Looks like I started the second civil war here. 
1 Like
- 1864-1868 Japanese Civil Wars and conflict: ~20,000 battle deaths
- Third Italian War of Independence 1866: ~20,000 battle deaths
- Second Franco-Mexican War/Millionth Mexican Civil War 1861-1867: ~38,000 battle deaths
- Austro-Prussian War 1866: ~40,000 battle deaths
- American Civil War: ~200,000 battle deaths
- War of the Triple Alliance 1864-1870 and Taiping Rebellion 1850-1864: Basically a guess
So yeah the American Civil War was the biggest thing going on in the decade of the 1860s, and of course with the population of America being increased by 620% in 60 years thanks to recent immigrants that means that millions of people in Europe heard personalized news of the American Civil War as not-too-distant relatives passed away in the conflict. The Franco-Mexican War is indeed super fascinating and would be a great setting for anything, but the American Civil War also had Algerian mercenaries, Scots fighting in trews and marching to bagpipes, Italians fighting in the garb of the Bersaglieri, Zouave-style regiments with their baggy pants, lancers from California driving the Texas Rangers out of New Mexico, French and German and Hungarian nobility leading armies of veteran revolutionaries from those countries, Seminoles and Cherokee and Choctaw all fighting in huge battles of their own respective independent nationsâ Civil Wars with modern weaponry, the massive expansion and uniting of various independent tribes across 2,500 kilometers of territory as they fought against both sides of the American Civil War. Itâs the Hollywood pop culture that paints it as a simple conflict of just Americans in blue and gray.
Also I was GideonAI back on the wotta forums! Good to see you here too, we bumped into each other on Reddit recently.
2 Likes
Would it though? Washington had been taken before and America survived. The Union probably still would have won in the end, it would have just taken longer.
I really donât see the appeal of a battle thatâs a mirror match of an uninspired frontal assault. Even if you want to wade in to the controversy of the American civil war, thereâs got to be a more interesting battle to go with.
Iâd much rather a conflict to be interesting and fun instead of boring but historically significant. Lots of important wars were nothing more than bogged down sieges and maneuvers to avoid battles which would make for terrible gameplay. And in the grand scheme of things, the American civil war is small potatoes compared to other conflicts like the Napoleonic wars or 30 years war that also donât have any content dedicated to them.
2 Likes
Most of the major belligerents in the Napoleonic Wars are already major civs, and thereâs already a historical map for both the napoleonic wars and the thirty years war. Historical map | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom
No, the time frame was extended to 1900s with the African dlc.
You could swap the names of those maps and no one would notice. They donât tell a historical narrative like a historical battle or campaign.
Meh, Gettysburg and whatever do not resonate that far from the US unless youâre really into the ACW.
If thereâs a way to give the USA a couple of special revs (or rather cards) to reflect the ACW without flinging balance out of the window, or some scenarios, fine, but Iâd rather the resource be spent elsewhere. Iâd also love to see more about the English Civil War (or rather the âWars of the Three Kingdomsâ - as emphasis on the Scots and Irsh as well) but like ACW for me, it probably wouldnât interest those outside of the country (though again, HC shipments could bridge the gap as a ânodâ to these events).
In regards to how âmulti-nationalâ ACW, that kind of thing has happened all throughout the period - various mercs, allies, armie & units not normally associated with a country have always appeared in pockets. This always appears more interesting as itâs just not on mass (I believe Samurai have appeared with the Spanish in South America at some point, as an example) - itâs often niche or small units.
Also, not sure why thereâs emphasis on the death toll as a way of gauging ACWâs importance in the world, especially when coupled with the fact that the US/North Americas was fairly isolationist during this timeframe (less power projection on the world stage).
7 Likes
[quote=âAssertiveWall20, post:42, topic:259449, full:trueâ]
Itâs not bizarre American exceptionalism, if anything itâs quite the inverse. Youâre bringing up battles and conflicts that are either already in-game or no more important. You donât have to like America but you also donât need to pretend the world wouldnât look any different if the CSA had won at Gettysburg and marched on Washington.
[/quote]
Yeah and the world would also be very different if Zanzibar took over London during the Anglo-Zanzibari war. But we donât see any historians taking either of the possibilities seriously, are we?
