However, all major civilizations are still directly related to colonial development or colonial empire. AOE3 is not AOE2 and has a solid concept. If it breaks, AOE3 can no longer be called AOE3.
I played both Inca and Swedes. In my opinion, these are cool civilizations. Especially the Swedes respond historically - a quick attack and leaving ashes behind. The Incas are wololo wololo
Sweden has a lot of bonuses that seem not like AOE3. The bonus for their mercenary plagiarized Germany. The rapid use of resources plagiarized Britain. They have too many good cards of all kinds. Even the developers aren’t able to determine exactly what to give them.
The Incas are literally a civilization born out of plagiarism. Their cards perfectly plagiarized Portugal, Aztec and Haud. Even though they are an indigenous civilization, they have crappy cards that abandon their hometowns and cultures and turn into Europeans.
Especially unit’s abilities exist only for two new civilizations. This is excessive favoritism for the two new civilizations.
Do you really think this is a good design for a game?
Because Poland had no colonies, and Italy unified in an overly slow period of the late 19th century,
Oh Jesus. I’m not talking about magically flipping the game 180 degrees. The DLC is just additional content. Perhaps the game can offer something different, still sticking to the realities of its era? New campaigns and civilizations will certainly not hurt anyone;) Besides, even one campaign on the DLC would be enough - because AoE 3 is very much stuck to the plot. A nice inspiration could be the work of Henryk Sienkiewicz for the Polish campaign (author of “Quo Vadis”, “Ogniem i Mieczem” (Fire and sword) and “Krzyżacy” (Teutonic Knights)).
It is not Europe that this game pays attention to. Just, New world, colonial empire, East India company,
If you want to focus on Europe, it’s better to play Cossacks 3.
Ottoman never colonized America or Asia.
Germany and Sweden had colonies, but very small and short-lived ones.
Japan never colonized or was colonized within the time span of the game. And the Japanese campaign has nothing to do with colonization either.
Japan traded with European countries such as Portugal and the Netherlands. As in the case of China and India, they also traded with European civilizations and took part in their culture.
The Ottomans served for the Islamic State of Ache, which existed in Indonesia under the name of defenders of the faith. They also dominated North Africa, Southern Europe and Middle East Asia.
It is Small or large anyway, they established colonies anyway and established East India Company.
I believe the word you used was “colonialism”, not mercantilism, etc.
Not even included in the game so far. Ottoman was introduced when the game only had Americas. Also imperial dominance ≠ colonization. Would you consider Habsburg Netherlands, etc. as a “colony” of Spain?
You must first explain that why Japan did not have anything to do with the colonial empire, even though it did business with the colonial empire.
If we don’t call it a colony, what should we call it? They recruited people of different religions from different continents, and sold people from different continents as slaves. What makes it different from the colony?
Poles fought with Russians, Swedes and Germans, and traded with almost every other European nation in the game. If the latter can be considered as colonial empires, then Poles definitely has something to do with the colonial empire.
Italians were dominated by Germans, French, etc., and traded with almost every other European nation in the game. If the latter can be considered as colonial empires, then Itlians definitely has something to do with the colonial empire as well.
Vassals or provinces perhaps?
Trade between Europeans has nothing to do with colonialism. It’s just a European transaction. If you are a European, I think you need to understand the concept of colonialism a little more.
You may think it’s different from the colonialism you might think of, but they dominated and ruled on other continents no different than colonies. just, it is different to the Europeans,
The word you’re using here is “colonial empire”, which refers to a nation, not “colonialism”, which is an ideaology.
Then you switch to “colonialism”. So I don’t know what is your core argument.
I’d assume conquering adjacent territories is not usually considered as “colonization” but traditional expansion. Again, were Habsburg Netherlands or the Italian states under the HRE/France considered as colonies? I never read anything like that myself.
Also in case you have to stick on the “colonialism” theme:
If colonial “attempts” such as those related to Japan can justify its existence in the game, then there should be no problem for the Poles. Not to mention Italians, who had colonies since medieval ages.
the game definitely ended before 1878. frankly for most european factions it ends in 1850 or before. and the game also starts at the earlies in 1480, later than the ottoman conquest of serbia.
if the serbs (or frankly more fairly, the greeks or bulgarians) where to be nations in the game then it should only be as revolution options to the ottoman or russians.
Oh I love the evidence
As you bring evidence of colonization we can expect more European civilizations to emerge! I agree, if there is evidence that they have colonized, and fully explain it in-game, I’m willing to see that civilization appear!
In the case of Poland, I think it may be added if it can handle only the settings for Ulhan that Germany has already taken first.
Idk you must be fun in parties. The OP is just stating some ideas about future DLCs for AoE 3 DE, why do you have even to derail the thread?
Anyways @MUTYLATOR5553 I agree with more civs in AoE 3 DE especially we require atleast an African expansion. Siam or Thailand is also a crucial Asian civ in this time era.
We need 2-3 African civs from East, West and South-Central Africa(Ethiopia, Songhai, Kongo)
Atleast one from South East Asia (Siamese)
Atleast one from Middle East proper (Persians)
The age of geographic discovery,
If you want to mention Africa, you must involve colony，black person and xx trade . How to explain this history?
Will it arouse the resentment of the locals?
By the way I recommend Zulu
I’d love some DLC. The African powers seem like a fun idea with potential for some new game dynamics.
Please no post-colonial nations in the game except for revolutions. I would like to see african civs though.