I do not see the word “full playable civ” here, not to mention the rule of “having a home city” or something.
And you still not have proved it. Just repeating it.
And that is not the sole solution.
1 Like
Certainly not, and that’s why I made a post about reconciling the old civs to the new format.
It is, however, the best solution in my opinion (and I am entitled to have that opinion). It avoids the problematic 300 year gap between the end of the Aztecs and the start of Mexico. It would give more options for the most boring civs like Spanish and those with short timespans (and limited tech options) like Aztecs. You could pack in basically all the same mechanics plus more through different starting scenarios (such as British(early or late)/Dutch/Swedish/ USA options or Spanish/(early or late)Aztec(early or late)/French options for Mexico. It would provide representation for all of Latin America and beyond and could easily be a DLC of its own.
2 Likes
Giving full revolution mechanics to Aztecs is too drastic. They’d better get a “revolution card” like the Inca/Indian/US ones.
Earlier revolutions for European civs might be a solution. I wouldn’t argue if you think that is a better one.
But as I mentioned in the exact same thread, though I’d happy to see more “historically accurate” stuff myself, it is far from a major consideration since the very beginning. No AOE game is ever synchronized within and among civs. That gap existed ever since (Portugal unlocks Napoleonic era cazadors and medieval organ guns at the same stage).
As it is already the case, moving towards “more historical accuracy” is not a necessary step to take, though some might prefer it. And if it limits the possibilities for future expansions of the game, it should come as secondary in the priority list.
Perdón, quería usar ese meme, sisi, por eso digo, todos los paises de la Región tuvieron su peso histórico.
9 Likes
I would imagine an Aztec based Mexico revolution would be very different from a Spanish based Mexico and more like a native insurgency with Mexican techs and characteristics (something akin to the Zapatistas). Aztecs do actually have a rebellion card now but it is pretty lame. Inca could have something similar to Peru.
The game being messed up from the start is no reason to keep doing illogical things. Organ guns were never even Portuguese even if they fit the timeline and I’ve seen many requests to change it (which would also be popular gameplay wise since it’s inferior to a falconet anyway).
Most of the worst historical inaccuracies are also detrimental to gameplay (organ guns and longbows being worse than their equivalents). And fixing up old factions so gameplay is consistent and less confusing should be a priority.
what? xd lo guardo esta buenísimo, na tío no pasa nada y el meme re piola o como dicen en mi país esta bacán la wea (esta genial, traducido para el usuario anglosajón que traduzca esto xd), y no pasa nada dato histórico que nadie sabe es que chile hiba a ayudar en la independencia de México pero llego tarde y ya se habían independizado y muchos chilenos se quedaron a vivir allí, xd búscalo es un descojone.
1 Like
A few things worth noting:
(1) The game is never logical and never sought to. Why do every battle and most historical battles start with a Town Center and a few villagers? Why can you revolt to South Africa in the Americas or Hungary in Africa?
(2) Existing civs have established gameplay. If you swapped one or two units they would might become too strong or too weak, and some unique units are designed as limitations on the civ.
I’ve been suggesting something very similar and I’m limiting them to very late game or additional cards/options/techs/
First of all longbow is by no means weaker than skirmishers. They just play differently.
And you are only picking two examples out of many historical inaccuracies. Dutch have rifles in age 2 and is pivotal to its age 2 gameplay. Rodelero or lancers are by no means detrimental. Chu ko nu (which is never a war weapon) is stronger than arquebus or many rifle units. Boys with stone clubs and cotton armour are more tanky and powerful than iron plated dopplesoldners or samurai. Rifle rider with repeating rifle (probably the most bs unit in terms of consistency with the timeline) is very effective.
Historical “accuracies” can be detrimental as well. Imagine falconets and culverins in age 2, hussars in age3 or cazadors in age 4, or Aztecs/Incas turning fully into Spanish at age 2.
Those are totally unrelated aspects and having one or two overlap does not prove your point.
(3) Not many new players are going to buy the full game if they see the devs made an update to existing contents. That’s sad and cynic but true. New contents cost money and the best way to cover the cost is to sell them as DLCs. The best case we can get is they slowly update the old civs along with DLCs like they did with Aztecs. So if they implement anything as drastic as another revolution overhaul, they would tend to turn the contents into a DLC not an update.
5 Likes
Yes, they obviously have to be for the game to be balanced, but they definitely should not be. The fact that they cost wood also makes them objectively worse.
Arquibusers with the repelling volley card are much better, and the DE has actually nerfed Cho ko nu relative to arquebusiers
This is still a problem that better historical accuracy would solve. Having Aztec age-up/revolt into “Zapatistas”/Mexico (or Inca to Neo-Inca/Peru) would bridge some of the massive technological gap. Ideally, Aztecs should have never been in the game and Maya (who were still rebelling in 1901) could have easily have taken their place.
The game is AGE of empires. You age up through the eras, so from start to finish you’re going to get some anachronistic combos. It’s only the really factions like Aztec or Mexico who are missing the majority of the ages/eras that are the problem.
