Huge fan of the idea you have for Malta choosing a major power to be a protectorate of!
Also yes, you forgot Australia 
1 Like
I would say that it has no basis, that was just the excuse that the creators of the wiki gave. I would prefer that they replace German Argentina with one of those states that people ask for so much. (those from the German division that will never happen according to the developers)
The United States had proportionately more of those âGerman immigrantsâ and for some reason they are not an option for revolution. 
I highly doubt the original developers thought Argentina was a justifiable revolution for the Germans. Most likely it was due to how poorly made the revolutions were and that they wanted two for each civilization.
PS: There is also a possibility that it was to defame my country, but I prefer to believe that it was an unfortunate coincidence.
Ironically, the fewer revolutions are shared the better, because that would guarantee greater ease in balancing them. This also makes it easier to buff these revolutions since now developers would have one less civilization to worry about.
Ignoring Italy which is also not necessary in my list, only Poland/Lithuania and Sweden fit the type you are talking about here. I always think that Poland pretty fit to be a revolution option, because for a large part of the gameâs timeline they were under foreign rule and had many uprisings. The uprisings are a very important feature of Poland in the timeline.
For me I donât mind having a civ be a reference to another civâs revolution, but I also said I understand people wanting to avoid that. Just find a new option for Germans, Russians, Swedes, Poles (and Danes if you donât accept Holstein). Apparently they may have some exclusive options like Bohemian to German and Kazakh or Crimean Tartary to Russia, but still preferably a shareable one. If Lithuania has more distinct Lithuanian stuff so that it would not be just a variant of revolutionary Poland, then maybe it would make more sense to make it available to Swedes and Poles. Or, if the Duchy of Pomerania could be acceptable, it could serve the Poles, Germans and Swedes.
Thatâs why Iâm also listing potential exclusive options. But I think itâs very reasonable for the devs to prioritize shareable options for cost reasons, so you can notice that the first goal of my list is to give us a way to get to 5 options per civ without using exclusive options as much as possible.
Hard to say. I am not really against it. There are definitely a lot of references there to make Australia, but itâs just thematically similar to Canada to some extent but worse.
The Canadaâs greatest value is that it can be shared by both the British and French. Otherwise, it has been criticized for being much more peaceful than other revolutionary options. Look, the Canadian flag is even the British red flag! While Australia may be able to use the Eureka flag of the Southern Cross, they still didnât seem to be seen as trying to be independent of the British authority.
Additionally, since the Dutch never attempted to establish settlements or rule, Australia could only be an option for the British, however the British have no shortage of options. As for potential options that can only available to them, Irelandâs centuries of resistance are definitely very attractive, and next Scotland is still there.
Personally, we can introduce many maps of Oceania to reflect the history of Australia decently and simply. The maps would absolutely have Oceanian aboriginal settlements as new minor civs, such like the Maori settlements. Most importantly, we could introduce 4 outlaw units with Australian characteristics there, which can reflect the convicts exiled to Australia.
- The Marauding Musketeer of treasure guard could be remade into a musketeer-like outlaw âConvict Rebelâ, which is based on the fact that many of the rebels in the Castle Hill Rebellion in 1804 were Irish veterans who had participated in the failed revolution.
- The Miner from the campaign could be remade into a explosive-throwing light infantry outlaw âEureka Minerâ, based on the 1854 Eureka Rebellion.
- A new dragoon-like outlaw âBushrangerâ, based on the bushrangers that were rampant during the gold rush.
- A new Wokou Junk-like "B1ack b i r d e r ", based on their b1ackbirding behavior to Pacific Islanders.
Why would this be Russia exclusive? The Ottomans ruled over the Crimean Tatars so they are a reasonable option for them as well.
I donât see why this is exclusive either. Itâs still a far stronger claim than a lot of the existing revolutions.
1 Like
After having Greece, the Ottomans have 5 options already.
No slot for the Crimeans or you have to remove an existing one, or you make Greece only available to the Italians.
Stronger than which one? United States? South Africa? Brazil? Indonesia? Belgium? Ireland?
There is no point trying to compare with options that only use immigration as a reference, because Australia is not competing with those for slots. No other civilization other than the British and Dutch can have any chance to access Australia, while these two civilizations have no shortage of high-quality options. Seriously speaking, itâs not even available to the Dutch.
Remember that the Dutch were the first to discover and land in Australia and to name it New Holland, but they never attempted to establish a settlement or rule it. The fact that only 2 men were exiled there for the murders of Batavia is the only point you could possibly make to claim availability to the Dutch, but it is still far-fetched as it was too few people and had nothing to do with the Dutch authorities.
