Poland has always been more popular than Brazil, so idk why you argue to popularity like that.
eh, Mexico and the African DLC are both very packed with content, their issue is perhaps more that they are overpacked. Mexico certainly wasn’t lazy.
8 Likes
I’m talking about countries outside of Europe, that’s why I said Persia and Brazil.
Sorry, I think what I wanted to express was lost a little with the translation. I mean that in terms of quality, the civilizations closest to the MOD show greater interest on the part of the developers. On the other hand, African civilizations are good in terms of content, but their quality is another story, there is a reason why they were not well received.
Regarding Mexico, I agree that it is an excellent civilization in both quantity and quality, but given that it came as independent DLC, I don’t know how to take it, it could be an exception or there could be something else that we are not seeing.
This is for everyone.
I want to clarify one thing, the problem is not so much that two new European civilizations are added. The problem is that the previous DLC already expanded Europe with maps and civilizations, I think we should all agree that two European DLCs in a row is perhaps too much Europe, especially when most of the civilizations are European.
1 Like
I think that Brazil is not even close on the heels of Persia in terms of requests. I think there is a huge difference in popularity to group them within the same argument that you are raising.
3 Likes
To be fair, I’m basing this on the survey I did a long time ago, to be exact when there were a lot more people commenting and a lot more activity on the forum.
I do not doubt that the survey would change at present, but the winners were Iranians, Brazilians, Poles and Moroccans.
Interesting that Iran will win. I think that here people speculated which civilization they considered most likely to arrive, but not necessarily what they wanted.
I don’t remember everything, but wasn’t there someone on that topic who told me that Iran was the current name of Persia? I apologize if I am making a mistake.
It’s possible, but I prefer to think that most people voted for what they wanted to see.
Iran and Persia are interchangeable. Iran is the name of the country in Farsi, whereas Persia is the Western name for the country, derived from the name the ancient Greeks used for the country. Following the 1979 revolution, most refugees from there prefer “Persia” (source: I know several personally), since the name “Iran” is now attached firmly to the theocratic terrorist state government, but either Iran or Persia is correct, much as Germany or Deutschland are both correct.
2 Likes
Yes, now let’s focus on Poland and Denmark and then we’ll see…
################# post:16, topic:249353, full:true"]
One thing I have to say about DLCs is that producing them later than the release will require a cost, production cost, salary cost etc. If it doesn’t sell enough, it will make some people think.
After in my case I’m quite satisfied that they finally release a dlc of civs even if it’s at the end of the year, because I think it’s a shame that last year there was no dlc on civs.
[/quote]
Of course I agree…
Yes, Alexander Fleger (“Kastor”) and Peter Piepenburg (“Tilanus Commodor”), the original project leaders of the mod, eventually become members of the Forgotten Empires development team. PS…I’ll kill myself if that happens…plus I think they’re going to release more dlcs for AoE 3 if next year is the 20th anniversary…
Don’t be discouraged…new civs will arrive in the coming years…
It’s because they are European devs and they want to add European CIVs because they require making fewer new assets, something that in the other dlcs from TWC both ES and BHG and now FE had to do…
I don’t see the problem, they do the same in AoE 2 (LotW, DotD, RoR and TMR), the good thing is that so many European civs are not needed here because they occupy the modern territories that we know, plus their colonies… Sweden and Italy were planned by ES to get into the game in 2005 until they removed the European theater in the game’s development, Malta is a nod to the Blood campaign and Poland and Denmark is DotD 2…
Yes, Persia is much more requested because it appears in all the games (AoE 1, AoE 2 and AoEO), except AoM (for now) and AoE 4 (because you have the Abbasids in their place)…Brazil is more about adding a post-colonial american empire…
Yes, at least now we can cross out Poland, so now it’s Persia-Oman or Brazil-Argentina (bicentenary of the Brazilian War in 2025 perhaps?)…
The Brazilian War, Argentine-Brazilian War or River Plate-Brazilian War (in Portuguese: Guerra da Cisplatina) was an armed conflict between the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata—which had recently become independent from the Kingdom of Spain—and the Empire of the Brazil - which in turn had also become independent from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarve -, for the possession of the territories that correspond to the current Eastern Republic of Uruguay and part of the current Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul and which had place between 1825 and 1828.
Yes, it was called Persia until the arrival of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1925, who changed it to the current Iran in 1935… and you are right, maybe if one day the Palhavi return to power (with Princess Noor for example) maybe it will be called again Persia, who knows?..
1 Like
I doubt making new world nations is significantly cheaper than european civs, if anything price difference there might just be language.
The US faction came with what, 10 new units/models? and 2 unique buildings.
Italians came with 10 new models and 2 unique buildings.
