I don’t know, I think as nice as it is to split to one of these city-states, it historically doesn’t make sense to have the states split from Italy at the end of the the AoE3 timeframe especially as that was their unification. Technically the Italian States were in a very loose ‘Kingdom of Italy’ throughout, though power was really within the independent states and their Princes/Dukes,etc. I like the idea of having more City State-focused cards which then it’s down to use what State we’re ‘playing as’.
It’s probably worth moving this to another or new topic as we’re going a little off-topic, though it is a very interesting discussion.
As for the topic proper, both Poles and Danish seem appropiate as civs, but in my opinion only the Polish can just about get away as a Rev civ with the current civs available. With that in mind, I’d be bettting that they will be full civs eventually.
Yes, I think developers felt that Poland and Denmark were not suitable for being revolutionary countries, but they deleted them directly. They felt that these two countries were more suitable for being complete European civilized countries
Yeah I’m having huge doubts that they’ll make them only revs since they’re quite on high demand (on reddit and other social platforms if not here) with Persians + PLC flag being used instead of the Polish flag for rev is awkward and the Danes never revolted from anyone.
This has to be some sort of a tease like the puzzles AoE2DE and AoE3DE had last year.
I’m using Liberia as kind of a catch all revolution for the various colonial holdings on the west African coast. It never revolted, but it is a somewhat artificial “western” country in the same vein as other revolutions.
Feel like a de facto “Revolutionary Germany” as a revolution option for the Danes.
It could have some German features. Interesting.
I really don’t want an option just because of immigration if possible.
Isn’t Iceland bad? It might be an economically focused option, similar to Canada and South Africa.
Okay I see.
I can accept the revolution option to be an umbrella to some degree. But I don’t sure if other people will accept it.
I noticed that these three could be shared by the Danes and the Swedes.
The Danes could have these three, Iceland, and Haiti.
Then the Swedes could also have the Revolutionary Poland, so the Revolutionary US could be removed for them to keep at most 5 options.
However, I’m not sure what Pan Scandinavia will look like.
Historically, it looked like a social movement of a group of university students and intellectuals.
Maybe simply a tech tree combining Danes and Swedes. For the Danes it gives Swedish units, cards and civ bonuses; for the Swedes it gives Danish units, cards and civ bonuses.
Indeed. Having an American Legion card is a valid reason, like the availability of the Revolutionary US to the French.
I’d like to name it “Gold Coast”. This actually better refers to the European colonial territorial entities in the Gold Coast region, including the Portuguese Gold Coast, Dutch Gold Coast, Swedish Gold Coast, Danish Gold Coast, Prussian Gold Coast and British Gold Coast.
It can indeed be shared by multiple civilizations. In contrast, Pan Scandinavia is more suitable as an Age IV card for Danes and Swedes.
Just my summary.
One existing option each for Germans, Russians, and Swedes has been removed.
Danes: Livonia, Gold Coast, Norway, Iceland, Schleswig-Holstein (de facto revolutionary Germany).
They won’t since they are European civs.
But here I attach a suggestion I once made. Let German TCs have a big button to choose “Support” from one of the 5 states. It’s a post before the Mediterranean DLC, so it’s obviously out of date, but maybe it can still be used as a reference.
The Prince-Electors card itself is an easy way for the devs to achieve the same goal, I guess.
I’d be fine with either Gold Coast or Liberia. Liberia/Gold Coast could be available for Poland, Denmark, Portugal, Britain, etc. It could use Maroons and some pirate elements as well as native African units.
Haiti as an umbrella revolution is a bad idea. Other slave revolts generally weren’t connected to them and were all unsuccessful. It should be able to France and Poland. One could also make the case for Britain and Spain having them as an option, but they’re pretty full for options.
Iceland was part of Norway. Just include some Icelandic content in a Norway revolution available to Denmark and Sweden.
Don’t take USA away as a Swedish option. New Sweden was one of their few overseas colonies.
Slesvig-Holstein, Venice, and revolutionary Poland are all horrible options. There’s no shortage of reasonable options to fill a civ’s roster of revolutions.
Not able to Poland actually.
Those Polish soldiers were part of the French army. Nor did they clash with the Haitians.
I don’t really mind this. For the same reason, Poles’ availability to the Gold Coast is based on Livonia.
It should be a Swedish Immigration card which is a cut content in fact.
Of course having a colony is a solid reason, but the US option serves too much civilization. In my opinion, the number of Swedish immigrants and their impact on the US are relatively small compared to the others like French, Italians, and Poles.
I don’t mind them either. In fact, I quite like this design.
It is convenient to reuse existing assets (which don’t mean there will not be some new things), and it can be an interesting fusion to build on civ A to get civ B’s features, units, and cards.
Poles had no revolution, we had uprisings. If you cannot notice the difference: France had a revolution, Russia has revolution (early XX), that mean they fought against their own ruler. Poles in uprisings fought to retake independence they once had.
They were sent by the French to suppress the rebellion, but as a people also under foreign domination they joined the Haitians in solidarity. That’s a pretty solid reason to give them access to Haiti as a revolution option.
No, that’s not at all adequate. USA is a must have revolution for Swedes, Dutch and British since they’re the ones who’s colonial territories overlap with the 13 colonies. If you want fewer civs to have USA, axe Italy and France since that’s just based on 20th century immigration and the Louisiana purchase. Italy should have had Greece instead, and France could have Mexico as an option based on the Pastry War. Dutch and Swedish influence is huge in some states such as Pennsylvania and the Midwest.