1 Like
There is a little speculative history in AoE3 (especially regarding the revolutions, e.g. Finland) and there are many choices made for mechanicâs sake that are not true to history. The French I think are absolutely warrented to have an Australian revolution option. They were interested in colonising Australia in the 1770s up until Napoleon. The Dutch, Portuguese, and even Russians also did a lot of exploration. It was a fascinating frontier for Europeans at the time. While nothing serious happened from this, there was always the possibility, and I think it leads for cool âwhat ifâ alternative history which would fit in pretty well in AoE3.
Famously, La PĂ©rouse arrived in Botany Bay just after the first colony was established there and helped the British out a bit, planting a garden and so on. King Louis XVI apparently asked specifically about La PĂ©rouse on the day of his execution. The French were very interested in Australia and did formally claim parts of it (e.g. Western Australia).
Finland was indeed controlled and ruled by Sweden and Russia, which is not a speculative.
Finlandâs independence process was also very long and did not appear suddenly at the beginning of the 20th century.
Neither the Dutch, nor the Portuguese, nor the Russians ever settled or ruled Australia, thatâs the difference.
To be honest I think many of the options with weak references are compromises made by the devs (like Brazil to Italians), which does not mean that such choices are encouraged. If there were better options I would remove Brazil and Argentina from the Italians, but frankly I think Australia being available to the Dutch, Portuguese, Russians and French is much worse than Brazil and Argentina being available to the Italians.
The French just went ashore, raised a flag, left a bottle, and left. No one settled.
They claimed it, but there is no real action to consistently back up their claim. When the British began to rule Australia there seemed to be no French to argue with them about Western Australiaâs ownership.
The French are not short of good options either. They donât need an option with such a weak reference.
If just âwhat ifâ can be used as a reference, then even Ireland, Finland and U.S. are available to the Ottomans, because obviously the Ottomansâ ambition to conquer Europe and world was not limited to the Balkan Peninsula.
Iâm being hesitant about whether the Papal States could be suitable as a revolutionary option for the Italians. It would be an exclusive option if it could be there.
It would symbolizes the Papal Statesâ attempts to maintain their independence, resist the unification of Italy, and regain territory. It might allow Papal units to normally get trained in Basilicas without being considered a shipments.
Itâs not just the european civs, in theory India could be turned into a revolution
If anything, the Roman republic should be the revolution. The Papal State basically represented the old medieval times.
However, this republic was merely a predecessor to the unified Italy, so I wouldnât add it either.
In my opinion the Italians should have the Barbary States, Greeks and Corsicans as revolutions.
Yes, maybe if they put Australia in as a rev they will probably give it to the Dutch for Abel Tasman no more no lessâŠ
Everyone having 5 revolutions and no more or less is your own arbitrary constraint. Itâs fine to keep the scope of the discussion constrained to just Europen revs, but picking a random number as a rule is just silly. How is that any better than not wanting a Somali revolution because it would be better to have it as a full civ (and is already represented by a minor civ and doesnât actually make sense as a rev in the first place)? Your own response could easily be applied to your 5 revs rule:
It would be beyond stupid to not have Greece for Ottomans. But even if that was the case, Greece would still be appropriate for both Italians and Maltese.
Stronger than Maltese Hungary, Portuguese Barbary States, Italian USA, etc.
In my opinion Dutch is fine for Australia. Just give 'em a card like Abel Tasmanâs Voyages and thatâs good enough. Both Australia and the Dutch shared control over Papua so there could be a reference to that too.
Even if you donât count the Dutch, the French absolutely had skin it the game of Australian colonization. They settled in Western Australia and New Zealand and had colonies like New Caledonia nearby. So itâs very wrong to say Australia is only appropriate for the British.
1 Like
I think Revolution options should be limited to continents. This would make the Revolution options more immersive and would also add a lot more of them.
I think I speak for the vast majority of rev fans when I say, NO!
2 Likes
The reason is the revolutions are another kind of Politicians in my opinion so having different number of Politicians are not fair. I set this prerequisite that every civ has to have 5 options, because this is my topic.
It is okay that you can do not agree the prerequisite due to any reason but when you insist to against it this topic seems not for you. When you still want to talk about the topic, to me it means you can accept or at least respect the prerequisite. Then, you resisted some options and I said your reason is unrealistic, itâs fine since the discussion is under the range of this topic and under the prerequisite of the topic. If you think the prerequisites is unrealistic at the beginning, then I donât think we should keep discuss the topic anymore. Again, the topic seems not for you.
For example, just like I wonât be picky to somebodyâs topic about concept of Austria and Prussia civs, since I donât think the Germans split is needed at the beginning. I would just not touch the topic or only reply that I donât think they have to be split. If I have opinions on the concept and the man starts to explain why he doesnât agree me and how his design referring to the history, I think it would make the man very tired when later knowing me just donât agree with him at the very very beginning.