Besides voice acting costs i am not sure why italians would be cheaper. Balance you might say but Tilanus works on the game regardless of if its Italians or Americans.
Age of Europe 3? That’s a compliment.
Can never have too much Europe.
This entire period of history was Europe changing world history.
Proceeded closely with the advancement in technologies from Europe slaughtering one-another, promptly being used to colonise the globe.
Not saying any of this is right but it is what happened.
Would be ludicrous to add Hawaii or equivalents to this game and not Poland. Poland was utterly wrecking things back in this era, it’s an affront to history they weren’t included before Italy and Malta.
I’d bet good money the African DLC was the worst selling of the bunch…
8 Likes
I don’t see there being much of a problem that the game focuses on European civilizations, since, as I have seen/heard, one of the most common complaints about the game regarding the saga is that its learning curve is usually quite high. In principle, European civs share common mechanics and units, which in some way allow new players to explore them without there being a considerable time investment between one civ and another. On the other hand, Native American and Asian civilizations, having different mechanics and units, which, although they make them interesting, can frustrate players when trying to learn how to use them.
1 Like
I wasn’t interested in the Mexican DLC at first,
but its revolution is so interesting.
As a result, Mexico has become the civ I play most often.
I wouldn’t mind getting more European civs
if they had unique gameplay like Mexico or France.
2 Likes
True, maybe it’s more because of the language than because of the units and buildings themselves…
Of course, the European region is supposed to be the easiest to learn and play and then go to the other regions to try new mechanics…
That is a very narrow few on history.
You could easily go and find a way to argue that everything evolved around the Ottomans or China if you want to frame it that way.
Just go to Turkey or China and people will tell you how those countries where the most important in world history with detailed explanations of why.
It’s easy to find confirmation to your world view if you try finding it.
The game still doesn’t even have Persia in it.
One of the biggest empires of that time period.
Or Oman, who kicked the Portuguese out of East Africa.
Just because people (including me) want to see Hawaii in the game doesn’t mean Poland should not be added.
Just most people would prefer a mix of new content instead of 2 European DLC in a row.
Hawaii or Maori would certainly be interesting civilisations. Both of them have used modern weapons and stuff, especially the Maori did fight the British a lot and gave them a few defeats.
But that’s mostly because of them wanting to make none European civs exotic.
They could go out and design civilisations like the Persians in a very European way. Not historic reason not to.
Mexico is the least European “European” civilisation.
3 Likes
Yes, we have to wait until next year to see if they start releasing Asian DLCs…
1 Like
Of the 8 new civs, only 3 are European, which does not deviate from the game’s theme, especially in the historical period that aoe3 contemplates, from the end of the middle ages and from the beginning to the end of the modern age, Europe dominated the entire world.
It is very difficult not to focus heavily on Europe.
stop complaining for nothing, the game is still alive receiving updates, receiving dlcs.
That’s disingenous to say when you know perfectly well it’s 10 new civs, literally half of which are European. The argument that “Europe dominated the world” falls completely flat when they began adding powers that were only relevant within the continent (Poland) if relevant at all (Malta).
9 Likes
[quote=“VonValinor, post:38, topic:249353, full:true”]
Of the 8 new civs, only 3 are European, which does not deviate from the game’s theme, especially in the historical period that aoe3 contemplates, from the end of the middle ages and from the beginning to the end of the modern age, Europe dominated the entire world.
It is very difficult not to focus heavily on Europe.
stop complaining for nothing, the game is still alive receiving updates, receiving ############## [/quote]
Yes, it’s almost half and half:11 non-European civs and 13 European ones (including the Poles and Danes)…
1 Like
Honestly, I would love it if they did the Austrian and Prussian split but then there is nothing left for Europe. All the colonial powers are done with the addition of Denmark and all the important political players are done with the commonwealth.
So if they want to do additional DLCs, they have to move out of Europe. Brasilian Empire would be a good choice for a small DLC and then they could sell it a big DLC pack together with States and Mexico.
The main issue people have is that they are making 2 DLC in a row that are European themed.
Also USA and Mexico are pretty European too.
Persia is still the biggest hole on the map.
And it completely ignores countries like Oman that had a lot of colonies in Africa.
Also AoE2(DE) has the same problem despite being set in a different time period so this issue is wide spread in the Franchise.
Even AoM has 3 European vs. 2 none European civilisations and one of those civilisations might not even make it into AoMR making the game 75% European.
But even if it is true that Europe was the most dominant continent (which is a very European was of seeing the world) then does it justify having more then 50% of civilisations?
Having 33% of civilisations be European would already be Eurocentric considering that more then half of the world population was and is living in Asia.
2 Likes