I too, choose to believe Brazil is the largest country in the world because Russia, China, Canada and the United States are basically a guess.
4 Likes
I think I remember hearing that Washington DC was basically undefended at the start of the war and that Gettysburg should have been ignored. If you wanted a âCSA victoryâ it would probably look like the first major battle being a âBattle of Washingtonâ. Best case for the CSA probably would be killing Lincoln, and if they held DC theyâd possibly be pushing the front up to northern Maryland (if I recall correctly, MD joined the CSA and basically got crushed because the Union needed to hold DC).
In such a situation, you might end up with the US and the CSA eventually signing a peace treaty with a boarder around MD. After years theyâd either start to get along, or maybe more likely, hate each other and end up in a number of wars with each other.
A total CSA victory would be basically impossible. Itâd be a massive stretch to see CSA forces pushing up to and taking New York or Maine.
Such an outcome would be a disaster, and would without a doubt screw with the 19th and/or 20th centuries. It could even end up with WW1 or WW2 style fighting in North America, which would be a massive change even if the North eventually took the south anyway.
There was a battle General Grant was involved with where he basically had to carry out medieval-style siege warfare. That could be interesting. I donât know the name of it though.
The Mexican civ gets to revolt to Baja California in age 2 which is mildly controversial and I think a perfect template for what the devs could do with the CSA. Have an Age 3 revolt for the US for a super aggressive all-in fast fortress with no way to return to regular US (so no industrial/imperial ages). Call it âStateâs Revolt!â instead of anything like CSA and have some nebulous references to confederate stuff in their revolution deck. voilĂ !
3 Likes
and then further revolt like maya to get to WW2 america with cards like T26E4 Super Pershing and little boy
Vickburg, possible petersburg
For front assault madness under his commmand cold harbor, which he regretted the rest of his life. Ofc pointless frontal assaults was a common feature of both sides
As a Northerner living in the South, I must give both sides equal validity or I will be a traitor. So therefore, I cannot comment on the conflict itself and the implications of it.
I ask you to please stop making controversy with death tolls, it has nothing to do with AoE3
I wonder what the 3/5th compromise folks in the south thought about waiting it out? not that they had a voiceâŠ
But Iâll just state talking about the right (pun in here) to secede is probably outside the scope of aoe3 wish listing on forums.
And looking at things objectively, there is id say a general trend of people not for a complete mainline revolt of confederacy, some for no representation as the pay off is too little, some who want a scenario or 2, and some who would be fine with it being a mod (or even interested) but not advocating it be mainline aoe3 feature.
Given the really difficult history of civil war history, especially southern intentional efforts to smear northern efforts (seriously grant was a friggin genius who adapted the army on a level rivalled by scott and if you think he was a bloodthirsty drunkard you drank the koolaid) mixed with continuous debate on how to move forward the usa has in southern states, I just donât ever see microsoft and WE/FE (one of them is based in northwest usa iirc) wanting to open this up. It takes alot of untangling propaganda, being sensetive to both sides sacrifices, and trying to actually represent the realities of war. all in a game with dancing llamas, ############ chinese monks, and a davinci tank. aoe3 i think has a very cartoony take on things at time, for better, and this subject matter just doesnât really gel with alot of aoe3. i think again, you have to think how many people even want more late age4 events when asia, south america, oceania is almost a blank?
Thats my 2 cents tho.
2 Likes
I barely know anything about USAâs history but I donât see any reason of why we shouldnât be able to revolt as USA to CSA in AoE3 DE.
3 Likes
Which is where I point out that this explains why you think itâd make sense.
The TLDR is it is purely, 100%, absolutely a business driven decision to not include the CSA. Something I think a lot of people here donât understand is that this game needs to filter out a lot of the darker things from history in order to portray a people here.
The CSA qualifies as something that needs to be filtered. Not just the devs, but their higher-ups, donât want this game making headlines for reasons that might hurt their bottom line.
3 Likes
This again? Seriously?
2 Likes
I think You did touch a nerve here! 
Beside everyoneâs correct observations and numbers⊠What do You have in mind? Iâm reading 