You joke but that would be a fun joke civ to have as a cheat option. Aoe2 is more “My civ is sooooo much cooler than your civ so therefor it should be in the game” type of nitpicking rather than “timeline” stuff. I think it’s a brilliant idea to add unmown nations that night of had more regional power than global.
okay.
-
yes i know of the early cannons loaded from the back but that was from different reasons and with different mechanics than say an armstrong gun, european gunsmiths went away from those types of guns because they were unreliable and often not actually easier to load. the armstrong and later where completely different beast, significantly increasing the rate of fire among other things that came with the time.
-
there are plenty of mortars before the american civil war that looked similar to the ones we have in game:
is the exact model civil war? maybe, but could easily just be a simplified model or just be chosen because the devs had access to that when they designed it, there is no reason to believe ensemble specifically chose it because its “american”. they often made models based on what they had available, that doesnt mean they had a specific intend with it.
also ive said it before, and ill say it again. pleas be civil when you write, this is the last warning. you dont have to agree with me or anyone else but calling me or anyone else stupid is a quick way to sanction. argue the points not the person.
Well I can assure you a Armstrong cannon in age 4 is more historically accurate than metal cladded dude with lance charging straight outta aoe2. The mortar you used is but one example of model used, and honestly the fact that it’s being moved at all like its jabba the hutt is historical inaccuracy being beat by gameplay at its best. The british stopped using them because in typical british fashion a bunch of stuffed up elderly egotists didn’t like the idea of something new(they literally didn’t even finish the investigation before they canned the cannons) and who had their way and had they continued to of had their way the british would of been charging at german tanks with horse and saber. Armstrong cannon are famous for never bursting in an era where muzzle loaders often did.
Here’s a model of mortar that was used during the civil war. It actually looks alot like the ones ingame. Could of been a reference.
the armstrong might be better constructed than same era frontloaders, but that doesnt mean frontloaders werent an improvement from the 1400s cannons.
early breech loaders had a lot of mechanical failure points, you could just not have lined up the fire chamber and the barrel and it would explode in your head. by armstrong cannons we have machined systems that operated on different rules.
similar to armstrong in era we can find this picture:
a failure for sure but also not likely one that killed its crew. meanwhile imagine what happens if the seal isnt tight or whatever on this thing:
full cast iron/bronze cannons dont have the same mechanical failure points, instead its metallurgy and wear that will kill those cannons, something we didn’t really get rid off until fairly modern time with modern chemistry and industrial scale production.
its possible, but without asking sandy we cant know for sure what they used or why they used it. the model you show has some similarities but also clearly isnt a 1 to 1 system with what we got in game. its possible (and likely) its simply just a mixture of many different pictures they had where they just chose to make a simple model, adding more complex control systems etc. to it would have been hard when the game was made in the early 2000s.
anyhow, while a discussion about artillery is fun, its getting a little off topic, which was about what people imagine the next civ to be 
Isn’t it obvious who the civ will be?
3 Likes
I hope its the atlanteans from aom
1 Like
I think the indonesian revolution is referred to Java War(1825-1830)
1 Like
Unique polearm units, Claymore Swordsmen, Garde Écossaise as unique archer unit, Scots Greys as unique dragoon unit, etc.
The real point is that what kind of civilization developers want, they will make it, and historical background is just one of the tools.
In my opinion, including the Prince-electors and the March Revolution, these are clear signals from the dev that this civilization called “Germans” is a common German civilization, so is the Mysore Rocket Card for the Indians.
It can be expected that the elements of these civs will be more diverse, including more things from other German-speaking regions and Indian regions instead of Austrian and Mughal stuff.
2 Likes
That’s not just your opinion, they explicitly said they don’t want to split Germans and implied it for India.
In my opinion it’s a terrible approach and the logic behind it makes no sense (who was calling for an Italy or China split!?). With the new changes, they’re trying to stuff two or three civs worth of content into a single civ and it just doesn’t fit. They’re becoming bloated Frankenstein civs with too many features. Instead of having a defined identity and playstyle, Germany can get anything and everything by swapping out half its unit roster with another dozen different units. Stuff like Landwhers is just completely redundant instead of actually being a unique Prussian unit. Its extra hypocritical to treat all of India and Germany as just a single blob at the same time as trying to justify Mexico and New Spain as something different.
1 Like
1: Brazil (because its bicentennial aniversary in 2022) or Brazil and Central America (because its bicentennial aniversary in 2023)
2: Persia (because always is a Persian or similar civ in any AoE entry (AoE 1,AoE 2 and AoEO have a Persian civ in all the games and because is a gunpowder empire that fought against Ottomans and Mughals) and Oman (because is a maritime empire with colonies in East Africa) in a Middle Eastern dlc.
3: Denmark and PLC (because they are the only great powers that are missing in Europe) in a Baltic/Oriental Europe dlc (the Livonian and the North Wars,the Polish Deluge and the Polish Particions)
4: Siam and Buma (because be the spiritual sucessor of Rise of Rajas in AoE 2 and the Siamese-Burmese wars between XVI-XIX centuries) in a Southeast Asian dlc
5: Korea and Vietnam (because the competitive scene and because the fight against the external great powers (Japan in the case of Korea and China,France and Spain in the case of Vietnam) in a Far East dlc.
