage of the total population there and that comes from migration in the 1900s.
Hungary has no connection to Malta at all and should be removed. They could have at least gone with Romania since at one point there was a Maltese monarch that they had a lot of influence over.
1 Like
Because my list above has stated the premise that the United States, Mexico, and potential Brazil with their own civs are going to be removed, and each European civ has an equal number of options fairly. If any civ, like the Ottomans, gets the fifth, then each civ have to get one more too, so I choose to keep the number of 4 options, which means they need to swap indeed.
Your reply tells me that it seems that you did not read my statement carefully.
1 Like
Even if most Argentinians have Italian ancestry, there was no Italian control over Argentina ever, and no revolution either. So I don’t really think it is a good option for them. The same goes for the United States. Brazil maybe could work, since there were plan for a Tuscan colony on the Guianas. I know it isn’t really a strong argument, but I think at least it’s more than nothing, so I wouldn’t change that from the game.
Regarding the Maltese, I’m not sure what you mean with Egypt, they are not available to them. Anyway, the availability of Hungary doesn’t really make much sense, the Protestant branch of the order was in Northern Germany. Although maybe I could accept a Protestant Order as a revolution, at least it would make some sense. And while it’s true the Greeks of Rhodes never truly revolted, this is pretty much true for many of the revolutions. For example, Canada never revolted from the French. So even if the justification for a Greek revolution is not too strong, at least there is something.
For the Portuguese we don’t really have that many options for a revolt apart from Brazil and Indonesia, unless we wanted to intruduce smaller rebellions and conspiracies in Brazil like Minas Gerais or the Confederation of the Equator (although this confederation revolted against Brazil in real life)
Therefore, I think Italians should be able to revolt into Barbary States, Brazil/Guyana and Greece, the Maltese should be able to revolt into Greece and Barbary States and Portugal into Gold Coast, Indonesia and Brazil/ (Minas Gerais or Confederation of the Equator). If Brazil is no longer available as a revolution, then the other options I suggested.
I still don’t see why they all need an equal number of revolutions. Some like Ottomans and Spanish have a plethora of options while others have very few.
There are also a ton of problems with this approach.
Removing USA as a revolution just seems wrong considering that they’re kinda the original colonial revolution.
Having revolutions available to a single country is also a big waste of resources. Other than a few iconic revolutions like Haiti and Revolutionary France, revolutions should be available to multiple civs. It’s essentially the same amount of work to make a revolution regardless of the civs it’s available to so they should focus on what gets the most bang for their buck.
Australia - British, Dutch
Belgium - Dutch, French, Germans, Spanish
Greece - Italians, Maltese, Ottomans
Ukraine - Russians, Germans, Poles
Norway - Swedes, Danes
Liberia - Poles, Danes, etc
Stuff like “Malta Uprising” or sister republics are a bad fit because they’re not even really a revolution or an independence movement. Poland and Ashanti/Gold Coast should be their own thing, not revolutions. Ukraine could replace Poland in most cases and Liberia could represent all the different coastal west African ventures.
1 Like
Some Maltese entered Egypt with the French army and had settled there.
There were some conflicts between the local Egyptians and Maltese communities.
I used this to be the reference to the availability of the Egypt option for the Maltese.
The revolution mechanic itself can be understood as “another Age V”.
So I think that if each civ can have as same as the number of 5 politicians, then I don’t like that the number of revolutions is different.
This is more evident in old AoE3. Every civ has two revolutionary leaders fairly.
Here, the revolutionary leader is equivalent to a special politician.
The Maltese can only revolt into Barbary States and Hungary, not Egypt
Gran Colombia is a neologism. The country was called Colombia and is still called Colombia for the matter. It’s just that a bunch of states seceded. But there’s a direct continuity from there.
2 Likes
So the Egypt is my suggestion for the Maltese.
Have you read my list above carefully?
the logic for most revolutions is ancestry, not necessarily political power. Sweden has the US for example despite not really having any direct influence on the US.
1 Like
Ah, I thought you were talking about the game, not your proposal. In that case, I don’t understand why you think Egypt is a better fit than Greece. First, the Maltese civilization represents the Order of Saint John more than the actual Maltese civilians themselves. Besides, unlike Egypt, Rhodes was actually under control of the knights and the Greek population was different to the Latin/Knight one. The Order took the island from the Byzantines by force.Also, when Suleiman took the island, Greeks and Knights were given different terms of capitulation (the former were allowed to stay, for example).
I mean, I’m not against adding Egypt as well, we could have both options, I just think Greece is a better fit. At least I find Egypt to be a much better option than Hungary
2 Likes
If there is no other option, ancestry could work, but I still prefer to find alternatives with actual political control and only try ancestry if there’s no such option. Anyway, Sweden at least had colonies on the Eastern Coast, so there is still a political justification (albeit a weak one, but it’s better than nothing). Same reasoning could apply to the Dutch being able to revolt to USA
Claro,por algo Chile es el país más avanzado de la región,casi ni ha tenido golpes de Estado y está casi a la par de Costa Rica y Uruguay en desarrollo…
1 Like
No culpo a Chile por aceptar la propuesta de Argentina, como dice el dicho “es fácil ser valiente desde un lugar seguro” y fue una buena estrategia no abrir un frente que se sabe muy probablemente se va a perder. Me hizo reflexionar las consecuencias negativas que contrajo anexar la Patagonia para Argentina, al menos en latinoamérica es un “mal común” para muchos países la sobre-extensión de territorio. Por ejemplo, en la Guerra de la Confederación Perú-Bolivia, el Perú estuvo cerca de dividirse en 2 países (y esto viene desde el Virreinato: Perú es el único país en sudamérica que heredó 2 “Audiencias”: La de Lima y la de Cuzco). El territorio Amazónico (que supuestamente cedió la Gran Colombia) también fue algo conflictivo, durante la Fiebre del caucho un grupo de empresarios creyeron que era buena idea rebelarse e independizarse de la República del Perú, el ejército del Perú tuvo que enviar tropas a travéz de Brasil para sofocar la Rebelión
En mi opinión buena parte de sudamérica sigue siendo un caos político 
Pero bueno, regresando al tema original; los países latinoamericanos que deberían agregarse a Age of EMPIRES 3 deberían ser los países que en algún momento fueron Imperios:
- Imperio Mexicano (ya está incluido)
- Imperio del Brasil
Gran Colombia y Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata iniciaron los movimientos independentistas, así que también podría ser factible agregarlos. Perú fue el primer Virreinato de Sudamérica y el último país en independizarse del Imperio Español (y esto tiene muchas complicaciones y tramas) así que también agregaría una buena cantidad de Lore y jugabilidad, y por último, el caso especial del Imperio de Haití: es considerado Imperio porque así lo declaró Jean-Jacques Dessalines cuando se auto-proclamó emperador, personalmente creo que no cumple con las condiciones para ser considerado “Imperio” pero podría ser interesante para algunos jugadores (caso parecido al DLC “Grito de Libertad” del juego Assassin’s Creed IV)
1 Like
What?
For Germans also it’s fit - If support of revolution is good legitimacy for have these revolution option.