There’s a limit cap of 3 missions per day though.
I find it funny that you are really trying to bait me in.
By the way, a chunk of USA mechanics were fisrt proposed in these forums, by me, so someone must think I have serious ideas, every so often.
Outlaw population and cost Reworks and Double Saloon were my ideas, for example.
2 Likes
dude… you write like 24/7 random stuff on this forum. OFC there are some ideas, that get implemented, but correlation doesnt mean causality. You constantly get mad on people proposing the same stuff you later propose yourself. Dont claim to be the author of the stuff the devs implement a month later… the ideas for the US-civ are way older, since it needed time to programme and balance. And if you are the source of so many ideas, why dont the devs listen to you and why are you mad about the US? (its a rethorical question, dont answer it) Ideas like lowering Outlaw Populationcost etc are basically there, since Warchiefs… and “your” idea for european imperial age has been in various designs, multiple times on this forum
3 Likes
Because it thematically invalidates the whole Revolution system.
I already wrote up a big post on a proposed replacement for Revolutions, since it is the mechanic that never gets used.
Even Rhetoric can have answers.
And you complain, because?
6 Likes
we all know your oppinion on the US (i dont like them neither), but thats besides the point
1 Like
…thats the buildup for the next words: “OFC there are some ideas, that get implemented, but correlation doesnt mean causality.”
…ya thats the point of a rethoric question.
A rhetorical question is a question (such as “How could I be so stupid?”) that’s asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner
1 Like
Imagine if the United States revolted and formed their own confederacy, or if a subcontinent like India revolted against Great Britain and formed their own independence country again like India. But oh no, the horror of the thematic invalidation! It’s why these two countries shouldn’t exist, hurrr durrr… /s
1 Like
I’ve never before in my life seen such a terrible misinterpretation of something that was stated plainly and clearly. He’s talking about the Revolution game mechanic being made redundant by revolutionary nations becoming full civs.
4 Likes
I think you mix two different things. I would have had no objections against US addition if devs would add them as a full-playable civ through revolution mechanic (switching cards, units, flag, architecture style…). The same could be valid for India (or some Indian state - Delphi or Bengal).
By this approach revolution would retain its sense, it would add more suprise factor to the game, it would be more historical accurate… I saw only advantages…
1 Like
If they didn’t make the game focus on exploration and colonization with an implemented revolution option for post-colonial civs then maybe i could see the US make sense but how the game is designed they really don’t.
You can’t compare Age2 to 3 because the latter is more built around a certain theme (discovery, exploration, colonization), also the ages are shorter and the timeline covers only 400 years, Age 2 covers at least 1000 years. The dark age in Age2 covers around 500 years (the whole timeline of Age3) and you could conceivably fit most Age2 civs into that era but you can’t fit the US into Exploration age by any stretch of the imagination.
3 Likes
Where’s the 14 civ option or at least no more new civs option?
1 Like
It is called going back to play the deserted Legacy version of the game, that is still sold and available on Steam.
5 Likes
It’s called bad polling.
1 Like
“No more civs” option is never on the table. The whole point of threads like this is for people to talk about civs THEY WANT TO BRING TO THE GAME.
You are free to write your own “I do not want anymore civs” thread, but since Microsoft wants money, and African civs are already one the way, and the community keeps asking for more; my guess is that you will not find yourself in a viable majorirty.
10 Likes
“What should be the optimal total number of civs for AoE 3 DE?”
The question isn’t about what’s going to be done nor is it what would be most profitable it’s more about the preference of the one answering the question thus “20-25” implying someone would be ok with adding another 3 more civs that’ll probably render the older/nondlc civs obsolete isn’t really appropriate if you wanted to conduct a good poll.
All Empires at the time, and a few important peoples.
Missing from AoE3 still:
-Moroccans
-Omani
-Persians
-Polish
-Danish
-Siamese
-Burmese (optional, but still good)
-Maori
-Zulus
-Comanche
-Ottawans
-Mapuche/Araucans
-Brazil (USA got in)
-Gran Colombia (USA got in)
-Mexico (USA got in)
There needs to be additional content for the vanilla game civs, such as campaigns in Europe, new units, a complete rework of the thematically and gameplay obsolete Revolution system, new Ships and upgrades, and new units to make them actually rounded out.
8 Likes
I think Apache would make for a really interesting civ.
4 Likes
I still play legacy. It is far from deserted with close to 1000 players each day. It barely took a hit since DE came out. I’ll play DE more when I get a better computer and they hash out all the bugs and UI issues.
Burmese vs Siamese will be a good combo of new civs for a DLC.
4 Likes