To be honest, over the years, I have lost almost all enthusiasm for the game. Problems with the game itself are one reason, but the tiring discussion on the forum is the main, making me feel like putting forward ideas means nothing except facing negative challenges. Sorry dude I always feel tired when you reply me, not only in this thread but so many times. Every time I see your capybara icon I feel pressure. Maybe itâs not your fault but sorry just leave me alone.
I have already replied itâŠ
They are Not Australia.
At least the Wikipedia havenât stated the French had settled in Western Australia.
Some places in Western Australia having French names cannot prove the French had settled there.
According to the statement in the Wikipedia, the French left a bottle and left, like what I already said.
It depends on if your prerequisites are reasonable. As long as one is respectful and reasonably on topic thereâs no rule about disagreeing with the premise of a post. If you made a post saying âthis is a discussion only about how Ottomans are objectively perfectly balancedâ, people will rightly disagree. This one is a good example:
Constraining the focus of topic to just Europen revolutions is reasonable, and I apologize for missing that. However, saying only Europeans can have a revolution is an opinion that people can disagree with.
Sorry if Iâve given you anxiety, I do not mean to attack you personally, only to discuss ideas. Forums are a too impersonal and I can see how discussing strong opinions comes off as hostile. Donât get too discouraged, you have lots of good ideas that are interesting to see and some of these discussions do get seen by the devs influence the game.
They actually are.
They even had a permanent colony in New Zealand.
1 Like
Nice work everyone. I have one request: Let us have Ukraine in the game. They had a number of forbears including Ruthenians and Cossacks. Or Bulgaria. It would attract some great publicity and draw in players from around the world fed up with the current conflict.
But it is an obvious objective fact that the Revolution is an mechanic only available to Europeans (I think the Revolution for Mexicans is another matter). That is to say, you donât think that the Livestock Market will one day be directly granted to Asian civs, or that the Federal mechanic will directly replace the Politicians as the aging up method of some European civs. Are these really 0% impossible? Of course not. But I donât need to assume or think about that. And in my opinion, when non-European civs can directly have the Revolution mechanic rather than just just revolutionary-effect cards, the European civs ate equivalent to being deprived of a major feature and becoming even more featureless.
However actually I didnât state this as a premise, because I thought this is the status quo that everyone knows.
The original post is based on the premise that every civ should faily have the same number of options, and the reasons for why I think so were stated at the beginning. It is not a random number. What makes me tired is that after you came to discuss the details with me, you then went back and overturned the premise.
Not considering or assuming the introduction of a full Somali civ is also very reasonable. It is not a consensus that the community can foresee, and even if it will come true in the future, that does not prevent them from being a revolution before then. There is no need to give up other options for an uncertain possibility.
And having a Somali minor civ and revolutionary Somalia at the sametime is not a conflict. Instead itâs a convenience, being able to heavily utilize existing assets to design the revolutionâs features and craft its cards.
Absolutely you can dislike Somalia as a revolution, and you can recommend a potential option as an alternative that serves the Portuguese and Italians. However, whether Somalia should be one of the options has no clear bearing on my premise. Your question confuses me.
This is very unintuitive frankly. I admit I never knew New Zealand was ever part of New South Wales. Even if Australia can be therefore opened up to the French as a potential revolution, it would still be highly counter-intuitive. Perhaps it would be better to simply suggest New Zealand or New South Wales as the option rather than Australia.
However, my conclusion remains unaffected. The British have no shortage of quality options, as do the Dutch and French. The existing options of these three civs and the potential options I listed for them, such as Jamaica, Ceylon, Ireland, Belgium, etc., have more intense struggles and the pursuit of a break with the civs. The French donât do much things there, and the Dutch only explore, making even Canada a relatively more decent option that Australia (or New Zealand or New South Wales) is hard to replace it.
I understand it is a pity to give up such a well-known former colony. If historically it had been colonized by the Italians, Poles or Danes, it would have been on my list already. But now using the outlaw units from the Oceanian maps to represent the Australlian history is simpler way in my opinion.
I had considered India but was still hesitant.
People such as the French, Danes, Swedes, etc. also established factories and trading posts on the Indian coast, but I am not sure whether they came into conflict with the locals. According to the statement on Wikipedia, their wars were all between Europeans.
The Dutch and Portuguese did have conflicts with Indian regimes such as the Zamorin, but Iâm not sure if the local residents in the areas they controlled ever had large-scale resistance to their rule.
So it seems that only the British are sure, but personally I would still pick Ireland and Ceylon first.
In addition, it can be seen from the replies that some people are somewhat repulsive to the options based on full civs.
Corsica is indeed a very interesting and solid suggestion.
I just noticed that it once belonged to the Genoese.
Itâs ideally suited to replace Argentina or Brazil (the latter may be replaced first).
1 Like
Indeed, until the locals expelled the Genoese and established a proto-revolutionary government. Itâs possibly the best revolution for the Italians.
1 Like