Looking at this map, it begs the question of dividing the umbrella Germans civ into: Austrians civ (Austria-Hungary Empire) and Prussians civ (German Empire).
On the other hand, seeing Malta singled out causes mixed feelings, because it is the only small European civilization - and microscopic compared to, for example, the Swiss, Bohemians, Scots, Greeks, Cossacks, Tatars and even Sicilians related to the Maltese, who significantly influenced the fate of Europe (and perhaps even more so than Malta).
Realistically Switzerland should be under Germans along with all of Austria as the Hapsburg lands are captured in the civ, and Switzerland wasnât independent of the HRE until 1648, well within AOE3âs setting. Also, within the timeframe, Russia reached all the way to the Pacific,so those borders should be much larger, and Ottomans at their peak had at least nominal control over all of North Africa except Morocco.
As much as I like Malta, civs like it shouldnât be repeated in any future DLCs we may get. Itâs inclusion is quite dubious and and additional inclusions in AOE3 should have held significant empires.
As a side note, Iâm really hoping we flesh out all the remaining Euro maps with this dlc.
lol here we go again, first comment xD
civilization are about people, not political states. Itâs about how people felt like, what culture they are from.
This map should actually be a map with big blurry circles instead. If you canât see the color, it means the civ should not exist.
Mate Hungary was part of the Ottoman Empire very well for 150 years, later was absord for Hasburg Rule (Germans).
It doesnât sound nice that the rest of the civilizations you didnât mention shouldnât exist at all.
Are you saying the Dutch shouldnât exist?
As for the topic, pretty sure Tilanus views the swiss as âgermansâ.
Of course circlesâ visibility, size and blurriness values should be affected by demographics, cultural power, military presence, international presence, prestige, game importance, etc. Also, a vast area without any color should raise questions: -Should there be a civilization there? -Maybe we should rearrange the size of other circles. -Is this a place with a unified enough culture? etc
Where the Ukrainian Zaporozhian Host and Tatars Crimean Khanate?
Some people forget that there are intermediate cultures that arose through the influence of two large groups. Between the PLC and Russia were the strong and brave Cossacks who were something like anarchists. Besides, it must be remembered that, in themselves, large civilizational groups had greater or lesser differences within themselves.
Of course, Malta is more of a nod to the campaign and uses assets from the campaign⊠Sicily was originally a Spanish territory since the 15th century, so it would feel strange if it were a separate civâŠ
Yes, Europe in 1648 was this⊠we would only be missing Morocco in North Africa (Switzerland could fit but it would be like a meh civ)âŠ
They may be a Polish revolution, but they may later evolve into a Tatar civilizationâŠThe Hetmanate was founded by the Hetman of the Zaporizhian Host, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, during the Khmelnytsky Uprising from 1648 to 1657 in the eastern territories of the PolishâLithuanian Commonwealth.
Hopefully there will be a Cossack rev.
Iâd just called them Cossacks (Iâd have mentioned Ruthenian, however thatâs a broad net), as there was both the Cossack Hetmanate and the Zaporozhians, which were the far more independent Cossack factions.
Iâd love there to be a unique Cossack civ as they are pretty darn unique and interesting (they would even have some interesting Rev options with them splitting into different âHostsâ, for example Danube Hosts and Kuban Hosts), but Iâd happily take a Cossack Revolution for Poles, Russians and Ottoman.
I am not sure if there could be some confusion with the Russian unit of the same name. But I agree that would be the best name for the rev.
Maybe by sending cards?
Why? How does that make sense?
Anyway, IMO the Tatars (from Crimean and the Volga) would be better as natives, as I think Central Asian civs like the Kazakhs or Uzbeks would be much better candidates for the time frame of aoe3.
I think with this DLC, Europe would be finally complete. If we get more, they should be set in other regions. I think the Middle East is the best candidate, since it is still somehow completely absent from the game.
Yes, it would be more for the Crimean Tatars who lasted until the 18th century, but you are right that the Kazakhs and Uzbeks fit better in AoE 3⊠and yes, I think that after this DLC they will focus on Asia: Middle East (Persia and Oman) in Late 2025 and SEA (Burma and Siam) in 2026 and then South America: Federals (Brazil and Argentina) and Natives (Tupi and Mapuche) in 2027âŠ
Unironically just call any revolt standing in for the Hetmanate âUkraineâ as it AFAIK is the first state on that area of land to not only refers to itself as Ukraine, but was labeled as such on the maps of other countries.
Very nice, I canât wait for the new maps and features promised to us!