Schleswig-Holstein is just an all around horrible option by every conceivable metric. It didn’t revolt, it’s not a cohesive region, and it would only be available to one civ. Iceland is a little better, but if they’re going to put resources into making a revolution it needs to be available to multiple civs (with exceptions for extremely significant ones like the French Revolution).
I went over some Polish options in my post above, including what the flag designs could be. The only real options I can see for Denmark are Canada (greenland but that’s fuckin’ tenuous), Norway, and and maybe a general Caribbean civ? Or the USA since Danish North America became in majority the US Virgin Islands in the 20th Century.
There’s a way IMO to have the city states in besides swapping Italians to a Federal civ (it would not the worst thing to happen, but you’d have to use, I think, the 20 REGIONS of Italy instead of the famous city states and republics primarily concentrated in the north, but it’d be rather strange, no?) We don’t necessarily need all of Milan, Pisa, Genoa, Venice, Savoy, Florence, Bologna and the Papal States as age up options.
I’ve been cooking up a rather stupid sounding mechanic for representing the Risorgimento, but it would mean replacing the existing revolt mechanic for Italy with “Unifiers”. You’d have three Italian states to choose from, right now I’m thinking the “canonical” Savoy-Sardegna, then Venice, then the Two Sicilies. They’d in fact determine which of your units get Royal Guard for free (you’d pay for everything’s normal Guard Upgrade in Industrial and if you forgot before Unifying, you’d just pay 600/600 for the RG). Maybe you’d also be allowed to advance your chosen Unifier’s RG units to Imperial, I don’t know.
For Sardinia, we’d have say, the National Service Grenadier and the Savoia Dragoon. For Venice, you’d be able to train the Cernida Pavisier and the Oltramarini Hussar For Sicily, since they were a Spanish possession for a while, the Unification would give you access to a Royal Guard Lancer, but not the Garrochista, it’d be the Cangiarro Lancer. Your other RG unit as Sicily is the Barese Pikeman, or perhaps the Barese would be a unique Royal Guard Revolutionary.
Those Polish soldiers would be the units or mercenaries used by the French civ, not Polish civ, if we were to describe them like they are in the game.
More importantly, the Haitians “resisted” the French and the British, so Haiti was a revolutionary option for the French and the British. On the contrary, Haitians are not fighting against Poles, nor are they in conflict with Poles. They were friendly, which does not make me think Haiti should be an option for Poles. Even using immigration as a justification, Polish ancestry is an extremely low percentage of the Haitian population.
However, this is a good reference for a card of Haiti that ships some Polish units.
Fine. If we were going to keep the US for Swedes, I’d remove the Gold Coast for them. Swedes had been on the Gold Coast for less than 13 years, and the Gold Coast has served at least 3 civs (excluding the Swedes) as an option.
So there could be: US, Finland, Revolutionary Poland, Livonia, Norway.
I agree that Mexico can be used to replace the US for the French. The Spaniards still have Chile as a unique revolution option anyway.
Ideally, I’d like every European civ to have 5 options fairly since the revolution mechanic is really another kind of politician.
Greece could be shared by Italians and Ottomans.
Ottomans can exchange Barbary States for Greece. The Barbary States were allied with the Ottomans and did not seem to have fought against each other. Also, it serves too many civilizations, similar to the US. For this, the Barbary States can get some cards to access Ottoman units and mechanics after it is no longer an option for Ottomans.
The House of Phanar had to change the name and icon of the big button for this, however.
I feel like it’s very unlikely. Just as we’re unlikely to convince the devs to remove a existing card to make Belgium an option for the Dutch, although I’d love to see them.
“In March 1848, the German population of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg rebelled, and created a provisional government and army.”
I don’t think it’s bad to just serve a civilization.
It doesn’t need as much content as Revolutionary France, and it can be developed based on the German civilization and some German Royal Houses, so its development cost is theoretically lower than Revolutionary France, and possibly even lower than other revolutionary options.
Iceland is similar. It would be an economy-focused rather than military-focused option that wouldn’t turn Settlers into military units, so probably only need a few unique cards and civ bonuses to make it work.
They weren’t just mercenaries, the Poles were fighting alongside France because they saw it as the best way for them to liberate Poland. But when they were transferred to a conflict in a far away colony that would have no impact in their goal of Polish liberation they decided to defect to Haiti and assist them in gaining freedom. Plenty of other revolutions are grounded in nothing more than a country having cultural or historical influence in a region (German Venezuela, Italian Argentina, etc), so owning the territories in rebellion is not a requirement.
And Malta. It could replace Hungary which has zero Maltese connection.
The Schleswig war was a war of German conquest, not a movement to create an independent Schleswig-Holstein. If you’re going to make that a revolution you might as well make a Scanian revolution based on the territory seized by Sweden.
I fail to see what an Iceland revolution would provide that a Norway one does not. You’re just throwing it in to meet your arbitrary criteria for 5 revolutions per civ. I think it would be perfectly fine to have 3-6 revolutions per civ. You could shift a few to different ages and flesh them out a bit more if it gets a bit too crowded for civs with more options.
The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (southern Italy) was significantly different from the rest of Italy. The fact that the Maltese who were a vasal of Sicily are a full civ instead of Sicilians is weak.
Therefore, if you add Sicily (or the Kingdom of Two Sicilies) as one of the options of the State Age Up mechanic, I think it should offer much more. Another option is to isolate Kingdom of Sicily and Kingdom of Naples for earlier Ages and add the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Age 5.