At least tehy had their own civilization, in the beggining of the game’s timeframe.
The USA just stole everything from other peoples, including it’s original rebels.
Again, you just have a personal issue with the U.S. The U.S fit just as much as the Aztec and Inca, which is to say not that much, but it’s just a game.
It would be weird to have both Mexico and Aztec at the same time or any compromise to have both?
Participating in multiple battles does constitute in being the belligerent in part of the war, so I’m not really sure where you’re getting at. It was you who stated that the United States had no involvement in the affair of Eastern nations like China, to which my response was directed at.
Ah yes, the United States totally weren’t actively involved with the war
Because playing the map called California and other states as the United States civilization is totally immersion-breaking.
Can you please look at your own posted image lol. It clearly states they were officially neutral. They participated in 2 battles and no that does not constitute being a beligerent. Also the two battles they fought in do not even seem to be meant to be part of it. It was US self interesst of defending diplomats and basically in doing so they helped the British unintentionally.
And again, 1st opium war didnt have the US and the US wasnt an active war member in the 2nd like you imply.
If we argue the history, why don’t we think here is a problem that Chinese hero is still using his punch to fight against gunpower.
It is just a game.
at some point will be boring playing with 20-25 civs, 35 civis or more would be decent in terms of entertainment and variety.
many people likes this game for its historycal references of differents parts of the world. more history about differents regions would be great.
Again, all civs in AoE franchise since AoE I has been people groups, not nations. It are the Aztecs/Mexica not Aztec empire. Ofcourse they are based on the nations they were from, that doesnt mean the people didnt keep to exist.
The Mexica still exist, not to mention many traditions still live on in Mexico and around 1.7 million people still speak Natuahl the native language. So in fact yes, the Aztecs did reach the industrial age.
One fact for sure that wasnt, is that Americans as a people group didnt exist well into 1830, meaning they existed for about 50 years in a game from 1492-1890. They feel so out of place. When looking at their architecture and units it feels so out of place in terms of time difference.
Its like having Italians in AoE I.
Ill keep buying if it means they will keep making it
Those 5 dollars arent going to do much, you shouldnt buy it just for them to make an African dlc. They are owned by microsoft, a multibillion company. The African dlc is already in the makes, so that means they dont need the money really. Otherwise you wouldnt be able to get US for “free”
That’s the spirit, bless you brother. We need more expansions for AoE 3 DE, has lots of potential more than AoE 2 DE tbh.
Yes, I can’t play the challange it always sends me to skirmish 1v1 window
you do the challenges through skirmishes
Yea that’s how it works and do the objectives then you are rewarded.
I bought the USA DLC. Considering you can already play them in some of the campaign scenarios, I don’t see a problem at all with promoting them to a fully playable civ.
As for future civs, apart from the African ones we are going to get, I think the Hawaiians, Persians, Siamese, and maybe Italians would be welcome.
Wars of Liberty has both of them. Sure, it’s a bit awkward, but not any less awkward than having the English, United States and Lakota in the same game.
i cannot in any serious way see Hawaii being added.
Oh but in what way would Mexico differ from Aztecs though in terms of units.