Yess, true… I forgot. At least this just proves there are so many civs that I even cannot remember them all.
Well, AoE3 was never campagn focused unlike AoE2. I think the core of AoE3 is in its multiplayer, not single.
Yes, there is room for many civs to add, but is it good to have another game with XX civs? In my opinion no.
So why does the MP in AoE3 suck so much, that it has less of a scene than AoE2?
And why is the best content in AoE3 the Historical Battles, if MP is supposed to be the focus?
I think AoE3 DE had some good ideas, but the base game was already filled with weird design (30% same, 30% borrowed, 30% new according to the Ensemble devs that made it, and then asked MS to not call it Age of Empires).
They should have focused more on the SP, and throw MP to the garbage bin where it belongs, because asymmetric balance games tend to always have garbo MP anyway.
It will never have the MP community that AoE2 has, even HD is played more than AoE3 DE.
Might aswell just make it a stellar SP game with 200 Historical battles and at least 1 actually historical Campaign!
Yes, specially if it is a Historical based title.
History had many, many peoples fightinf for power. It is not Fantasy, in which you can get away with only Orcs and Humans, with several auxiliary races for their armies. History is a large subject, with a lot to be covered.
Even a game focused just on the Crusades can have upwards of 15 factions, fpr example.
And the main allure of AoE games is the large quantity of civs.
I dont know why you want to argue with me. I just wrote my opinion.
I do not know how and if you are playing MP in AoE3 now. For me it is definetly better than AoE2 in general. I am absolutely happy with current status. No crashes, no out of sync, no freezes… Yes, civs are “imbalanced” but AoE2 has the same issue, hasnt it?
Who cares about scenes? The variety is sufficient, more could be added but the current status is ok.
By your statements about MP I assume you do not play AoE3 a lot.
I believe AoE3 is mainly focused on MP because all the campaigns are uninteresting. Historical campaigns… I would say a weird addon… AoE2 campaigns are far better, more into depth going, seem to me more realistic and historically accurate.
Then we should ask whether we want to play an encyklopedia or a game. I side with the game = less civs. With 35, 55, 90 civs you will never be historically accurate. Somewhere the cut between the history and playability must be done and in my opinion we are beyond the cut.
AoEDE - 16
AoE2DE - 35 (+2)
AoE3DE - 16
I have a different perception of the word “large”. 16-20 is ok for me.
I respect you have a different opinion, I have mine. Greetings to Portugal.
Except when in AOE2 DE the balance is in a much better state than ever and yes the new cisv will be OP as always, but FE will balance those, Balance in AOE2 is much easier because you just modify costs, Tech tree, Bonuses and Unit stats, while in AOE3 you need to look deep into the every hability, damage multiplier, mechanics such Torps and even more, is just much harder to get that balanced properly yet AOE3 DE has much better balance than before, and people still complain about Swedes and Japanese here.
The problem of Italy like that of the Holy Roman Empire is that they are divided during the whole period of AoE 2 and that from there there is a way to make a lot of civilizations
Austria, Egypt, Oman, Burma, Vietnam?
They could have a option of Venice, Naples or Piedmont-Sardinia in the second age for instance. With correspondingly varied bonuses, units and special buildings.
Yeah but the HRE at least in the early period, had some moments when it was more centralized like, half of the barbarossa campaign revolves around that. And actually, under barbarossa itself the north Italy was more centralized, so that’s probably where the Italians come from (either that or from the longobards and then franks kingdom).
Yeah but some states were similar enough to be put into just one civ, like Genoa and Pisa, or Milan and Florence.
In my opinion, the states that were fundamentally different were Venice (more focused on getting overseas territories and it was the only republic) and the south (since it was more feudalised and more similar to the north europe).
Except that Genoa also had overseas territories (some Greek islands, trading posts on the banks of the Danube and in Anatolia, cities in the Black Sea) and was Venice’s great rival for commercial influence in the eastern Mediterranean. And for Milan and Florence it’s quite late.
Barbarossa is the last emperor to succeed in maintaining his power after the others will either be assassinated or forced to grant privileges to the princes of the Empire. (I’m not talking about the Habsburgs there).
For the Holy Roman Empire I see the Austro-Bavarians at the limit it allows to represent the south of Germany since Austrians and Bavarians are close culturally and even the Saxons (for Central Germany) but it’s really optional and Bohemians for obvious reasons.
Yeah but less than Venice, Venice had Crete, Cyprus, the Peloponnese and most of the Greek Islands. Plus most of the Istrian and Dalmatian coast. And like Genoa several settlements in Crimea, the Gallipoli peninsula, and the black sea.
Then some centuries later was even able to expand into North Italy as well.
Not really, they were important cities. Milan was able to stand up to Barbarossa for example.
Yeah but it’s enaugh to for making an good civ. Also technically we don’t have HRE, but teutons, than with a big stretch represents the HRE.
Still, there is room for other germanica states in my opinion, but I don’t know enough to say which ones (ideally all of them, but they are probably too much).
"What is history but a fable agreed upon " - Napoléon Bonaparte
P.S. Even the origin of this quote is disputed. Some say it was Napoleoon, some say Voltaire and some say it was Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle.
Archeology allows us to know concrete History, and dispells many fables.
There are significant differences in the historical composition of the civs you listed so they can’t be just casually lobbed together as an example like that. Like for instance if you say Indians need to be split into Tamil then I say why not every single official historically tracable language India has and that’s like 22-23. I do agree though to the idea of factions, maybe something like Company of Heroes where the Germans had Wehrmacht (Army), Panzer Elite (Armored) and Luftwaffe (Airforce) as factions, each civ in here could have a sub-faction with units and tech so Indians could have the Tamils, Rajputs, Marathas, Mughals etc.
A lot but not entirely. A lot of recent archeological discoveries have dispelled a lot of myth but they are still being taught in colleges and universities just to support certain dubious narratives.
Politics is the religion of the “intellectual”.
In the name of narrative, many deny Truth, and are then surprised they stumble over like over a rock, and find their legs broken from the fall.
And AOEZONE isn’t the most friendly site regarding when new content is, and the toxicity is… well
Games with 16 civis are not even close to the popularity of AOE2.more representation of the world more players will join.
It may be true but it need not to be like that 
Remember, until recently AoE2 had only 18 civs and was very popular. Number of civs is not a driver but it supports growing community, no doubt.
While yes, just look at SC2. Blizzard has officially abandoned it. No new content means fewer and fewer player will join the game and play it, no matter how amazing it is. Fixing bugs won’t give devs money to put meal on their table, as AOE2 Don’t have loot boxes as revenue stream.
It’s sad to see him go but it is what it is. DLC support devs, so devs can support the game. I assume you agree with this.
Not always accurate, however.
The first phrase contradicts the second one.
