I play aoe2 but i don’t feel the game is a european game. All civs are kinda similar, and there are no distinctive european features. All civs are common in many things and updates will cover all civs. They dont have patches followed by patches that buff all european civs and nerf other civs and introduce new stuff for european civs only
1 Like
Then that’s a rare opinion since you’re ignoring most of the AoE2 subforum. They see it as a problem while you’re okay with it.
5 Likes
Aoe2 is far less dominated by european civs. If you play both you know. Aoe2 is symmetrical RTS. Aoe3 is asymmetric
1 Like
depending on how you count between 20 and 23 factions out of AOE2s 43 factions are european.
4 Likes
Lol every shared units (non unique and non regional) look like an european knight/soldier… Don’t say it’s not eurocentric.
12 Likes
yes and they try. there was a smaller round of content adding homecity cards and i guess when (/if) there is a persian dlc they will update asian maps (like with the european dlc). Ballancewise India and China are S tier, so the nerf in the pup is justified.
yeah but your friends know there is a forum where they can post their stuff. you only need to show them a few buttons how to open a topic, then they can give devs their suggestions.
Also there are many many many forumposts about “why we need to split india” “give chinese x unit” “give japan x mechanic” “add this [asian] civ”. In most of the polls persia is in the top 3 most requested civs… so there is a strong faction in support of asia (many of them are from europe and the americas)
no, i dont know what u meant. I thought u meant they are OP/to often used(?) and u see them a lot. but i think its not really a european problem since 2/6 are natives, 3/6 are mercenaries(+outlaw) and the last are asian (depends on defenition)… and they are not op
4 Likes
They most assuredly do. Some of the recent DLC packs were only Euro civs (Burgundians and Sicilians, poles and bohemians). The reason it doesn’t “feel” like it is because of how symmetrical the civs are. Changes to civs are 1 or 2 lines to produce the same or greater effect than a paragraph of AOE3 changes.
Since civ design is vastly more distinct in AOE3, changes to certain mechanics will effect certain civs while ignores others. Since the politican and royal guard mechanics are exclusive to Euro civs, those overhauls will be Euro focused.
And should the devs ignore the majority of the civs and majority of players to persue some nonsensical concept of civ or regional equity in game? Absolutely not. The reality is that the player base, regardless of ethnicity or region, as a majority, play Euro civs. The devs are overhauling features and updating the game where it makes the most sense to allocate their resources.
We have already seen Asia-focused updates; China has been overhauled twice. And if we see more civs added in DLC, it’s likely we’ll see Siam and Persia added as Asian civs. Having an update focused on the European civs is not biased.
14 Likes
Il existe des extensions de navigateurs qui traduisent les pages dans la langue désiré, dans mon cas j’utilise une extension qui traduit en français et je pense que vos amis y trouveront leur bonheur, d’autant plus que le forum permet de traduire la plupart des langues en anglais pour les personnes qui suivent.
1 Like
Europeans as a whole are extremely over-represented in the game and far more thoroughly researched. The new updates to them are just adding to this - they were already more well-made and researched from the start, even in the vanilla game back in 2005.
It’d be nice to see this level of care given to the North and South Americans and an eventual rehaul of the Asian civs to match. The level of care given to them is high, but it’s frustrating that civs like the Lakota and Hauds are still horrible stereotypes with little to no basis in cultural or military history of the two cultures.
5 Likes
No i don’t consider USA or Mexico European civs…the way they play out is much different. In terms of how the civ is structured. Even though they share a lot of stuff with EU civs
1 Like
Where did you get that definition from?
Question, do you consider the colonization of America a good thing? because the game is basically about colonization.
PS: I don’t think anyone is asking for European civilizations to stop receiving content, I think it’s just asking developers to take other civilizations into account as well, I don’t think that’s asking too much.
That’s the strangest thing I have ever read in this forum 
(never say that in real life to any Mexican). And I’m Mexican, así que ## ## de qué estoy hablando.
And I don´t think there’s a bias towards European nations. I just like playing European civs because they´re fun to play with. I would love to see in the near future an Austrian (or Austro-Hungarian) civ in in AOE3 as much as Argentina, Chile or Brazil (or even the Dominican Republic). The hypothetical Danish and Polish revs/civs also seem like a great idea! I rather have a fun RTS game than a “well represented game” whatever that means.
13/22 of the civs in the game are deeply based in European design and history. The US and Mexico might technically be in America, but they’re built on the foundation of the European civs.
The Royal Houses have more techs and more depth to them than any other minor civ set in the game, and the number of troops trainable from them far exceeds any of their precursors.
The amount of historical reference in the European civs far out-weighs any historical research shown in any other civ set, and that is before the European updates and the KoTM DLC - with those two added, there’s more European history in the game than essentially the rest of the civ sets combined.
The Devs are only interested in European history in this entire franchise, not just AoE3. They need to branch out and actually put some effort into other civ sets - the playerbase likes the Europeans best because the Europeans are made with care and are clearly well thought out and cared about in their creation. None of the other civ sets show this level of effort.