6: Kongo and Zulu (the same thing of previous point,Kongo fights against the Portuguese and Zulu against the British) in a Central/South Africa dlc.
7: Tupi (because the Guaranitic War aka the South America version of Franco-Indian War) and Mapuche (because the Arauco War and the military expansion of Chile and Argentina to the south in the last tercio of XIX century)
I doubt it about Canada (they are only be “independent” in 1867) and Indonesia (unless we talk about Yogyakarta, which had some independence from 1755),South Africa (the same unless we talk about the South African Republic)…Haiti will be fine…
Qatar World Cup dlc confirmed xd
Me too,i don’t want to divide HRE,it’s the last Roman Empire xd…
Yes, I still think that the last dlc will be a single civ dlc type Republic of Central America (1823-1841)…
Yes, maybe the second great DLC is an African or Southeast Asian dlc and at most it will only be one big one a year, then it would be
2023:Middle East (Persia and Oman)
2024:Central Africa (Kongo and Zulu)
2025:Southeast Asia (Siam and Burma)
2026:Eastern Europe (Denmark and PLC)
2027:Far East Asia (Korea and Vietnam) (for the 20 anniversary of TAD)
2028:Native South America (Tupi and Mapuche)
2029:Central Asia (Tatars and Uzbeks)
2030:Oceania (Maori and Hawaii)
You have potencial content for at least one decade (2020-2030)…
You have the Finnish revolution for Russia (that happens in 1917)…
Yes, and that is why that would have to come in a possible future AoE in the twentieth century (aoe 5 perhaps?)
Yeah,it is…only is missing the revolutionary leader (Diponegoro) as how had the original revolutions…
1 Like
It’s my guess, not a dream (any other civs are more needed than post-colonial civs in this moment).
- Middle Eastern,
- Central Europeans,
- Baltic & Eastern Europeans,
- Central & Southern Africans,
- more Northern Africans,
- more Asians,
- Southern Eastern Asians,
- Native Americans,
- Oceanians,
are more needed in AoE 3.
I think Finland make sense in the timeframe as it is an autonomous in the Russian Empire, and there was Fennoman movement in 19th century
1 Like
People in this forum didn’t, doesn’t mean people in other forums didn’t.
People can speak English didn’t, doesn’t mean people can’t speak English didn’t.
Not in yesterday, doesn’t mean not in today.
Not in today, doesn’t mean not in tomorrow.
You haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean the devs haven’t seen it.
I even had read that some people advocated that the Ming and Qing dynasties should become their own civilizations.
Well, they still have. If a newbie wants to learn German civilization, he/she still has to learn to pay attention to some key points as before, such as population and exp control, getting used to have no Musketeer, using the bonus Uhlans well, etc.
Recently new changes make them more flexible, but the basics remain.
Both are worm jars. Don’t tell me that because one is already opened so the other must be opened too, especially when the opened one can even be closed up through a Brazilian civilization.
Leaving aside whether what you mentioned are suitable to be civilizations.
You mentioned at least 16, and I feel so far the game is very likely not suitable to support so many new civs.
Too much. Too heavy.
So splitting too big umbrellas civs is bad idea but adding revolution civs as full civ is good??? I don’t like this thinking.
I’m more willing to pay for Split umbrellas civs DLC than post-colonial civs DLC.
- Chinese can split into Tibetians, Tatars (mix of Mongolic and Turkic peoples) and Chinese
- Indians can spirit into Mughals (currently Indians civ. With British Raj things), Dravidians and Bengalis
- Italians can split into Sicilians and Italians
- Germans can split into Prussians, Swiss and Holy Roman Empire (currently Germans civ)
3 Likes
AOE 3 is not like AOE 2 that has civ limitations of up to 48. It all depends on the players if they want more civs for the game and only if the devs are williing to create more civs. I’m for more civs any day as long as they balance and keep the contents fresh. There is no such thing as too much or too heavy.
The civilization of AoE3 and the civilization of AoE2 are conceptually different at all.
Compared with the latter, the content of the former is much more complicated, much larger, much more expensive to develop, and also much heavier to learn.
This has absolutely nothing to do with rumors of 48 slots for AoE2. In reality, AoE3 itself may be not suitable for pursuing a large number of civilizations as AoE2. For now, I even think 30 or so is almost enough.
For full civs I’d like to see Danes the last colonial nation not added,.
In addition to danes we can have Norway added as a revolution for swedes.
But I’d also like to see revolutions for asian civs
And other revolts as well perhaps a prussian (similar to french revolt for french) revolt for Germans
Concerning the German split, I sure have advocated that a lot previously. But you have to be extremely stubborn to still expect it to happen now. The Germans allready were basically Austrian/HRE but now also have acces to what commonly gets mentioned as the standard Prussian special units (Totenkopf Hussar, Giant Gren and Landwehr). The only thing lacking really is a way to represent what state you’d like to be through a flag change. I guess you could mod it in, but thats not really the same.
Having said that, I’d take it as a major slap in the face should they now add Canadians or something to the game.
4 Likes
Like the real HRGE, then
WoL, for the US, had a Big civ flag over the Town Center and a small Confederate/Unión flag, depending on the Politician you had chosen.