Lots of crap.
Read on:
the partition of poland ended in 1795, and but poland had already been in dissolution for decade by then, and was essentially just a buffer vassal state before then.
poland basically stopped being important long before the last partition, having been kicked around in litterally every war they found themselves in.
2 Likes
But of course Denmark was getting stronger then ⊠I think you are just offended that Denmark was not included by me. For me, the more important civilizations, the better, but you know it is stupid to belittle Poland in these centuries. Poland was an empire that had a golden age during the AoE 3 era. Just because she fell later doesnât mean she wasnât important. Every iperium has to fall sometime.
I would like a lot of European civilizations, but you have to remember about balance. Denmark doesnât offer more than Poles, Austrians or Italians - but that doesnât mean it doesnât want it! It would be nice to see Prussia or Venice separately, or the Balkan nations as a revolution for the Turks.
At the same time, the whole world feared the winged hussars.
A few examples of the great victorious battles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (writing Poles, I mean nations from PLC):
- Battle of Kircholm on September 27, 1605 (3,600 Poles vs 11,000 Swedes)
- Battle of Kluszyn on July 4, 1610 (6,000-8,000 Poles vs 30,000 Russians and Swedish mercenaries)
- Battle of Trzciana, June 27, 1629 (5,000 Poles and Austrians vs 9,000 Swedes)
- Battle of OchmatĂłw on January 30, 1644 (20,000 Poles and Tatars vs 50,000 Russians and Cossacks)
- Battle of Chocim on November 11, 1673 (30,000 Poles and Tatars vs 35,000 Turks)
- Battle of Vienna, September 12, 1683 (90,000 (27,000 Poles) Poles, HRE and Venetians vs 150,000 Turks)
But of course for you these battles are irrelevant (and so are the Poles).
Danes were more prominent colonizers than the Poles which is the focus of the game and therefore i think Denmark makes more sense than Poland.
2 Likes
And have you noticed that this game is deviating from the colonization theme? The Definitive Edition renames eras, units, buildings, and even civilizations - relative to the original. But changing the subject. You donât like the new DLC about Europe so much ??? In my opinion, the lack of European maps etc is glaring - there are no big and at the same time very interesting civilizations. It is possible that this makes AoE3 less popular than AoE2. You donât want DLC about Europe, donât buy it.
PS: I think the new European civilizations will encourage many people to buy the game. Those ages were very interesting in the Old World and it is wrong to ignore it.
No it isnât, except for a few name changes the game clearly revolves around colonialism. The reason the term âcolonyâ was removed is because civs like Lakota and Haudenosaune were victims of colonization and not colonizers but their inclusion still ties in with the theme of the game.
Poland was obviously neither colonized or did anything worthwhile in that department either.
Never say never:
And if you say that these are vassal colonies, not Polish - I will say the same about Norwegian colonies instead of Danish ones.
Fair enough! But i still prefer Danes before Poland in the game since they colonized a large chunk of North America (which is Greenland) and still have it to this day, that would also be a new map i would like to see included with inuit natives.
And what would be special about the Danes in this game? Of course, I donât have to present numerous possibilities from PLC - and they are really numerous and interesting (it was not a boring single-national civilization).
Interesting facts about the Italians who were to appear in the basic version of the game:
-
An Italian civilization was planned, with Florence as its Home City.
-
It featured subclasses based on city-states such as Genoa, Venezia, and Milano with their own unique bonuses and units.
-
Italian units were mostly âmedievalâ compared to other civilizations, much like the Ottomans and Spanish.
-
The Italians wouldâve been the supremacy equivalent (along with the Spanish) of the Knights of St. John, much like how the John Black Mercenaries are based on the Germans, and the United States is based on the British.
Planned units:
-
Architect unit, a type of a unique Settler.
-
Merchant unit, a second type of a unique Settler.
-
Elmeti as their Heavy Cavalry unit, replacing the generic unnamed Heavy Cavalry.