5 Likes
I assume to get 12 you decided to force usa, mexico, and otto with their own unique history and in game rosters and mechanic’s out the window to get 12, but even then to try and say no one cares cause barely over half of civs are euro is pretty poor point. Ignoring how messed up it is to lump otto now as just “euro” its still interesting as guess which group has had the least amount of reworks? Hell ports and russia till next week have gotten “nada” almost every single patch of DE while every native or TAD civ has gotten at least 2x makeovers. New civs, of which half are not euro, are stuffed 2x compared to legacy civs in stuff. Hell haudes getting a bunch of new stuff this new patch despite being very strong and flexible since their rework. Minor civs are reworked constantly, or i guess jesuit, berbers, mapuche cherokee dont count being reworked 2 months ago?
The most picked civs by pickrate are not euro civs, albeit if brits are back they will crack top 3 again most likely. And most the patch notes are are split evenly- so if half the civs arent euro then why do they get.more changes? Youre argument doesnt even makes sense
Euro civs getting attention doesnt mean others arent getting attention. Again haude got stuff china a mini rework. Most of DE has been non euro reworks. We get 2x content patches of which the last one had india rework as well. It really comes off as facetious when stated as if all or nothing when it appears all civ groups have gotten something in this very patch. What your saying isnt backed by reality.
9 Likes
Ottomans are, for the sake of the argument, European. They were designed and have remained designed on a European foundation - they use the Politician age-up system, they have largely used the same cards and share many units (especially artillery) with the other European civs, as well as the same basic upgrade paths in their buildings, which are again, modelled after the European civs.
Do the Ottomans deserve their own system and rework from the ground up with an accompanying DLC introducing a civ that would share similar qualities with them? Absolutely. They deserve their own economic system, age-up system, and a new set of buildings to better portray their history.
But right now, as they are, they are European in style and gameplay and built on the generic European foundation. The same goes for the US and Mexico.
The Hauds might be getting new things, but how many of these new things are actually historical and relevant to them? Of the new things adjusting to them, only a single thing is even a unique reference to Haudenosaunee culture - the Wampum mention, and it’s not even relevant to the Wampum itself - Wampum are highly prized beads, each one painstakingly carved by hand from a shell, and the colors are produced from different parts of the shell. What does this have to do with the train time of infantry? It should be an economic upgrade, relating to the value of Wampum and the effort it takes to make them and the craftsmanship skills necessary to do so.
Do you see what I mean by how poor the research into the other civ sets are? They couldn’t even get this basic idea right about Haudenosaunee culture, or bother to try and make the accompanying upgrade relevant to the word they chose. It’d be like having an upgrade for the Europeans called Gunpowder but it increases the rate at which villagers farm. Would that make sense?
1 Like
1- otto vills, units, soon to be cannons all unique, unless we insist on non euro needing export or plaza mechanics is really not euro at all anymore. even has unique age up polticians.
2- things being loosely related card>game isnt just for native civs. whats does pikes have to do with spanish immigratin and hisotry of usa? nizaams were a failure and footnote of history, rods dont function at all as irl. russia’s entire musket force is now recruits despite how well they were drilled in the napolenoic wars and peters reforms were mostly economic and social yet it gives unit upgrades. the german church card treaty of westphalia makes…infantry go fast and boosts dopps? half the church stuff for euros is pretty much out of left field. or the cry of dolores…healing stuff. ports entire identity really makes 0 historical sense but works in game. it is a game after all. Brits dont speak english i mean XD
aoe series has always played fast and loose with history, often giving out callouts that are loosely based. its not a 1 to 1 hisotrical simulation; its always been a combo of ideas mixed with real life events. Does malta having top hat knights in age4 have anything to do with the relations they had with other countries at the time? no, but the role of dingitaries was interesting and th eend result of top hat knights shooting stuff is fun.
but i digress. i think ive pointed out plenty of reasons the europeans are not exclusive holders of the attention and affection of devs. its clearly not 100% euro or not. Its probably on a european focused content spike, with other civs still getting content, ina game thats not a simulation or saying “hey irl italians used tanks and haude threw tomohawks and couldnt mind copper and ottoman had super soldier nizaams.” If you feel they havent done enough for you well thats not invalid opinions are perosnal and i doubt i will change your mind. but again calling devsout as if they havent done alot of work or non euro civs is not true at all. boot up TAD and then boot up DE and tell me how “forgotten” the non euro civs decks are.
8 Likes
I would love it if the devs “played fast and loose” with Native American history.
As it is, there’s barely any Native history in the game at all. Every European culture gets unique soldiers based on the military history of that culture - Between the Hauds and the Lakota, there’s a single unit based on historical military troops despite both cultures being heavily heavily divided based on the military purposes of each troops.