A DLC focused on the existing revolution mechanic for Mexico/Brazil/Gran Colombia/etc, would have arguably been more appealing to a wider audience.
First of all Europeans are not so short of wood compared to native Americans.
Also, you didn’t address how or why rodelero, lancer, and many other inaccurate units are detrimental to gameplay.
They nerfed it not because chu ko no should not be stronger than arquebusiers, but the Old Han buff is too drastic. And you wouldn’t want a basic unit to suddenly become stronger than a more advanced unit from the same civilization.
Even in that case, they are still better than several skirmishers.
If British have longbows and skirmishers at the same time and you can buff longbows to be stronger than skirmishers, they are also going to nerf it. Not because longbows should not be stronger than rifles, but because longbow is age 2 and skirmisher is age 3 and they fulfill the same role. There is no reason to go for the more advanced unit if the earlier unit of the same role is stronger.
This is essentially annihilating the entire Aztec civilization design that the entire gameplay has been based on for 15 years.
And according to what you describe here, Skull Knights are quite strong so they are not detrimental to gameplay I guess?
You don’t age up through eras that much if you already have Napoleonic hussars in age 2 or cazadors in age 3.
BTW, this game is called the DEFINITIVE edition, so you should not get any updates, by the same logic.
Do you think it is ever possible for them to create a scenario where someone without a DLC playing Portugal with a worse Brazilian revolt vs someone with the DLC playing the same Portugal but with a better Brazilian revolt?
2 Likes
These are not really inaccurate or detrimental and suspension of disbelief is a lot easier with these ones. Rodelaro is an age 2 archaic infantry and fits there. Lancers were used beyond the 19th century so they are not out of place at all. It’s a bit odd that only Spain has them but not nearly as inconsistent as organ guns for a civilization that never even used them.
The earlier one should not be stronger. It should be a viable age 2 option, and maybe later with techs from natives, but should still follow the skirmishers > crossbowman trend. Longbowman cards could easily be altered to apply to a unique skirmisher instead.
…that’s the opposite of what I’m saying. A revolution/rebellion option would only change their late game.
Hussars seem like a comfortable fit for age 2 or even earlier.
Believe it or not, you could play against the overpowered African civilizations without the DLC.
1 Like
Rodelero can upgrade all the way into imperial like longbowman.
That lancer you are talking about is actually the uhlan (which should not exist for germans in the early ages, but still not detrimental to gameplay), and has nothing to do with the Spanish lancer who continues to wear morion in industrial.
Glad you checked that wiki page. You may now check a little closer to see how many in-game civs actually had hussars before 1700s, and how much the in-game hussar resembles to those “earlier” hussars.
British even had no hussars before 19th century. So should they get it at age 4?
Early hussars had armour, used lances and were mostly Eastern European. It is not even close to the in-game hussar with no armour, tall hats and sabre.
That essentially means skull knight is not detrimental to gameplay (though it is not historically accurate).
That is the only point I’m making here. Glad you agree with it.
Playing against a new civ is whole different from playing against a different version of THE SAME CIV.
When you play against someone online, the game loads data from your local computer. If you have the same civ with a different tech tree, it is not going to run normally. Or you do not even need different tech trees. Just open techtree.xml and change the cost of one unit, and online matchmaking is not allowed.
That’s why back in 2006 the game with expansion is a different game. That’s why they download all the African DLC contents into you computer even if you do not have that DLC.
Or they can make 8 new civs named “British/Spanish/Portuguese/… with better revolutions” and sell them as DLCs, which is probably the peak stupidity you can think of for this game.
3 Likes
Deberías crear un Topic para memes de AOE 3 
Existe 21
2 Likes
This civilization alone will have more mechanics and units than all the AOE-4 civilizations combined. “The most strategically diverse yet.” These mechanics are for the purpose of arguing their existence as a complete faction.
I had expectations like many of you who expected, such as Morocco, but if we think about it better it shows that there is a great work behind this new civilization.
Before 2017 we didn’t even think it was going to be remastered, but now the game is getting more and more reinvigorated.
1 Like
No the discussion has shifted all the way to “whether they should make new civs as historical accurate as possible and also give major updates to non-historical accurate old civs”.
Historical accuracy to the letter has never been a mandatory rule in AOE, but the more historical accuracy the better.
6 Likes
That should come secondary to gameplay. I’d prefer not scrapping existing units for the sake of it for example.
…which I sincerely hope they are not.
People should stop crying about new content, until recently we were never expecting even a definitive edition so late after the games release and I for one am happy with the continued support and will buy any new dlc they make.
The new mexican civ looks really fun to play and I’ll be pre ordering it tomorrow, even if I stopped playing I’d still buy the dlc just to say thanks to the devs for all the great work they’ve done to bring such an incredible game back to life.
13 Likes
Another annoyance I have: The U.S. get their Revolutionary Minutemen, but Mexico as a civ doesn’t get the Vaqueros from its own Revolution?
2 Likes