Umm… I honestly don’t really get why they’re considered unsuitable.
The German Empire (1848) was basically a product of the March Revolution. I’m not misunderstanding this, right? The March Revolutionaries wanted to create a unified German nation-state with a constitution, and that’s what the empire was supposed to be. Then they were crushed by Prussia and Austria.
You are. The March revolution was surpressed. It’s aim was to establish a constitutional German Empire.
That didn’t happen. Instead Prussia unified it, mainly around itself. The baricade wagon and March revolutionaries were either killed, imprisioned or fled to the US / Switzerland or had to become National Liberals. Which had to live under the enlightened autocracy that was the german empire of prussia. This happened only after the Prussian-French war / German French war 1871.
My guess would be, that the german empire is already late 19th century and that devs want to avoid further ww1 creep. Cards and content for the german empire would be very centered arround a) the franco-prussian war b) berlin conference/ a lot of late colonial stuff and c) ww1. You would have a very modern military compared to the other civs with repeating rifles, machineguns, new uniforms and modern artillery. I know parts of it already exist in the game, point is, that eventhough 1871 is well within aoe’s timeframe, the franco-prussian war changed warfare in europe to a degree to which aoe3 is even less capable of representing.* I guess the german empire is so tied to ww1, that it’s become pandoras box and if u open it you’ll get soviet union rev proposals.
*Meiji works in aoe3, because the military before looks archaic and you simply “catch up” to Europe and the US
Having the german empire would push for a revamp of the imperial age. All the european powers would need way more late 19th century references to not look out of place. A lot of work
The German Empire we talking about here is the one in 1848.
I think, not every rev in the game ended up being successful in real history, either. Not to mention, some of the references for certain revs are even more of a stretch.
people are mainly arguing for a “prussia → german empire (1871)” transition on the forum. Talking about the 1848 one they mostly refer to as “german confederacy” or “march Revolution” …which is also more accurate, because the revolution failed and didnt establish an empire.
But even if: i think the reasons listed above are why we wont see a german empire (1871)™
“Give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile” (insert your own metric)
… is the phrase I think of, within this thread.
Also, as a funny observation, for a thread dedicated to Austria - hasn’t it become completely derailed by Prussia talk? Is Austria still deserving after being sidelined here? 
Yes, that’s true…it’s quite a topic…
Yes, in any case it would be the other way around…the HRE arose from the division of the Carolingian Empire (but that’s more for AoE 4 than AoE 3)…
Yes, if Prussia is a revolution then Austria has to be one too (or rename the Germans into the Holy Roman Empire or rework Hungary into Austria and in turn Austria-Hungary)…
Sure, something like that… Prussia and Austria would be revolutions of the Fortresses Age (17-18th centuries) and Gran Colombia, the German Confederation and Hungary/Austria-Hungary revolutions of the Industrial Age (19th century)…
Of course, revolution is a rapid political and social change of regime, which is usually violent (Prussia and Austria wouldn’t apply as much as the German Confederation and Hungary do)…
Of course, exactly…
Yes, similarly, almost half of Italy emigrated to Argentina too…
Yes, the German Confederation would have to be a separate revolution from Austria; Prussia would have to evolve into the German Empire instead…
Yes, it would have to be the Swiss Revolution of 1848 (France would have the Helvetic Republic instead)…
Yes, it’s a shame that the German Confederation didn’t become a more formal state (although perhaps we would have avoided the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars, but I don’t think WW1 would have happened, which perhaps would have occurred about 20 years earlier to curb the growth of German power)…
Yes, exactly, in theory you could modernize all the civilizations with 1870s technology and end the game before or with WWI (which, after all, was the beginning of the end for classical empires and the rise of new nationalisms)… Regarding the USSR revolution, I see it as unlikely, unless they have a revolution of the Russian Republic first (the February Revolution) and then, from there, the Soviet Union of 1917 (the October Revolution, which is more famous)…
Both could enter anyway…
Nobody cares about Austria…they were incestuous and super fragmented…only the guy with the funny mustache cared…
It’s so freakin saddening how you guys ignore the fact the game starts in late 15th century, so basically 80% of the timeframe trashed for your dream of something that is NOT a civilization…
Gatekeeper no gatekeeping
This is the same game that has Aztecs, who didn’t survive 1/3 or even 1/4 of the supposed timeline.
