No I want second and third Indian Civ.
3 Likes
Your comparison is incorrect. Maratha Empire is like 100 times larger than Switzerland.
5 times larger than Ethiopian, Hausa, Mexico, Sweden, Japan.
1000 times larger than Maltese.
So I just said “I don’t want”, I didn’t say you don’t want too.
I’m only representing my own opinion here, because in your original sentence the word you used was “we”, not just “I” that represents only yourself.
You only proved that it is never a necessary condition for civilization.
3 Likes
if both Monks change to Nanib?
Yes, the two monks change to Nanib 
1 Like
Ok got it you are trolling.
Please, Indian civ ingame is a good civ gameplay wise. It encompasses various facets of indian historical references, which are as accurate as it can be in a RTS video game. No need for fragmenting an existing civ. They can be represented in techs, cards or minor civs. Infact, marathas are already represented in original game with the card - TEAM Shivaji’s Tactics.
3 Likes
One of the most ineffective insignificant cards. Maratha is far larger than that card’s effect.
You do understand that the significance of the cards in game does not parallel the real life, lol? It is a video game, it is a given that some cards are going to be more useful than others. Cards in aoe3 video game are not the best source to judge historical relevance of cultures, lol.
2 Likes
You do realise that you are using it as an excuse that Marathas are included and thus don’t need inclusion?
On the other side of the coin you had USA as a revolution option for a lot of civs granting ~3-4 unique units but then got their own civ.
All I want to say is Marathas need a civ than a single card with no relevance.
2 Likes
Nobody said that USA was the best option for a civ neither…
3 Likes
@Catalytic3351 came up with his ideas for Persian civilization and Indian civilization. He even emphasized at the end of the paragraph that it was worth a debate, showing his tolerance for dissent.
Instead of giving your thoughts on his ideas, you just call him a hypocrite rudely.
Over the past year or two, as I have thought more and more, my stance has become more and more agreed that splitting civilizations in AoE3 is the last last resort. And I have expressed the reasons in many threads (the following link is just one of them), pointing out the difference between AoE2 and AoE3 and why AoE3 should not and never need to follow the route of AoE2.
When I rationally point out the mistake of your argument, you are unwilling to discuss it but directly said me trolling…
I just also saw that someone made their own opinion and even historical evidence about the sails of Indian ships for AoE2 in the another your thread. You don’t respond to his evidence, but take his opinion harshly and criticize him for being a troll account, only because his opinion is contrary to yours and his account is very new.
Exactly. The revolutionary country civilizations are pot worms.
They should better update the revolution mechanics to something interesting and competitive to represent those revolutionary country well.
We cannot take back an existing civilization, but I don’t want to see this “bad habit” in Asia.
I believe there could indeed be more of the non-Mughal elements.
Such as other new cards, and even new mercenaries, such like Maratha Light Infantry.
We can already see the Mysorean Rockets and Rocketeers. The Indian civilization isn’t just more Mughal.
3 Likes
AoE2 Indians got split, what is preventing AoE3 from doing the same?
3 Likes
Because it’s only aoe3, not aoe2. It’s that simple
3 Likes
People have been complaining about AoE3 Indians for ages
In fact, I’ve always been bothered by the focus on religion that Asian civs have. Just because they have religions (duh) doesn’t mean their entire gameplay should be focused around religion.
I’m also bothered by the fact they don’t get horses outside of mercs and consulate units (and the consulate isn’t the best replacement given it takes ages to collect export).
1 Like
The design idea of aoe3 is not to divide civilization, but to integrate the surrounding national culture into a regional civilization.
4 Likes
Personally I dislike umbrella civs, especially big umbrellas like AoE3 and pre-DOI Indians.
1 Like
Nah the solution is quite simple.
Right now civs are still not saturated. There’s still room for a few full new civs like Poles and Persians. So they probably won’t overhaul existing civs in the near future.
If the game gets saturated like AOE2 and still has marketing potentials, who knows if they will break the “rule” of civ definition.
4 Likes
I wish they would at least add more maps based on South/Central America, India and China and add more minor civs for those regions, including Asian ones that aren’t holy sites.
I also wish there was more variety in the languages they speak, instead of all Indian units speaking Hindi and everything else speaking either Chinese or Japanese.
Qizilbash and Tatar Archers (and the Asian mercs introduced in Vanilla) speak other languages, but the stuff introduced in TAD still only speak those languages (except for Conqs of course).
1 Like
to being honest, i’m totally agree, split india will be a big mess, idk where the raj and east british indian company card will be. Maybe add more maratha cards adn characteristic will be enought. Persia civ really good.
1 Like
Why isn’t Danes the first thing that people think are missing?, They had colonies!
and the original aoe3 was about colonialism.
1 Like