Same as Swedes but exaggerated. These unique features can be allocated to ~4 different civs and people wouldn’t even complain about them being “less unique”.
1 Like
No. You said “if ages do not make sense, we should make cannons available at age I”.
And I’m pointing out the fact that “we cannot make cannons available at age 1” is a direct reason of why “ages do not make sense”. That is the ONLY thing I started arguing.
And then you went along all the way like “ohhhhhh you cannot do with who you disagree” “ohhhhh you like murica”. Nice logic.
So could you PLEASE address that then?
DISCLAIMER:
- I do not think US is a good addition for now.
- I think Africans or Europeans like Poles and Italians are a better addition.
- I think the design of US is too OP.
1 Like
He wont because he has a very specific idea of how the game should work despite major inconsistencies with a ton of the other existing civs.
I get a lot in this forum have decided ‘US is bad, I dont like it, and its OP’ thats fine. I just tried to provide some counter points. I am just happy AoE 3 is getting more new content.
It makes sense
This makes sense, since Pikemen and Crossbowmen are not suited to the US. But on the other hand, they have too many of these UUs.
3 UU for the US (not counting the navy) would be enough to replace the default Pikemen, Crossbowmen and Dragons.
This could only heal Units within itself. It would be the equivalent of Field Hospital for the US.
This is strange and at the same time too OP (when it comes to shipment).
Why should only the US have it?
It’s stupid
Cool
No comment this
This makes this civ terribly OP.
I believe these cards make some sense, but should not allow the US to train Unique Units from other civs.
This is awful…
This means that Settlers can build Factories just like any other building ???
I did not say that. I said this:
And it was a reply to
PS. Do not behave like a child. If you cannot argue with some level of professionalism, say it and I can leave… (You can claim victory, thats maybe important for you).
That’s fine, not all civs have to be present for the whole extent of the timeframe of the game.
If this would be the case, huns in aoe2 would make zero sense, and yet it’s a fan favorite civ.
Even if the US wasn’t a civ that I was thrilled that it would be added, I was still happy to see try them anyway.
I was simply disappointed to see how they design them. But I still think that they could make a good addition to the game.
2 Likes
Well, I am not a great fan of Huns 
In the end of my post I wrote this is not the biggest pain for me.
So this is your adult pro-move.
And I repeat it: the fact “we cannot add cannons in Age 1” is one perfect example of why “ages are meaningless” (while you are implying the contrary) Because cannons literally appeared in the historical “exploration age” but they get unlocked much later in the game.
That is a direct response to your very argument.
DISCLAIMER:
- I do not think US is a good addition for now.
- I think Africans or Europeans like Poles and Italians are a better addition.
- I think the design of US is too OP.
2 Likes
That was about me?
Are you trying to bully me? I dont understand why you cannot respect my point? Do I say about you “He wont …”
Be courageous directly, do not spread gossips…
Btw your post containg foul. I am not against any addition. I like african DLC. I am against the way how they are going to add US. I am sure you will permit me to have my own opinion.
So, are you just making a contrarian argument to prove some kind of point?
I just find all your criticisms and arguments to be nonsensical and you havent addressed any of the counter points. If you simply dont want to like the US civilization before even playing them thats your choice
Well, then I say if I look at the cannon design its more late time like 18th century, right? The cannons in exploration age were heavy, almost immobile and innacurate. They looked like cannons in Medieval 2: TW. So in my opinion its ok they are in later agesin AoE3 
But I am trying. Its difficult to respond to two people at once you know?
1 Like
These does not contradict with my point of “US can fit into the theme of game”.
For example, you can add Italians or Poles with an instant-win big button, or add some civ like Courland (no offense) before Poles. I would say they are not good additions, and they are OP, but they can still fit into the “theme” of the game.
DISCLAIMER:
- I do not think US is a good addition for now.
- I think Africans or Europeans like Poles and Italians are a better addition.
- I think the design of US is too OP.
1 Like
The only thing that really makes me happy about USA civ are two cards:
Polish Card “Pulaski Legion” - is it an easter egg ??? Perhaps this is a preview of a new European DLC that will appear in the future? Poles civ and more civs? I hope so 
Irish Immigration Card - Irish revolution in place of the US, for the British?
2 Likes
Not exactly.
This is what the Industrial “great bombard” for the Ottomans look like, and they were built in 1460s.
And the concept of “culverin” ceased to exist in the late 17th century, before the “fortress age” if you think that aligns with 18th century. I cannot find where the in-game culverin model comes from, but 18th century cannons typically do not look like that (there should be an angle between the barrel and the carriage, but this is not the case for the in-game “culverin”. That barrel looked like 15~16th century too.)
This is what a 18th century cannon looks like (similar to the “falconet” in game), but falconet itself is also a much earlier concept:
Li’l Bombard is probably the most archaic-looking artillery in the game (they even said that in the history section), but they are available at the Industrial age and are one of the most advanced artillery units.
Organ guns are also late medieval.
No, the cards are simply in your deck always. But I heard that they may be able to get 3, but I’m not sure about this.
This can always be tweaked down at least.
It’s the concept that doesn’t make sense, and it’s the umpteenth unique thing that they give to the US. And it’s doesn’t make sense, it seems like americans are the only ones that love their country and fight and die for their flag, it’s just a bit trope.
A general that explore make anything but sense.
That’s the problem, some aspects and features of the US civ are very well designed, others no. Despite that I’ll still buy the DLC, because I love the game and it deserves the support, especially if they’ll add Africa later on.
2 Likes
TBH the “immigrant card” mechanic is already unique enough for a new civ. All the rest can be given to some other civs. For example, the “fedaral state card” can be given to Italians with city states (just making this up).
Good, thx for that.
Yes, you are right with Ottomans but their cannons are unique like obtainable only through cards or saloon right?
That’s fine, along with the unique dynamic deck is something that is tailored around the civ and well designed.
That doesn’t mean that other potential Civ can’t make use of it. Like all 3 Asian civs age up with the same dynamic.
It’s enough to change the effects of the various states and you can give it to the Italians, or the HRE.