Do ages in this game even represent specific time periods? Especially with civs like Aztecs and USA coexisting.
They are more meant to represent the stage of development of your colony.
The problem is that the playerbase insisted on making the game about Europe rather than the exploration of the Americas so the concept keeps getting more and more muddier.
You are the one(s) gatekeeping by slaughtering 80% of the timeframe, only to find ways to insert your abomination shamelessly denaturing the primary essence of the game.
And don’t you understand the Aztec are there because you, the player, while playing the main mode of the game, skirmishes, is supposed/able to make them stand and survive, NOT as a whole civilization, but as a SETTLEMENT.
Says the one who opposed Danes a few years ago while they were extremely relevant to the timeframe, and look what happened, they’re now a full civ in 3 more weeks! So Cope and Seethenhagen!
Aren’t you the guy who people called out for acting like you have the authority to judge other people’s civ concepts/wishlists? And for having a history of doing that?
Ah yes, gatekeeping the flexible timeline by making the most of it. You know this is a series, right? The third of a series (fourth if you count AoM). The other games in the series both have longer timelines and have civilizations that didn’t exist for those entire timelines (not as a single, unchanging identity at least), why would AoE3 be forbidden from doing that? Especially with a shorter timeline.
They… They’re led by a king. The last king they had, in fact. I wouldn’t just call that a settlement.
Making it only about the exploration of America was actually super restrictive. I’m surprised there are people who want to go back to that. Besides, the game was always about Europe. 8 of the 8 initial civilizations were European and one of them didn’t even reach America.
Prussia went from an irrelevant state outside the HRE, far away from Austria to a great power rival. They didn’t split from them, they were an outsider coming in. And it was not a one way trajectory towards a clash between the two, they were often aligned depending on the circumstance (fighting Napoleon, partitioning Poland, etc).
The HRE was not really in control of anything. By the time it dissolved it was mostly symbolic.
I’m not really disagreeing with you here. But for crying out loud it should not be via a revolution. If they must do this instead of 2 different civs then do it the Meiji way.
Yeah they’re so accurate and reliable. Just look at how perfectly they have depicted the Asian and Native civs.
They didn’t, yet for some reason the devs in all their great wisdom decided to scrap the revolt based on Klein-Venedig and keep this one. They did have significant German immigration, but I think the biggest reason for the revolt is it being a dig at Argentina for the ratlines which is kind of hilarious.
The USA revolution for Italy (and also Poland) makes zero sense. There’s a lot of Italian Americans now, but the migration there before 1900 was negligible. So no, it isn’t based on immigration, it is entirely based on how prevalent Italians are in modern American culture. At least Germans having Argentina has the immigration justification as well as the anachronistic cultural impact.
Giving the American revolt to Germans would actually make way more sense. They were a huge portion of immigrants during the game’s timeframe and had a huge impact then and now. They just aren’t as iconic today because as mostly northern European protestants they assimilated more easily and their culture was heavily suppressed during the world wars.
The failure of the Asian civ designs comes from the stereotypes, ignorance, and laziness of the then devs (20 years ago).
On the other hand, the current devs made Prussia into a rev clearly not because they’re that ignorant of history. It’s more a response to the “split Germans” sentiment. Basically, “We understand that there are people in the community who want that, but this is as far as we can go. A split isn’t going to happen.”
European civs don’t have consulates. Also, a “rev” by cards or normal techs (how Meiji works) isn’t a real rev, it can’t replace the deck.
