Remember AOE3’s faith is EXPLORE AND ESTABLISH COLONIES???
ESPECIALLY LOCATED IN AMERICA CONTINENT.
It’s really hilarious to see people arguing if Poles or Italy even Austria fit the timeline.
Ask yourself: HOW MUCH COLONIES THEY HAVE during 1500-1880 and LOCATED IN AMERICA CONTINENT?
Every argument will stop immediately.
Even the Ottoman is not justify without Africa map from the beginning, not to mention other European civs!
The region lack of content and need to be add is everything about Asia, ESPECIALLY MINOR civs and MAPS.
Like Mongolia map has Sufi Mosque and Zen Temple but have no any Mongolian Minor civs can ally with is really absurd~
Siam, Burmese, Vietnamese ,Persian, Tatars, Malays, Javanese, Acehnese, Papuans, Arabian/Omani etc…
Plenty of civs could be add become future priority DLC or Mnior Civs NEED TO BE ADD IN CERTAIN MAPS.
Ainu in Hokkaito, Korean in Korea,Tibetans in Himalaya maps as Minor civ still missing, etc…
These missing maps will include many people wants “Middle East” maps, since Lakota and Haudenosaunee has “corrected”, IS TIME TO CORRECTED “MIDDLE EAST” INTO “WEST ASIA”!!!
The second priority will be Oceania, non of priority will be Europe, BECAUSE AOE3 IS ABOUT EXPLORE AND ESTABLISH COLONIES~
Even if AoE3 were about colonisation, no one stops them from changing it. Before the first Expansion AoE3 was about Europeans only, and before the second Expansion it was about the Americans only. Those rules can change any time.
It never was really about colonisation. Germany and the Ottomans were in the base game, two civilisations that did not have any real colonies.
Japan was never colonised nor did they colonise anything before the late 19th century.
Asians never went to America and Native Americans never went to Asia. Seeing colonial looking Europeans in Europe isn’t worse than having Aztecs in Japan. If Native Americans are allowed to Colonize Asia than Asians should be allowed to colonize Europe.
But I have to agree that some parts of the world need more love that are not North America.
South America have 1 playable civilisation.
Asia could see more love. Vietnam, Siam, Persia, Korea all potential Major civilisations.
The Middle East is hard to represent because it was mostly owned by the Ottomans but Persia and Oman would be two nice civilisations.
I feel like we’ll get more African content first. Morocco seems half finished. Oman would be a good addition for two Muslim civilisations that both colonized parts of Africa.
Ok with this I can just officially ignore all your posts.
AoE3 is a game that is very far from history.
Skirmisher is never going to be realistic and it never way.
Half of European units are units that never fought on the American continent but only in Europe in wars like the 100 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.
You can’t ban civilisations from maps in Skirmisher. If you think that’s not logical to play on those maps than don’t but you can’t play ranked with this mentality.
If you don’t want European maps, don’t buy the European DLC. It’s not like it will make other parts of the game worse.
Ok,let’s add every revolution nations in the game~
Let’s move the Gatling gun into Explore Age for EVERY CIVS~
“Those people arguing USA and the other revolution nations is not fit the timeline are BS*”
SaY IT loUdLy~
I remember back in 2010s or even earlier I saw people busy arguing “even if they’re about to make new civs in AOE2, I believe XXX should not be added because it overlaps with another civ/was not influential enough/was not considered as an empire/was never touched in the series/didn’t interact much with existing civs”. And most of them were added anyway. Now they even added civs that few people even thought of like Sicilians.
If the devs want to add Europe they can always find a way to justify it. Not the other way around.
Let’s imagine drawing the future plans on the whiteboard, and assume they decided that adding European maps, or anything else that does not fit so well with “COLONIALISM!”, is a good business decision.
What would be the first reaction of the devs? “No we’re making a game about colonialism so we cannot add it”?
That’s definitely NOT what the original devs were thinking of when they introduced units like longbowmen, landsknechts, etc., civs like Ottomans, or the entire TAD expansion.
That’s the problem!
The order is totally opposite, another DISASTER from original AOE3, if the order was like the AOE2 will never have awkward circumstances like this.
Blame the Ensemble Studios or what~
yes because aoe2 with their checks notes aztec trebuchets and crossbows fighting in europe against the Japanese is just teeming with historical accuracy. The america theme of aoe3 was dropped with tad like 15 year ago, and now with africa joining the squad you’re gonna have to find other reasons to hate on europe
No you’re reading it wrong. That WAS the right logic, and that logic has been maintained for all the following expansions/DLCs.
The RIGHT logic:
Let’s expand the theme of the game with something new and try to justify it (or that is not needed at all. Did anyone try to justify janissaries or landsknechts in the Americas?)
← and this is what is happening. You don’t need to make up fancy stories to justify landsknechts, Swiss pikemen, or the Ottomans, or the entire TAD. They were added simply because they are fun and unique.
The WRONG logic:
Let’s restrain the game to one specific theme and brainstorm any way to justify any new additions before actually adding them.
The original AOE3 had European maps and assets in the development phase, and many of them directly passed on to the official release. For some reason they were cut, but the game was not initially planned to be a game about “COLONIALISM!” at all. They didn’t even take the effort to find any way to justify janissaries or the like.
If they were really trying to make a game about “COLONIALISM!”, half the European units should not exist and the units for most civs would be militia + natives + a small amount of regulars.