Yea me too. A rework would solve a lot of issues and representations.
I would preffer a full roster where the units are age specific and the unit feasibility erode over the age ups. And in the late game almost 30-40% units become redundant. And you end up with the current unit at last.
Also, I think there is a HUUUGGGGGEEEEE scope for card renames and real life references in card names etc. Just like the Shivaji Tactic is a reference to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj.
Rajput is an ethinicity at large, a Rename and cosmetic accuracy will be more appreciated so . . .
Rest Land Units remains the same.
Home City : A late game Eco card (need to think about the stats of it) :
A h i l y a bai Holkar Reforms : (This reference shouldâve been in the game IDK why its not!)
Maybe Provides 5% boost to karni mata or Improves Temple technologies and all economic gsther by 2% (IDK)
Ahomiya bridge of boats : rename of one of current naval cost rediuction card
I have my own idea, which I donât think anyone have thought of, as to how we could split Italians and Germans (maybe Indians too) while technically keeping them as one civ. This would require a new unique mechanic for the the deck builder.
Basically, youâd be limited to 21 cards for your deck (just like the US and Mexico) + 1 âstate cardâ which would auto-send at the very beginning of the game and define your civ (flag, homecity, 1 or 2 unique units). As an example for Italians, Kingdom of Naples, Republic of Venice, Papal states, etc. Each city state would give you access to 8 exclusive cards (2 per age up). âVenetian arsenalâ would obviously be exclusive to the Republic of Venice, for example.
They would keep the politician age-up system. Upon reaching Industrial, youâd have the choice to either go Imperial or revolt as usual. For the Italians, there would be a new revolt-like named âRisorgimentoâ (no longer a basilica tech) turning all your settlers into Garibaldini (revolutionnary) and give a new revolution deck. Just like for the French revolution with âNapoleonic Eraâ, there would be a follow-up called âKingdom of Italyâ costing maybe 1848 food 1871 gold (for flavour purpose). This would give you access to Imperial techs, reset your original deck as well as give you access to 8 exclusive cards (the same for every state).
The same concept could also apply to Germans. Instead of âRisorgimentoâ, the revolt could be named âGerman confederationâ, although this may not be the best name. Same thing could apply to Indians too.
Of course there would be the homecity problem. I donât think the devs would want to create a bunch of different homecities for the different states. The solution would be that we just accept the current one as a catch-them-all generic home city, which only the name would change.
What do you think? Feel free to agree or not, suggest other ideas and give constructive feedback.
I would totally buy a home city pack, but this shouldnât be the solution to the problem and should be a distinct thing, because they could never sell a civ rework.
In this way, these cities could appear for free after selecting a State during Age Up, but without the possibility of customization etc - something like a revolution HC but unique.
By purchasing the Home Cities Pack you have full access to HC and you can choose one of them as your main - background. Without this DLC, for example, Germans civ would only have Berlin as its Home City in the background with the possibility of customization (other HCs would work like the revolution HCs we know).
Transfer of British Raj units to the British Consulate and replacing them with units from various parts of India
Transferring British Raj units to British Raj revolution option for British civ and replacing them with units from various parts of India
Adding brand new units from different parts of India to the Indians civ and making the British Raj units as a sort of âmodernizationâ of the Indians civ military (as Home City cards or Unique Technology or British Consulate Technology)
Gurkha should become mercenaries.
They are Nepalese units it makes 0 sense for them to be trainable by India.
Even in the game files they are named like a mercenary which seems to be because they were planned as one.
Absolutely. This always struck me as Big Huge Games wanting to put their own stamp on the expansion, when Asian Dynasties first appeared.
I think that ethinic groups, tribes, minor factions can still be added and not have to go through the Religious Settlement format - after all, itâs all under the Minor Civs (or even Minor/LocalFactions terminology which is even broader).
Thereâs such a wealth of interesting Minor Civ potentially, far outweighing Religious settlements in Asia.
Take Borneo for example - thereâs lots of Dayak tribes such as Iban (Sea Dayaks) and Murut who practiced head hunting as well as pirating if coastal.
Asian Holy Sites category should change to just Holy Sites. Add new religious Holy Sites from around the world (also from Europe like Protestant, Hussite, Catholic, Orthodox and Hebrew) to make it once and for all stop being considered âAsianâ and become universal for all continents.
Asian maps should get a brand new Minor Civilizations category based on peoples rather than religions. Asia is so diverse and large that it shouldnât be a problem to come up with more maps (which should be much more, because 2 maps for all of Japan or 3 maps for all of India is a bad joke) to accommodate more Minor Civilizations.
You can even try to isolate Asia into several separate categories of Minor Civilizations:
Middle Eastern Caliphates (Middle Eastern and Caucassus maps) - for example: Kurds, Bagdad, Yemen, Syrians, Armenians, Georgians, Circassians, Assasins?
South Asian Communities (Southeast Asian, Indian and Himalayan maps) - for example: Tamils, Bengals, Punjabis, Cambodians, Nepalese, Tibetans, Afgani
Asian Dynasties (Far Eastern maps) - for example: Ming, Qing, Meiji, Tokugawa, Joseon
Oceanic Minor Civilizations (Oceania and Malay Archipelago maps) - for example: Maori, Hawaii, Murut, Dayak, Semang, Batak, Jakun, Mangyan, Dani
Well AOE2 split was very essential and very basic need. considering thte time period the the huge powers that each empire/kingdom âconsistentlyâ held. which was not eaxctly the case in AOE3 timeline.
My point FOCUS being the feasibility of the split here.
Well, in south Asia (NOT religion) âDharmaâ and Everything else goes hand in hand. Youâll see it wont make sense once you remove one or the other part TBH.
Named like means ?
IMO Indian units are based on . . .
Colonial minded "Martial race division", in which they classified each group as either 'martial' OR 'non-martial' caste. (Obviously there is alot of dark history there.. skipping over)
The personels were heavily recruited from Martial races, that were :
Rajputs (Rajput Yea the units name is the name of a WHOLE group must be changed; Sowars)
Sikhs (Udasi, , Chakram, Punjabis)
Hindu Jats (Jat Lancers),
Gorkhas(Gurkha),
Marathas (Shivaji Tactic Card)
ETC. various others that are not represented in the game
Ohh I see, well they were Mercenary for the British in a way more so than others, as theor lands were not colonised.
Almost all the Indian Untis are mercenary more or less.
Well gurkhas still have their own regiment & recruited in British Army IRL they fell in love I guess
What do you think if Germans civ got a âtwo in oneâ mechanic, whereby clicking the Age Up button at the very beginning, two choices were displayed that will affect the later game - Austria and Prussia. Each of them would have their own Age Up pick options (each focusing on the lands they owned) and their own Revolution options. The Austria option would give Age Up access to multinational units - just like it was in the Austrian Empire. The Prussia option would give access to units from different parts of Germany - after all, Prussia united Germany. Revolutions for Austria would also be multinational. Prussiaâs revolutions would be a bit more colonial.
Both the Austrian and Prussian option would have access to the Uhlan unit.
Yea the units name is the name of a WHOLE group must be changed; Sowars)