Age of Europe 3

Well, the developers were and probably still are mostly Americans from States. I had two courses of American history at the McLennan Community College and they skip most of the native history and focus only on Britain, colonialism and the development of USA and its many presidents. So, it is not that surprising that developers from such countries want to tell their history first and that means heavy focus on Europe and its lands. I also think that most of the players are from Europe or States and that might be addition reason why they think that Europe based DLCs would sell better.

I must say that I liked much more the Knights of the Mediterranean than the African Royals and this was probably caused by the fact that I am from Czechia and I know much more about everything that was happening in Europe than in Africa. But what do I know, this is just how I feel about the situation and what might be possible reasons.

It’s not “if”… it’s a question of facts, whether we like it or not, the fact is that European powers LITERALLY conquered the world between the 16th and 19th centuries.
the British empire alone had 25% of the world’s land, when Portugal and Spain were one in the Iberian Union, 60% of the American continent, apart from the colonies in Asia and the Pacific were in Spanish and Portuguese hands, the Russian tsardom had lands from the Sea of ​​Japan to the Crimea.
It’s not a Eurocentric vision, it’s a fact, they dominated the world… a very sad fact indeed.
In fact, the largest population in the world is also in Asia.
It is justifiable that the game has a certain focus on Europe because of this.
Not only that, but the player base plays a lot with European civs, it was even published on the official Age of Empires Instagram, which are the most popular civs among players of the AoE franchise games
I would love to see civs outside of Europe too like the Safavid Empire, Empire of Brazil and Korea, but PLC and Denmark are not a bad choice for DLC, quite the opposite, it makes historical sense to put them in the game, and it also makes sense in the context of sales/popularity, cuz the KofM dlc was the best-selling dlc on aoe3DE and the European civs are the most played.
The real problem is your expectations .
Your expectations were not met, and if you deal with this, the devs had several reasons for choosing PLC and Denmark, whether for historical or market reasons, it was not a surprise.
stop complaining and crying.


Yes, what Europe is as such, will be complete with the Baltic DLC and about Brazil you put it with Argentina and it gives you a good DLC… a Portuguese American empire and another American cavalry civ…

Of course, now they have to touch Asia (and Oceania after that)… We haven’t touched Asia since 2007 and it’s time to get back there…

It’s because there is more information about Europe than the rest of the world…

They would only be Greek and Norse Europeans…the Atlanteans are a mix between Roman-Britons and Inca architecture…Egypt is Africa and the Chinese are Asia…

It is because in the Renaissance they acquired the technological advantage and also the Ottoman blockade of Asia encouraged them to explore new routes and overseas conquest…

How strange :roll_eyes:, the English and the French are the most played in all games…it should be called Age of Anglo-French Rivalry xd…

Yes, we must accept that these 2 years (2022-2024) will be all of Europe in AoE 3…

It’s always a perspective thing.
Just because at the end of the 19th century a large part of the world was occupied by Europeans (or their independent colonies) doesn’t mean that those civilisations have to be overrepresented in the game, especially not those that didn’t even have colonies.
Poland didn’t even exist anymore at the time when Europe colonised most of the world.

Also if they conquered the world doesn’t that also mean they conquered someone, so why should that someone that got conquered not be represented?
The Dutch and then the British colonised New Zealand, so why should the Maori not be in the game? They didn’t conquer empty land.

I am a part of the market so why shouldn’t I go out and tell what things I want to see in the game?

I’m fine with Denmark and Poland being added and I don’t think that adding them makes it any less likely that we will see Persia, Oman, Morocco, Korea, Vietnam, Maori or whoever in the future.
I just don’t think it was a good idea to make 2 European DLC in a row.

The last one was really good and finally added the continent to the game, but now their focus should shift to parts of the world that have been neglected.

Japanese where super popular in AoE3 but they fell out of favour because the Europeans kept getting one cool update after another while the Asians have mostly be unchanged.
They haven’t even given India the correct cow model. A change that would take second to implement.
Of course people don’t want to play civilisations that have gotten little to no love from the developers.

In AoE2 there is the additional problem that almost all generic units look European so playing anything but a European civilisation just feel wrong.

btw. Persia is one of the most popular civilisations in AoE2, yet AoE3 doesn’t even have them despite Persia being a lot more important in the AoE3 time period.

English and French are also almost always the most simple and straight forward civilisations in the game.
English is the Archer civilisation and French the Cavalry civilisation in AoE2/4. In AoE4 they were even purposely designed as beginner civilisations.
In AoE3 it’s a little different but they are still simple and easy to learn.
Also doesn’t hurt that they are also almost always some of the strongest civilisations in the game.

The Atlanteans are based on Greek mythology, all their gods and myth units are Greek (with very few exceptions) while their human units are Roman.
The only thing that is not totally European about them is the architecture.
Still a very European civilisation.


Yes, it’s quite a topic…the same thing, unlike AoE 2, I think that after this dlc they will make 2-3 Asian dlcs in a row going towards the East…Middle East, Central Asia, SEA…and yes, you are right that the Atlanteans are a European civ (they would have to be more similar to Tartessos), so it is most likely that after Retold’s launch they will go to America with a proper American mythology like Aztecs or continue in Asia, including Babylonians, Persians, Indians, and there in the middle, the Celts in Europe…

Besides a split that probably won’t happen (let’s not discuss here) of Germany/Prussia/Austria and Swiss Confederacy that probably won’t be in, all other civs have been added: USA, Italy Sweden, Inca (that never were finished) or will be (Poland-Lithuania).

