Can we forget about problems such as balance and bugs for a while and expect a completely new gimmick for a new civilization that did not exist before? Or will we see a civilization like Sweden or the Incas that has no personality and copies the personality of other civilizations?
2 Likes
By the original design, Sweden had musketeer + dragoon + half skirmisher in one unit plus high melee damage and long range. That is probably the most innovative thing that I can ever think of.
3 Likes
Would be cool to have a civ that auto-produces units, but at a very slow rate, and you pay for the building to specialize in what units to build, and how fast they would train.
Probably would go wll with a Zulu civ.
1 Like
Everything new that they tried with these 2 civs got received really bad.
A no-snare mechanic(Chimus), a good defensive structure that is not an obnoxious wall(Stronghold), an all-around musketeer(Caroleans), a cav that worked differently than the usual ones(Hakkapelit).
Itās a community that is very resistant to changes, so I doubt the devs will try many new gimmicks with the new civilizations, sadly. Expect something more standard.
4 Likes
Iās a shame, really. New mechanics and gimmicks would surely be fun, and it would be really disappointing to have waited so many years to have a new expansion just to have the new civs play like the old ones. This isnāt aoe2
1 Like
Everyone likes new things.
No one likes unbalanced new things.
2 Likes
If in the next expansion they add (1) one unit that does everything, including resource gathering and unit production , or (2) a civ without units but buildings that walk around the map, most would not consider that a good idea.
Please donāt confuse broken changes with good changes.
At the release Strongholds can make you exceed the population limit by >100. I fear people were not resistant to it because it is new.
Similar case for caroleans.
Hakkapelitat, however, is completely a different case. It is under-appreciated not because itās new or innovative, but because the former unit is so strong that it overshadows hakkapelitat completely.
EDIT: donāt get me wrong. I think a civ with moving buildings like WOL Egypt would be extremely interesting. But if you only have moving buildings that can also function as buildings that would be considered as a broken innovation.
Everything new will almost always be unbalanced at the start, thatās not the point, you balance it after with enough data, you donāt remove it or nerf it out of existence.
But what they did with the new stuff that they introduced wasā¦removing what made them special, now we have 2 civs that have very few reasons to exist(like the OP said) they feel like Frankensteins merging stuff from other civs.
The only new stuff that really remains itās the no-snare, the others got standardized. Strongholds are now so bad almost no one at the top uses it, they are like the very underwhelming forts now. Caroleans still have some of the new features remaining, but most of them got removedā¦and it will not be long until the Carolean become another boring standard musketeer unit(since people still complaining about what makes then different).
So before complaining that new civs are just copies of old civs, realize that the fault for that is the community complaints itself(partially). If I was a Dev the message to me would be clear: āThe community doesnāt like change, donāt innovate, keep it safeā. I will say it again, expect something more standard.
1 Like
For Inca, dev can design a free llama for each house for them to put community plaza for enhancing their special bonus, but they gave them stupid broken trickle houses.
Huaracas should act like arrow knight but they now are being abus with siege ability.
Bolas warrior canāt counter cav as general anti-cav and it completely sucks because they are new and have to be special.
Chimu runner canāt be snared is ridiculous breaking the game rule and because they are new and have to be special.
Chasqui with receiving shipment is insane especially in team game they are too fast to be caught and just hide everywhere near your base and send infinity shipment to destroy your base.
For Sweden, dev can design torp with a small range attack to fit their aggressive image, but they gave them stupid broken multi-gathering houses.
Carolean should act like musk but because they are new and have to be special they are combined dragoon role also. With age4 insane range-resistance card. This is completely out of AOE3 game rule because even Haud tomahawk is completely same as musk without getting range āhand attackā as original AOE3 iroq native tribe.
Hakkapelit in fact should act like dragoon but carolean is already having dragoon function, this is totally trash.
Summarize: FE didnāt do any research for AOE3 game rule and principle, just creating something they should be new and special and made the game totally mess.
I will not want anymore new DLC except they realize that.
1 Like
Iād say allowing you to exceed the pop limit by 100 does not sound like a good idea even before it is implemented.
No people are complaining about it because it is OP.
However unique and innovative you get, the game has its basic logic. One example of that kind of logic is that a unit need to be countered. Caroleans can only be countered by artillery and they are not more expensive than other boring standard musketeer units.
We have very special and unique units before, like rifle riders, but people did not complain about that. We even have very special and broken units like urumi, but they are less accessible.
If one civ has a big button that you can press after 10 min in the game which instantly kills your opponent, not only it is innovative, but it can be balanced as well (because you can make it very susceptible to rushes). However I assume nobody would like that.
Does anyone find Incan army underwhelming? I really struggle fighting battles as them. Iām fairly competent at the game but canāt seem to use their units properly. Are Jungle Bowman really bad?
Any tips?
Iām not arguing that the Caroleans are too strong, but the way to re-balance it should be by making then less accessible, not removing itās features, just like you said about Urumis, they are different and good for the game but not OP since they are not very accessible.
But people suggestions are to remove itās special featuresā¦not weaken it and that IMO the wrong way to go. Make Caroleans more costly or decrease some base stats like health but donāt standardize then, thatās just boring.
Itās not an isolated thing, it happened to all new stuff, almost all risks that devs took for the game didnāt pay off. I personally wouldnāt risk anything after that feedback. Iād play it safe if I was gonna add new civs to the game.
Iād assume thatās just ranting.
On the other hand, caroleans as a musketeer with a high melee and a special ability and a ranged bonus against cavs is unique enough. There is no need stacking more uniqueness on them. But they still get ranged resistance and very long range.
If you really care about uniqueness and diversity, thatās unique traits that can be allocated to ~5 new units.
Imagine you can have 5 new civs with unique musketeers with those traits, but now they are all stacked onto one unit.
Of course they paid off. AOE3 DE sold quite well even though itās not the best in this series. And see how many people are playing the new civs.
The reason they got ranted is because they are broken.
EDIT: also the new revolutions seem to be very appreciated. They are less used in competitive games but are extremely fun and unique.
Swedes and Incas are tbh not so āuniqueā in terms of gameplay mechanics. Their main āuniquenessā are broken units or buildings or both. They are still standard European/Native American civs with the basic economy/military system.
If they are to add say African civs that would definitely be more unique and special.
If they are to add Italians, Persians or Koreans that people most hype about, they might not be so innovative, with some special units or buildings like Swedes and Incas.
Iād prefer both (1 new ātraditional civā + 3 new civs with new mechanics) but that might be requesting too much.
That more because they are broken, thats the thing a civ needs time to develop and balance, for AoE II the devs were working 2 years on balance.
Seeing the rushed state of AoE III DE with the amount of bugs and glitches from start it wouldnt be a long shot to asume they didnt take enough time for the new civs. Besides they even stated they wanted op civs so people would play them which is stupid on its own.
The no snare on its own is a interessting mechanic but its about the complere picture they gave too much unique op bonusses to the new civs. If you look at original civs there isnt that much difference between them. The point is also that a lot of the mechanics were already of other civs. If its only one thing its not that bad, if its multiple its blend.
I mean did we really need 2 new unique houses? When we already had 5? Did we need almost the same unit selection of the Aztecs copied to the Incas but better? Ofcourse its more nuanced but still pretty similar.
1 Like