I think he meant the Triple Alliance War.
New Stuff on the PUP, A lot of new cards for Peru, Argentina and Brazil
The Peru cards are an awful selection, they moslty have nothing to do with Peru and when they do, they recicle mexican techs (like dia de muertos). A really lazy selection that does not represent the countries history, unlike the new Argentina and Brazil which are superb.
Cómo se obtendrá? Una carta, o se envia al revolucionar?
Here is my take on the new peruvian revolt. Its just… not good. I included a comparison wikth other rev decks so its easier to see how off the peruvian one is:
About the new Peruvian Revolt - Age of Empires III: DE / III - Discussion - Age of Empires Forum
Cool. Are there more changes for the other american revolutions?
Only Argentina, Peru, Canada and Brazil.
Muisca revolution? I don’t see how that would work, since the Mayan revolt is based on the constant struggle in post-colonial Yucatán, as seen during the Guerra de las Castas, for example. The muiscas fought for a while against the colonial government, but didn’t offer any major resistance or conflict against the republican government so…
Still, if they were to add something like the Mayan revolution for Colombia, I guess they could add Palenques -african /african-american themed revolution-, the Regeneración -catholic/ spanish themed revolution- or another kind of native american revolt, which shouldn’t be themed around the Muiscas but rather around the indigenous groups of Cauca, Llanos Orientales or Santander -altought none of the revolts that happened there were as big as the ones in Yucatán, at least afaik.
South American civs should work similarly to the mexicans, at least in regard of revolutions. Imo, the civs should be Gran Colombia, the Brazilian Empire and the United Provinces of Río de la Plata.
Gran Colombia could revolt into Venezuela or Ecuador at the Commerce Age. Then, at the Fortress Age Gran Colombia could revolt into Perú or Bolivia.
Río de la Plata could revolt into Paraguay and Uruguay at the Commerce Age. Then, at the Fortress Age Río de la Plata could revolt into Buenos Aires and Bolivia.
All of these revolutions, except for Buenos Aires, should be permanent. Uruguay should be shared by Río de la Plata and Brazil, and Bolivia should be shared by Gran Colombia and Río de la Plata. These revolutions should allow different gameplay styles, based on their hystorical inspirations -benefits for rushing for Ecuador, booming for Venezuela, gold heavy for Perú, native heavy for Bolivia and Paraguay, Buenos Aires could use a gameplay similar to the Dutch civ and Uruguay could have a cattle based economy and a trash unit army.
Peru did not have as leading a role as Argentina or Great Colombia in the independence of South America, so it is not worth adding Peru in the eventual DLC on the independence of South America, and Peru cannot be a revolution either since it was a viceroyalty and not a real audience like Bolivia, Ecuador or a governorate like Paraguay, worse still, Peru cannot be a revolution of the greater Colombia since both had several wars after independence and even before independence they already had border problems.Peru could be added as a civilization along with Chile in an eventual DLC, perhaps the DLC could be called “Republics of the Pacific” or “Pacific wars”
You guys earnestly believe every single last country in South America will somehow make it into a DLC huh- and what’s funnier is that you expect them all to play exactly the same as Mexico, because that sure will make a good job of telling people these are different countries that are worth purchasing even though they all share the exact same gimmick.
European civs: 7
Southamerican civs (precolombino) : 1
Native europeans houses: one trillion upgrades, upgrades to everyone, you want a upgrade? here, have it, want another one?, not possible, just kidding, have some more with that
Native southamerican: have some zapotecs (not “exactly” from here hehe), some very vanilla caribs and of course you can train some cougars with your tupinamba! because obviously cougars live in the amazon (DAH!)
european nations controlled more than half the world, including south america, that is why there are so many, even relatively small european nations could move the world balance simply by being in europe. its literally not possible to make a world spanning early modern game that doesn’t have at least some European nations cause they simply just were more important in the period.
sweden never had a colonial empire but they fought countries that did and had real innovations to show for it, what would paragauy honestly show that argentina can’t? not saying they are the exact same country but surely you can admit they are culturally closer than germany and france is.
as for natives, lets start with amount. yes there are a lot of european royal houses, partially because they focused on making them royal houses, which by the nature where scattered throughout large parts of europe. where as the american natives represent tribal and ethnic groups. now one could argue there should be more south american natives, but the quick question there would be “who?” maybe musica i can see but like large parts of south america where almost empty before the european settlers showed up, there is a reason argentinians are basically ethnic spaniards, because there was no significant pre-columbian group there to influence it like there where in peru and central america. large parts of south america were desolate before the europeans came.
then there is the tech, and here its just a case of design creep, newer content simply has more in it, same goes for african natives. it also just helps that there has been a wish for years to make natives more relevant, since they weren’t that relevant back in TAD and vanilla. id also point out some of the tech from the original game where very powerful, more so than newer tech is. the native incas give movement speed and train speed, which is a massive buff compared to a trickle of coin. a lot the newer techs are also more opportunity cost than straight upgrades.
Absolutely not true. I have no idea why so many people believe this.
You can argue that they were not all as strong Aztecs or Incas at their prime, but it definitely wasn’t a land devoid of humans.
I think he is talking about the number of people in comparison to european immigration and how due to this modern day latinamerica is heavily influenced by iberean culture. Yes there were many tribes before, but the population got a massive hit by disease once the euopeans arrived
My brother in Christ South America wasn’t even remotely empty, Argentineans are “basically” ethnic spaniards because they commited murder on a massive scale, following the footsteps of the United States.
(and saying they are ethnically spaniard is patently false in the first place, it’s just a matter of actually setting foot in the freaking country to realize they are as ethnically diverse as anywhere else in the continent)
What you’re doing here is literally genocide denial by pretending all the land these countries occupied were conveniently empty and weren’t just taken by force through settlers.
Unfortunately this is correct, Argentina has committed acts of which we are not proud.
Correct, although I don’t understand people who give so much importance to ethnicity, for me if you were born or live in Argentina you are a Argentine.
20 million people, last i checked the incas had more than 10 million people, some go as high as 16 million, but lets be fair and say 10 million.
so for the rest of south america you have 10 million people. did there live people there? yes, i never claimed no one lived there. my claim is that it was comparatively sparsley populated to the rest of the world including central america and peru. my claim is also that you can see this in the modern population, unless brazil and argentina were uniquely brutal in their fight with the native americans you would expect those countries to have a large native influence, similar to Peru and Mexico, if there where large population before colonization.
for your information id also consider siberia, north america and most of central asia to be “desolate” despite them also having a fair number of tribes and people groups, simply put the number of tribes isn’t what defines an area as being desolate or not, its the number of people living there.
as another example if we look at australia before colonisation. it has about 500 groups, with a total population of about 750.000 people, meaning the average group only had about 1500 people. or to put it in another way, australia is about 3/4 the size of europe but had 1/100th the population, and that is if we assume a relatively low population for europe. now are you gonna argue Australia is not desolate? id argue it still largely is today.