-
General âBombard Cannonâ artillery units wouldâve appeared, likely instead of Falconets and Mortars. These would later become the Liâl Bombard in The WarChiefs.
-
Likely have used Hoop Throwers instead of Grenadiers.
-
Considering that Genoa was intended to appear as a subclass, itâs likely a unique Crossbowman called the Genoese Crossbowman wouldâve been featured. A similar unit would later appear as an Italian unit in Age of Empires II HD: The Forgotten.
3 Likes
i got offended by you stating D-N was a part of sweden, which was a really dumb thing to say.
all the battles you mention are well over a 100 years before the partition, and quiet a few of them seem straight up wrong: Battle of OchmatĂłw, according to wikipedia was between poles and tatars, no russians involved.
Iâm sorry but I didnât mean it. My point is that the Swedes already represent Scandinavia in the game. I didnât say that Denmark was part of Sweden or that I didnât want it in the game.
Well, so what? There is no Central European representation in the game. Poland had many unique units. In the game, it could be one of the most interesting civilizations. You hang on to those partitions. After the partitions, the Poles also fought proudly (including during the Napoleonic wars). The history of Poland is definitely more complex than any other. I recommend that you get to know her and not cross it out in advance. What would you say if Denmark were partitioned in similar years? Would you also consider her unnecessary in the game? I am asking you for a moment of reflection. If Poles who created a democratic, multinational and tolerant state in those centuries deserve to be represented.
Two battles took place near OchmatĂłw âŠ
1 Like
if denmark wasnât a regional power in the periode then yes it would be fair for it not to be included, but as it stand denmark had a huge fleet, a huge territory and is the only colonial power not in the game.
also poland wasnât a democracy, it was an aristocracy, only the rich voted, it was incredibly corrupt and had a bunch of rules that made it worthless as a system. everyone having a veto right basically doomed the country.
Its position in Europe weakened in favor of Sweden. Breaking the Kalmar union in 1523 started the weakening of Denmark. Oh, then Poland was ruled by Sigismund I the Old, whose reign was the golden age for Poland. Well, of course Denmark is better, and the Poles are some villagers from the east, right?
If it werenât for Greenland it wouldnât be so huge 
After all, Poland also had colonies. She is also gone 
Poland was a noble democracy. Back then, democracy had a different form than today.
And corruption has been and is everywhere.
1 Like
I remember in empire total war Poland was bigger country than Denmark
1 Like
If there would be a poll I would chose Denmark over PLC. Denmark could be a seapower like Portugal and Britain while Sweden is more land power to make it fun and distinguishable from Sweden.
If AoE3 begin to focus on Europe PLC is a must. Denmark fits more into colonial race in my opinion 
Denmark was still the dominant power till the 30 years war, where poor military leadership left the army in ruin, with an aristocracy simply unwilling to reform the country into fighting shape.
Denmark litterally had the 2nd largest fleet in Europe by 1800, Nelsons worst battle was the battle of Copenhagen 1801 which was only a strategic victory.
the danish landarmy was weak but the navy was topnotch, both in size and leadership. on top of this the danish economy was one of the strongest in europe.
as for poland what do you think the urban population was like? 5-10% is the answer vs western europes 20%, that really tells you how backwards and poor the country is. there is a reason why despite a population in the millions polish armies simply never could field any large army.
iceland and norway are pretty big, and are on your map. denmark-norway was definitely 1 of the larger kingdoms of europe.
there is a difference between trying and miserably failing, and actually having colonies. also its courland and not poland that tried these colonial adventures.
that is litterally the definition of aristocracy, and it is a shitty form of government that didnât even remotely try working for the average person or even for the countrys actual interest.
I wonât explain to you anymore because you wonât understand anyway.
Iâm just asking you - what European civilizations do you want in the game? And why do you hate Poles?
1 Like
Because Polandâs maritime performance is not as good as Denmarkâs
Denmarkâs stepping into Africa can activate African countries by the way.
Denmark belongs to Northern Europe and can partner with Sweden, just like North America and South America each have two countries.
Poland may have to compete with Italy
1 Like