Courland was a vazal state of Poland-Lithuania. All colonization done by Courland was at the hands and discission of its ruler, not by Poland or the Polish monarchy. The settlers of these islands were also majority not Polish.
I never said Denmark is more important than Poland, I said Poland doesnt fit in the European civ selection, when its based on colonization. Colonial Euro civs that are missing are simply Denmark and Italy and then you have them all.
Problem with euro civs is the fact that they have certain “rules” just like the African, Native and Asian civs have.
We have currently 9 Euro civs, and basically every unqiueness of Sweden was already a thing in the game. Torps are yet another unique house (which is very similar to Shrines) and they became a mercenary civ, when Germany was already one. Their unique units carolean and hakkapel or whatever its called now were also already in the game in the form of fusilier and hakapel.
The problem simply rests on the fact that a lot for Euro civs have already been done. A lot of the civ suggestions for new Euro civs usually tend to have unique units which are already similar to other Euro civ their unique units or unique civ bonusses which are very similar to also already existing bonusses. I see the landwehr a lot for a possible Prussian civ (this civ should just not be added anyways), which is usually just a strelet but German.
Ottomans didn’t colonize the new world either so that’s not really a criteria for Euro Civs.
Im certain that if they can design new civs filled to the brink with new mechanics, they’ll be able to create a new EU civ that basically only requires 1 unique mechanic. The true differences lie within the available cards anyway, and if recent changes to Inca and Aztec are anything to go by the devs seems fully capable thinking of new stuff there as well.
Fusiliers and Hackapellit were originally intended as unique units for the scrapped Swedes, it only makes sense they’d receive similar units when they were released. I can imagine Elmetti and Lil’bombards getting similar treatment should they ever do Italians. Besides how unique are the new African units really? They’re basically the same old basic units reskinned, I don’t see how European civs doing the same would be a problem.
the polish colonies where massive failures.
also denmark won the 1 battle denmark and poland had with eachother, a naval battle. regardless both are considered “baltic powers” but it would be a wrong conclusion that denmark was weak considering denmark and sweden spent 15 wars between eachother indicating it was a closer fight than many probably want to admit.
as for italy, well they weren’t united, sure there was really rich Italian states but the entire periode is the periode of italian decline due to new trade routes and better ships making the Italian ports and cities obsolete for trade with the far east. wars involving italy in the periode almost always happen in italy.
Because whats the purpose of new civs if they are the same?
Ottomans is moreso an Asian civ, both cultarly and territorial wise. Its a mix of both at most. Not clear European or Asian. And even though they didnt colonize the New-World their theme is still colonial.
I welcome Germany overhaul, now its kind of misch masch of everything German speaking plus some colonial ventures. I would prefer more straightforward civs such as mentioned Austrians and Prussians. And since Austrians were almost exclusively European oriented (I do not count their Ostende company experiments) I would add some colonial reference to Prussians (like for example Hessian mercenaries in America).
Anyway I agree it is a lot of new civs and I do not think they are all needed…
@MUTYLATOR5553 do not look at others who are against your proposals. They can be against it but thats everything what they can do. Its up to devs if they pick sth…
Within the framework of the game, the Ottomans are solidly a Euro civ. Overseas colonies aren’t a defining feature of the Euro civs.
It is actually.
Remove TAD. Europeans rarely sent settlers to China, Japan or India. They either directly captured cities or purchased leased lands.
The Ottomans and Germans never joined in the new world colonies but they have all those things. Poland would be no different.
We are talking here about Euro civs, dont try to intermingle with something you didnt read the post about lmao
Germans were lmao.
Little Venic was a German colony were germans immigrate to, under rule of a German Banking Family, due to the fact that Spain didnt have enough money. Venezuela comes from this.
Prussia also held multiple colonies and also islands in the Carribean.
I already explained Ottomans also they still were important in the European exploration and colonization of the world.
Courland also had Caribbean colonies. Polish legions settled in Haiti, and Chicago has more Poles than Warsaw. There’s nothing that would make it a worse pick than Denmark or Italy.
Settler is European
European settlers were rare in Asia.
So at least one of the “settler” or the entire TAD should be removed.
That is perfectly on the point about euro civs being totally colonial or not
Say that to yourself lmaoooooooooooooooo
I don’t really get why we couldn’t have non colonial European factions as well as European maps to fight on. It wouldn’t be the end of the world.
It would be. There is actually a “AOE3 is all about European colonialism” religion and breaking of the rule would be the beginning of the apocalypse.
The Swedes were a great power during the seventeenth century, they also had colonies such as New Sweden around the Delaware River, in Pennsylvania, therefore if or if they needed to be in aoe 3…instead the Danes only had colonies here and there in the Caribbean, the African gold coast and a colony in India, besides obviously Greenland…
TAD is about Asian civ… Europe has little to do with TAD beyond the consulate…