If we want to add a button in a German building (the TC, Capitol, or maybe a new building) that works similarly to the rev mechanic but exists alongside the existing revs, that could work. Basically, it would just be another button that functions like a rev but nominally isn’t a “rev,” which would allow the Germans to have two separate rev option pools: one with the regular revs, accessed through the original rev button, and another specifically for Prussia and potentially Austria, accessed through the new button.
It’s just that, honestly, I personally don’t really care whether they’re kept separate from the other revs. We can already evolve from the British into the Dominion of Canada by a rev, after all.
Technically, early 15th century (Hussite Wagons and the Chinese treasure fleet campaign in 1421) (AoE 3 would start during Jan Zizka’s campaign in AoE 2 and shortly before Joan of Arc’s campaign)…
Not necessarily…if you prefer, I can use the Eurasian civilizations as a guide:
Exploration Age (1421-1521): Voyages of exploration, fall of Constantinople, discovery of America, and fall of the Aztec Empire
Commerce Age (1521-1621): Conquest of America by European powers, Italian Wars, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Eighty Years’ War, and Sengoku period
Fortress Age (1621-1721): Crisis of the 17th century, Thirty Years’ War, rise of the Dutch, Swedes, pirates, and Qing dynasty, fall of the Ming dynasty with Koxinga, English Civil War and subsequent Glorious Revolution, the Deluge, and the Great Turkish and Northern Wars
Industrial Age (1721-1821): Great European wars of the 18th century and the Wars of the Polish and Austrian Successions, the Enlightenment, and the The Industrial Revolution culminated in the Atlantic Revolutions and the Napoleonic and Latin American Wars of Independence.
Imperial Age (1821-1922): The Pax Britannica and the wars of the 19th century, ending in the Wild West, the Belle Époque, the Scramble for Africa, and finally, World War I with the fall of the Eastern European empires (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey)…
Of course, I couldn’t have said it better myself…
Yes, by 1806 the German Empire was already a feudal, antiquated, and medieval remnant that Napoleon wanted to get rid of to create his empire… Take Napoleon out of the equation, and the March Revolution of 1848 would have blown it up due to German nationalism. And even if it had survived that and the Austro-Prussian rivalry between 1866 and 1871, World War I would have finished it off for good…
Of course, that was BHG’s fault; they wanted to cram in as many cool, stereotypical, and pop-cultural units as possible to boost TAD sales…
Nah, it would be pointlessly overcomplicating everything just to have normal revs and a “big button” that turns you into a “semi-rev that isn’t a rev”…
Historical accuracy might not be their strong suit, but I wouldn’t say they’re poorly designed. They’re fun and original, and the export system with its consulate ally mechanic and wonder system is brilliant.
Perhaps it could be an alternative button in the city center, which is activated by investing XP and during that time you don’t earn shipments, but once completed you advance in age.
I would. Or at least that they’re outdated. They definitely need a rework.
I wouldn’t say the consulate is to use, especially with how slowly export collects. Also, it reuses a lot of assets, so idk why people complain about Malta (and KotM) but give it a free pass.
As for the wonders, I don’t have anything in particular against the age up system, but the wonders really shouldn’t be based on specific, real buildings. They should be made more generic, both because the ones picked are really weird (in general and for their effects) and because I assume the difficulty of picking wonders for other civs is part of why the devs haven’t added more Asian civs. At most I’d keep the shogunate.
Okay, but is it bad mechanics? No. That’s exactly what I mean. It’s a good concept.
Furthermore, it’s obvious that it recycles elements; the allies are European, but I don’t see the problem. The basic civilizations are already unique, just like the African ones. It’s not as if the consulate option would diminish the Asians’ uniqueness.
Yes, I wouldn’t mind any changes as long as they don’t alter the core mechanics.
As I said, historical inaccuracy doesn’t mean it’s boring or poorly designed from a gameplay perspective.
