In AoE3’s timeframe, the HRE capital was in Austria.
That was the example. I am not dumb…
In line with what I said. So Austrians need its own representation in case of European DLC.
Btw. Wiki says:
Vienna (Aulic Council (Reichshofrat) from 1497)
Regensburg (Reichstag (Imperial Diet) from 1594, perpetual from 1663)[b]
Wetzlar (Reichskammergericht from 1689)
1 Like
No, they are already represented, much more so than any other German state, in fact.
would be a really stupid mechanic to have. 1 thing is referencing religion, another is straight up have a faction just be better based upon arbitrary things like religion.
compared to other countries in the game the Austrian (and also german/HRE navies) navy just wasn’t very good, pretty much no European country was threatened by it, including the dutch, italians, danes, russians and swedes.
Austria at minimum need some more fun or interesting mechanics if they are going to be added, currently the ideas I’ve read seem VERY boring.
3 Likes
It was just an idea. If you feel enough certain to call others idea stupid, you should write you own idea. Otherwise you risk to look amaterish. 
1 Like
i am not pro Austria to begin with.
i have already written a draft for Denmark-Norway previously if anyone is interested in looking at it.
and i am sorry if you feel personally attacked but i dont feel like bad ideas should just be left open, if an idea doesn’t hold up it needs to be pointed out. it is nothing against you as a person.
2 Likes
Sorry. I agree Denmark-Norway should be in the game regardless any future European DLC. I read your ideas. 
2 Likes
I would like to see that, but not in this cluttered topic I think. Better make a new one or do it in pm, I too have created a Danish draft perhaps we could compare ideas?
On the topic of Austria, I think the current HRE themed german civ does plenty enough to represent it. The only change I would make is rename/rework the Prussian elements so that that can become a new civ.
4 Likes
i think ill make a topic then, would also allow me to add some more historical details etc.
i made the topic here, feedback welcome:
3 Likes
This thread is a cluster cluck.
I don’t understand the need to add another European civ into the game. Most of the European military force of 16th to 19th century is well represented already.
Historically I’d like to see some colonialization in Africa with the introduction of Ethiopia or Abyssinia (Great synergy storywise with connections to Ottomans, Portuguese and Italy. I guess Italo-Abyssinian war is the reason for the huge fan base of Italy.).
Also, Myanmar or Burma because it’s military history with British India and China fits the games narrative perfectly. The sheer brute force of their military was really impressive at the time. I don’t understand the lack of popularity here. Sure, in the end the Royal Burmesian Army starved against Siam in the late 18th century and got demolished by the British forces in the19th century, but it was a major force in the earlier ages. Besides, Burma fits the timeline of the game better than Siam for example.
My secondary options would be Joseon (if the DLC civ should be Asian) and Kongo (if the DLC civ should be African).
2 Likes
The Italian popularity probably comes from the fact that they were originally planned for the Vanilla release together with Sweden. Sweden’s inclusion in the DE makes people think Italy is next I guess.
Why Myanmar over Siam btw? I was under the assumption that was the major power in the region. But then again I don’t know much about that.
3 Likes
DE needs 1 new asian civ
1 Like
Europe received Swedes in DE
America received the Incas in DE
Asia should get Persians in DE
5 Likes
I wonder what it will be like with African civs.
I think we will get at least one African civ for free (maximum 3) - so everyone can have fun with the African civ. This may be an incentive to purchase an African DLC.
I feel we are getting quite a lot of African civs - some for free and some for paid.
Probably the more interesting African civs will be paid, while the free ones will be less known.
1 Like
Burma (Now called Myanmar) faced Ayutthaya Kingdom (As Siam was known during most of the time in the historical period of 16th to 19th century that AOE3 is based on) twice and ended up destroying the Siamese capital. The Burmese also fought China and British during the same period. The Anglo-Burmese War was fought over the control of southeastern India. The historical synergy with Burma and the civs already implemented in the game is mindblowingly good and should be used.
During this period the Siamese had 1 revolution against a French fortress and then they raided southeastern Asia for most of the time. Besides France, there’s no other nation in the game the Siamese had any major historical military clashes. Diplomatical perhaps, but no wars. Which is kind of a poor choice for any storytelling when compared to what Burma has to offer.
Tldr; During the period that AOE3 is based on, Myanmar had superior military and it’s more relevant to the civs already in the game.
All this from a 30 min wikipedia session.
Siam is better than Burma, as it actually was a grwoing power at the time, while Burma was a dwindling one.
2 Likes
It’s a game about colonialism. The British colonialized India and Burma through war. While remaining independent, Siam gave all of the areas it had hegemony over to Britain and France due to diplomatic measures. Parts of Siam was even agreed to be used as a buffer state in between French and British colonies. Where’s the power in that? Siam has nothing to do with colonialism.
i think it is more likely we get FLC Persia along with African maps and minor Civs.
i think for African factions they will all be in the DLC.
2 Likes
What does FLC mean? I keep seeing that everywhere.
1 Like