Yes,you would have a Southeast Asian dlc with Siamese (fighting in the first historical battle with the Siamese king Naresuan the Great against the Burmese king Nanda -son of Bayinnaung and narrator of his campaign in 1593), then in the second historical battle played with the Burmese in the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767 and finally a historic battle of the unification of Vietnam in 1802 by Emperor Gia Long…
1 Like
Yes,the civs of the historical battles are different from those that are in the multiplayer, since those of the historical battles are civs with customized decks and limited mechanics…
1 Like
Yes,you have Persia or Korea (maybe they will come in a new Asian dlc)… and in America they will clearly put Brazil (by size, importance and number of players) and so you would have three postcolonial nations of three languages: USA (English speaking), Mexico (Spanish speaking) and Brazil (Portuguese speaking)…
6 Likes
I still want Maori as a civ, with a few New Zealand maps. They could have a historical battle set during the Musket Wars or maybe even recycle the colonial treasure guardians from the African maps as enemies in a battle set during the New Zealand Wars. Or they could do both!
1 Like
They would be cool as a minor civ.
1 Like
I feel like there are two strong reasons why it would be Korea:
- Asian/TAD civs are the only group without a DE DLC
- rts is very popular in korea already compared to elsewhere
1 Like
The framework for the Brazilian civ is already there though. Korea would require completely changed systems specific to that civ. Also, strategy isn’t popular in Korea, MOBA’s, MMOs, mobile games, and battle royales are. I do think they will add Korea though just from a financial point of view. I don’t think it will be now though.
2 Likes
It would be understandable if it’s Brazil. Complete the set of federal states. More ambitious would be something different.
3 Likes
For those Oriental nations like Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Ryukyu, Mysore, Maratha, etc., I would prefer to introduce units from there as mercenaries or special minor to give them decent representation in the game without needing to develop a full faction.
AoE3 is not suitable for having as many civs as AoE2 in my opinion.
3 Likes
Yes,Persia, Korea and Oman would be interesting civs…
2 Likes
Yes, in fact it affects any federal country they decided to put into the game:
(Note that the only federal nations that remain without putting them in the game are Belgium, Burma, Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia -Sultanate of Johor, Somalia -Sultanates of Adel and Geledi, Switzerland and Venezuela -which in the game would be Great Colombia)…
The federal civs so far so have other requirements. That they have at least 25 states for age ups and are new world powers. Can anything fit but Brazil and Gran Columbia if states replaced with countries (though this breaks the current model)?
Yes,or but minor natives and already…
I meant more ambitious as in a non federal option, might indicate what sort of future we may be able to expect. Asian or European civ sends a different message to African or feudal. And if it’s a new civ mechanic then we’ll that would be something else.
Do you mean in terms of asymmetric civ design?
In my humble opinion, Italian or riot, basically.
1 Like
Of course, in fact the empire of Brazil had 22 states/provinces during its existence:
Provinces of Brazil - Wikipedia
And Great Colombia had 38 states/provinces, more than enough for what the game demands:
2 Likes
Of course, I understand… yes what the devs said is that they are open to putting new game mechanics, since the community of aoe 3 is much more open than that of 2 in that sense…
Of course, few civs but very asymmetrical with each other…
Honestly, I would like them to focus on 16-17-18th and slightly 19th century powerhouses.
I have had enough of strange civilization options with the previous DLCS and now it is time for us to see real “EMPIRES” such as Danes, Poles or Persians.
7 Likes