Hell, the Lakota were so divided internally based on which military organization a person belonged to that tribes would appoint a specific org to be in charge for a set period of time. They would even make an effort to dress similarly and wield similar weapons - the White Horses rode white horses and had lances filled with feathers. The Tokala Soldiers (the ONLY Native unit based on history) wore buffalo horn headdresses and rode dark horses. The Crow Riders focused on bows and guns and were the first to strike in battle and would operate as ranged support. Badger Soldiers wrapped their lances in otter fur and embedded glass into the fur to blind and scrape up their enemies all the better.
Why is not a single one of these implemented? They’re ready-made units for a game like this, but the devs are so insistent on not changing anything that they’d rather use fictional made-up shit than actually do any research into making unique and interesting units for these civs.
Also notable, these warrior societies often had women among their number. It was not uncommon.
3 Likes
Thank God barely anything written on this forum is being taken into account and translated into the changes anddireciton of the new content.
This game is called Age of Empires, not Age of Equality of Representation. If anything, with time and new expansions and especially post-DE content, the weight of the focus was heavily moved from the core civs to other areas of the world. And even then, this game has borderline zero ‘European history’- three Acts of the campaign carry less of it than the tutorial of Age of Kings alone. How insecure you are about your region and history, that you have to repeat the same nonsense still, 18 years after the release of the game?
Nothing was lacking, nothing is ‘missing’, game was created within certain development window and with certain budget and the scope was focused on the rising empires of that period. In the age from fall of the Fall of Constantinople, world exploration to enlightenment and industrial revolution there was a limited amount of states that were fitting the format of the original, base AoE III and most of them were included. Certainly the most important ones. And original expansions heavily expanded the scope to North-Central America and Asia soon after the release.
You can see the same accounts complaining about the same things over and over again. Never happy, just lashing out about demands regarding the tone, political issues, and historical revisionism. Because they imagine the game being something else than it really is.
Most of the suggestion on this forum are written about new content that barely fits the game, lacks widespread appeal, often is not historically or visually interesting, and doesn’t round up what’s already here and improves the offering that would result in the game, 3DE, being more attractive and valuable as a product and thus- gathering the attention of more gamers and resulting in more sales.
Just an endless sea of grievances.
Do you think developers browse this forum in greater numbers, and what- count posts and research place of birth of poster? LMAO. Even more- do you think designers would really care about most of the complaining on the board? Vast majority of players do not engage in any community activity, anywhere.
It’s because there are more of them. Was in 2005, is now, and the business side of supporting any product, or service, suggests focusing from top to bottom and. I’m sure if this game sold millions of copies in Africa- African players could get an extra skin bundle or whatever else you’re complaining about before civs from other expansions.
Skins are secondary (at best) issues and all civs should have a decent base selection of them available nonetheless. But taking balance changes out of context and building these crazy theories out of it? Civs are buffed and nerfed for many reasons.
Because almost all of it was done before 3DE was even released. Almost all new civs have much fewer options to choose from. These things are meaningless cosmetics in the end and developers clearly want to put more time into making (for free!) new maps for players, new units through mercenary/natives/royal houses etc. options. Customization of the HC is almost a better fit for the DLC than explorer skins. Because explorers are used by every single player, while it’s 100% fine to not touch Home City customization at all, and ‘window dressings’ are a great way to show extra support for the dev team, buy-me-a-coffee-like supporter pack. But then it should be utilized more so players can brag about their customized HC.
But this is a different game, it’s not a sim game, it’s not a builder, and I imagine many do not care about it at all and it’s a dead end when it comes to developer efforts.
It is undeniable you really have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you ever played the original game? European empires were the main focus of the original game and it’s rather obvious and expected they received a lot of care and attention back in the day. Should they cut extra building colors or lantern variations to make the selection poorer, to match Native American HCs or something?
You’re free to pay the studio for a couple of months of extra work on a great expansion of Home City customization for every civ in the game.
I’m 150% fine with Age of Empires VI being a sequel to AoE3, taking the perspective of North and South America as the focus and base of the game, the same way AoE3 took European colonial empires like Spain, France or England. But this game is still AoE3, and it has a certain identity, focus, and appeals to players with its own, original design grounded around certain historical themes. Stop demanding it to be diluted and twisted into something it’s not, and what might not be interesting to the concept of the game when they bought AoE III/ 3DE originally.
For me, after all these great expansions, still the most interesting part of the fantasy of the game is playing as French, Brits or Portugese and exploring and creating a settlement in the New World. If anything- original civs are very underserved and deserve s-load o new historical missions, campaigns, and customization. Way before any newcomer civs.
Hard to list empires that come even close to the size and historical impact of Spain or England.
17 Likes
Yeah, the game barely had any reference to any historical event on Europe and no maps in that continent at all until KotM.
And later DLCs made the OG European civs barebones by comparison, which is actually one argument commonly thrown here against adding new European civs. But suddenly now they are the ones with the most flavor? Even after the addition of USA and Mexico?
I actually think they have being doing a great job updating the OG civs the make them more unique and I hope they continue to do so.
Of course, I want other civs to be updated too, especially the Asian and Native American civs.
To be honest, I would actually be interested in such a DLC, much more than in an explorer pack.
3 Likes