Bro, you only see race. Your very sight is poisoned against yourself.
3 Likes
You say you don’t know why i am making such a “fuss”, but we both know, that if the British weren’t added, you would be making such a fuss too (since you’re from london)
Not really. It would just be strange to have the French without their love-hate interest.
I would live with it.
4 Likes
The only two countries that will always be starting civs are the English and the French because the developers being anglos, that’s about it, all other countries have to go through periods of spotlights, Age 3 which was the previous game had American civs first, now it’s the time for the middle east and Asia.
2 Likes
Please attack the arguments and not the people making them.
2 Likes
First, that’s an exaggeration. Most initial expansion packs come out in about 1 year.
Also it isn’t fair to state they are “locking brown people behind $$$”. This isn’t a case of devs maliciously cutting content for the sake of squeezing the turnip for more money. That does happen but it doesn’t be the case here. I think people have difficulty these days distinguishing between microtransaction DLC and classic expansion packs which always felt very “woah! Awesome they’re adding new levels and things to my favourite game for a reasonable price and reduced cost!”
Also, regarding setting, I stand by what I said earlier. Many of the civs have later end dates to fit natural organic end dates in the context of that peoples’ history. Ending the “French game” at the end of the Italian Wars is fitting enough. However, we know that the early 16th century doesn’t have much weight in the games’ intended setting or else we would see a lot more harquebusiers running around.
3 Likes
AoE3 still has no Middle Eastern civs apart from the Turks, to this day.
Persians (Saffavids, Afsharids and Qajars) and Omani are dearly missed in that game!
We do not even know if Moroccans are coming with the African expansion, either, even though they are highly requested, since they were one of the few African states with imperial ambition and colonialism, in the time period.
3 Likes
Everyone, please stop attacking each other.
1 Like
Pretty sure it all started when @IcarusDuCer accused EVERYONE WHO IS EUROPEAN, of being “racist european gate keepers”. So blame @IcarusDuCer . 
Here is the quote.
1 Like
I saw the post. I’ve cleaned this place up. Everyone move on.
1 Like
Why would they do that when steel was so unimportant?
I think [mod edit: stop attacking people]. Since the MesoAmerican civs DID NOT appear until Age of CONQUERORS. Which was released on “25 August 2000”. Wheras, the AGE OF KINGS, was released on “30 September 1999”.
Therefore -
AGE OF KINGS - 30 September 1999
AGE OF CONQUERORS - 25 August 2000
It was approximately 11 monthss, after the INITIAL RELEASE. Not to mention, many of the OTHER/NEW civs, only came at approximately 2013.
Ah yes, because a game that came out 21 years ago is comparable to a game in 2021 when it comes to DLC release dates
words cannot describe how stupid you sound rigth now.
Thankyou. You have quite the tough job, don’t you?
Also, your job just keeps getting tougher, doesn’t it?
How about a solution? Why not introduce them as single player or Co-op civ like Starcraft 2 does?
It’s not that they were not important, simply its advantage during the conquest is overblown when factors like disease and native allies were significantly more important. It’s not like steel was in abundance, I mentioned above most did not even have that much metal armor if any apart from a helmet. Also the Aztecs were running low on supplies at some point in the siege even resorting to throwing stones from rooftops and women and children participating in the fighting itself. There was even a man from Moctezuma’s human zoo who probably had some giantism who became something of a folk hero for his defense of the city. So every resource available was used. The fact that they called on their most hated rivals the Tarascans for an alliance is telling of how desperate the situation was getting.
4 Likes
There is no problem in doing some campaign between Iberian and Americans. As I said before, they could do an American DLC first, African second, each with their own campaigns, and third Iberian, From Reconquista to the invasion of America. The problem is to reinforce the idea that American history only matters if it’s linked to Europeans. There’s a lot of non-sense in the forums about American and African history already, we don’t need to circle around the same old prejudice again, as AOE 2 has done with The Conquerors and The African Kingdoms.
What are you talking about, the U.S army easily held their own against the Chinese in the Korean war, and did not loose by any means, they were there to protect South Korea and that is what they did, South Korea is still a country and a much better one then China’s ally North Korea
1 Like
Though it’s not the main reason why Iberian were successful in America. By the way, I was talking about steel in general, not only in warfare. If some people don’t need steel to develop themselves, why should steel be used to measure how develop this civilization is? Were Mongols less developed because they didn’t farm in mountains?
If I were to follow some logic from this post, I would be complaining about how is it possible to add the Poles to any AOE game that is not in the Second World War-Cold War timeline, because that’s the only thing I know about Poland: being rushed by Germany and getting out of USSR. Really, go read about America’s history before saying “they did nothing relevant”, “steel was a big deal”, “they were underdeveloped” etc.
Discussion has veered too far off-topic. Closing this topic.