Persia is the last probably civ to be added from Napoleonic Era, it was never finished also. Their UU were: Camelry, Elephant Archer, Emir, Ghulam, Megaphant, Peasant, Qizilbash, Qurchi and Tofaganchi.

Qizilbash are already in

According to whom are they popular?

Maori would be as cool a civ as any other, the question is, is there a demand for it?
In the case of Denmark and PLC it was at the request of the players, the devs only responded to this request, of all the civs that were requested they stood out, there is a strong demand.
In terms of representation, the Baltic and Eastern Europe are poorly represented within the game
Not to mention that Denmark and PLC are the last two great empires left to complete Europe, after these two the devs are free to complete other continents.

You are trying to politicize something simple that should not be politicized.
The choice of civs for the new DLC is based on players’ demand for these civs, and the civ must have a minimum of historical context to be included in the game, that’s all, simple like that.
The devs only responded to the community’s request.
There is no Eurocentric policy behind it and it is just a matter of demand.

So stop complaining and try to politicize this.

I mean, one could easily redirect the question to you. Do we have incontrovertible proof that those civs are “players demands” or are you just trying to use some dumb “ad populum” argument to sound more legitimate. What proof do you have beyond speculation and doing guesswork with numbers we don’t actually manage.

In terms of representation, the Baltic and Eastern Europe are poorly represented within the game

For the Baltics we have Swedes, Russians and Germans who, as much as people cry and shout about it, do represent Prussia. For Eastern Europe we do have Russians and Ottomans.

Now let’s compare with, say… Eastern South America (no civs), MENA region (Ottomans I guess), literally the entire southern half of Africa (no civs), Continental Southeast Asia (no civs) Insular Southeast Asia (no civs), the entirety of Oceania (no civs, not even maps of the region, it doesn’t show up in the game at all).

Like you say don’t politize this topic, but come on, you can’t even pretend to be unbiased here. You really do think every single little polity in Europe is so unique and special and oh so much more important than 90% of the world.


Portugal and Spain both controlled more or less all of south America.


Did they though, or did they just say they did?

Because I do actually live here and know for a fact that the Patagonia was settled way late into the 19th century (the chilean side didn’t have any real cities until about the 20th century).

Same with Brazil, like all the important cities hug the coast, does that really represent all of that territory?

Sure, Bandeirantes may have explored the interior, but it wasn’t until the Imperial era that they got any real claims into most of the Amazon.


I don’t know how to say this in a nice way, but no one wants to play Tupi. In games that allow you to play them no one does.


Maybe… can you say the same about Mapuche though?


If there is interesting and balanced designs, people can play everything.

If Mapuche had a design that isn’t settled on discovery age (like Aztecs) and can go through history, they could use gunpowder and cavalry.

Not exactly what i would consider the east of south America but what do i know. I feel like Mapuche are more interesting because of how long they managed to hold out and because i can see a historical timeline where we would have a Mapuche nation-state. I will be absolutely clear i don’t know that much about Mapuche but still.

I want to say that people primarily play what’s easiest to pick up and most relevant to them, but we don’t have any actual examples that prove this - All the European civs are deliberately designed to be simple and easy to pick up while the non-European civs are all either super difficult or really, really good at one specific thing and otherwise can’t stand up to the generic all-arounder designs of the Europeans.

The only real example of a civ we have that is both it’s own thing and also a good all-arounder is China. I’d also argue that China is the most popular of the non-European designed civs, as well, but even China suffers from being fairly generic and is mostly just off-brand Euro design. It doesn’t truly innovate or bring anything new to the game - the Banner Armies are cool, but they’re not game-changing, nor would the civ be super impacted if they were removed.

If more non-Euro civs were designed with this in mind - to be unique, but to also be a decent all-arounder - I suspect more non-Euro civs would be significantly more popular.

As it is, though, none of them strive towards that.


I would argue that Hausa was the closest thing we got to an all-rounder of all the new civs, while it also adds a good number of new things like the university mechanic, griots, etc. Its just a little tedious to play because the economy has so many things to manage. Cows, building placements, upgrades at 2 buildings, granaries, influence, fields (ugh), plus the usual houses, herding and macro.

The two African civs were too heavily over-designed. They were not meant to be simple, which is also one of the arguing points here - that there are no civs that are simple and easy civs to pick up that aren’t European.


Precisely. They suffer from aztec syndrome - so much going on in the midgame to manage, for too little reward.


Personally, I highly recognize the African DLC. The national mechanism of this DLC is actually quite novel and interesting. A large part of the harsh evaluation of this DLC is due to its excessive intensity during the release period. However, in terms of the country, they are much more interesting than the Mediterranean countries. Italy and Malta are not interesting, and their intensity has also been insufficient for a long time. Many of the positive reviews from the Mediterranean DLC actually come from the addition of European maps and royal power in Europe. More maps and more indigenous forces are actually very popular. The new DLC of Poland and Denmark has not given us any planning and design ideas until now. If only these two countries and there are no new mechanisms or new European royal forces involved, I am not very optimistic about their evaluations

1 Like

I’m not saying the African civs are badly designed, far from it - while they could use a buff to their rewarding mechanisms to truly make their hard design worth it to play, they are not a bad design by along shot. They’re quite neat on their own.

But the thing is they’re not easy. And this whole point I’m making is that the Euro civs are the only civs who are approachable and easy while remaining valuable across all levels of play, and at all stages of the game.

There are no non-Euro civs that can claim this, aside from China, and China isn’t that interesting on its own. It plays it too safe.

What we need is a non-Euro civ that is good at all stages of the game, scales well throughout all elos, but comes at the basic foundation of the game from a completely new angle.