You are right with Ottomans, they did not colonized Europe, they conquered it.
Regarding European maps I can add what I miss:
-
maps like Black Forrest from AoE2
-
coastal maps with “broken” coast - meaning many peninsulas, islands, many spots for docks and fishing (Scandinavia or Baltic region I refer to)
-
large sea maps with plenty room for navy wars
-
maps with “controllable” point-cities representing German cities in 30Yrs War (that would be new mechanic probably, I do not have clear idea what those cities could produce - victory points, resources, kind of bonuses…)
-
fortress maps dedicated to Vauban - teams divided by fortress lines
-
Generally in Europe there should be more railways. I do not know how to design such a map but in Europe hardly we can rely on 1-2 trade routes. I am not saying these routes in Europe must give resources…
2 Likes
I feel the theme of AOE3 is areas Europeans traded,colonised and invaded. What links the Americas and Asia is they both saw an increased influence from Europeans in this period even if this took very different forms.
With this in mind if there were another expansion surely Africa is the next logical step?
3 Likes
There will be no civ like USA or Italy…
Just april prank.
Back in the 1500 and 1600 they might have been living more densly, that doenst mean its the entire continent. Not even a small part. India as a subcontinent is massive, but the thing is the Indian architecture and stuff isnt based on colonial architecture, the European clearly is.
This is weird shouldn’t USA be the result of a revolution rather than its own CIV?
3 Likes
yes but clearly that’s no longer good enough.
Why isn’t it “good enough”. It seems that its inconsistant with the design philosophy of the other civs… this game is starting to look like an aesthetic mess.
1 Like
Some buildings looking colonial: the game is entirely based on colonialism!
Most units not being colonial: let’s ignore that.
Several civs in vanilla not being colonial: let’s assume a “what if” scenario where they become colonial.
That’s how you win every debate, man.
That still does not justify “Europeans building a small town in India”.
If “Europeans building a small town in Europe” is counter-intuitive, then so does “Europeans building a small town in India”.
Not to mention “Indians building a small town in India”.
3 Likes
All of this discussion because the devs decided against good judgement to include the us as a civ. How sweet life would be if they revealed an african expansion instead.
4 Likes
Not really. The “colonial theme” argument has been there since they added Swedes and European revolutions, when some people proposed more Europe-based civs.
US, ironically, still fits in the “colonial theme” a little better. It actually opens up another argument around “civs should exist at the start of the game’s time period”.
2 Likes
Europeans did build small towns in Asia, they didnt just build a small trade post. Such trade posts would have forts and basically all the buildings you can make in AoE III.
All units for the Europeans are perfectly possible in colonial setting.
The colonialism argument and having to exist from the beginning of the game is totally valid. Thete is no reason to be so dismissive about it. Colonialism theme argument wasnt there before because before there wasnt any reason to uphold it as it was maintained throughout the game.
1 Like
COSSACKS, WAR WAGONS, DOPPLESOLDNERS, JANISSARIES AND MOST MERCENARIES.
You cannot pretend you didn’t see a lot of counter-arguments raised before and act like you won the debate.
3 Likes
NOPE!
There were no Doppelsoldners, or War Wagons, or Caçadores, or Cuirassiers, or Cossacks, or Strelets, or Longbowmen… on the colonies!
Except for Spain, every civs has way too many units and cards that make no sense in a Colonial theme.
There never were Cossacks in Russian colonies, or Zweihanders in German colonies.
2 Likes
Never said I won the debate.
Also Cossacks were literaly battling in Asia, mainly Siberia and Africa. A russian guy went with an army of cossacks to Ethiopia area to establish a Russian colony although it didnt work. They were frontier soldiers of which many settled in the frontiers of the Russian empire.
War wagon doesnt make sense in general, so you can argue that it should also not be in the game in a general age game.
There were literally landsknecht conquistadores.
Besides I said basically all, which exclude some. Next to that its about plausibility. More than half of the units are actually also colonial units
Landsknechten were in the new world, not unreasonable to suspect dobblesoldners aswell.
Longbowman definatly were in the new world, so were cuirassiers as cuirassier refers to someone wearing a curass.
No, “colonial” units in history are mostly irregulars and native auxiliaries.
Some units are “colonial” units because they are basically generic regular unit in the time period. If you raise a group of musketeers, they are musketeers regardless of being in Europe or America.
Of course they should. The series always places “cool and unique” before “historical accuracy” or “practical use”.
If there is any basis for the War Wagons it was the Hussites, and Hussites had little to do with colonialism.
So their existence in Asia justifies their existence in America, which is THE very first setting of the game, BUT cannot justify their existence in Europe.
The devs should only add them in TAD then.
That happened in the last of 19th century.
And the devs were definitely not thinking of “oh they can probably travel to the colonies” or dig into history to find one or two pieces of information about one or two particular examples to justify their existence.
I said colonial unit, Cossacks most definatly could be. And again most units are colonial possibility and themed. Ofcourse you get some units noy specific to colonies when you want more than 3 different units.
And no Hussite wars fall out of the AoE III timeframe or literaly existed for like 10 years in AoE III.
If “a unit has colonial probability” justifies its existence in a “colonial” game, then “colonial architecture” definitely does not contradict with a non-colonial theme.
If Europeans “build a small town” in Europe, they would probably look like what they do in the colonies.
BTW by “colonial architecture” you mean “colonial American architecture” and colonial buildings in India or East Asia did not look like that.
So again the theme of the game of course is American colonialism.
BTW western European architecture in AOE2 is mostly English so the theme of AOE2 is “what if English conquered entire France, Scotland and Spain (removed later)”. Also Asian architecture is mostly Japanese.
The original game was designed to feature both Old World and New World content, but got cut down to being set in the New World only, that’s why it contains both colonial and non-colonial elements.
The non-colonial elements are LEFTOVERS from a previous iteration of the game, but the released game entirely focused on Old World powers settling the New World.
There. Are we done arguing now?
4 Likes