Someone’s brain is already so solidified to “whoever disagrees with me must be interested in Europeans” and then “calling Europeans irrelevant will help proving my point”.
It is programmed to run without any thought.
Nevertheless, even though the original argument has nothing to do with whether Poland is relevant, but whether units should cover the entire time period, I’d still do the favor:
The whole timeframe theory is entirely made up by yourself. You know there are already too many violators since day 1. Ignoring the violators do not make the theory more solid.
The only military unit in age1 (15th century according to your theory) is a musketman with tricorne (a typical 18th century thing).
The “halberdier” already in the game is a 15th century unit. So is falconet, culverin, organ gun, etc. They become available in age3.
Elmetto is also a 15th century unit and it is available in age4.
These are all in the legacy game. Not even mentioning DE.
Yes, of course I know my argument is absurd. That’s because the question is absurd. There’s absolutely no real manner to engage the question sincerely. It’s in bad faith and everybody knows that.
You lot are as big hypocrites as I am, like our brother in christ up there is literally calling me an NPC, something below human. So get off yer high horse.
Like if you want a real, genuine answer it all boils down to… representation. It’s extremely easy to just discount every single last possible civilization in the Americas because the settler states literally went out of their way to eliminate every single indigenous state in the continents. Native Americans aren’t valid because they disappeared in the 17th century and the current day nations aren’t either because they all appeared around the 19th century.
And you will keep moving goalposts and creating arguments about why absolutely no place in the world is justified to be included in the game (Except for token representation that’s just too big to ignore, somehow Kazakhs, Persia AND Uzbeks is too much.) because deep down you just think Europe is the only valid place in the world with rich history.
Hell, the argument has been made a hundred times in this forum, when cornered people will begin talking in weird middle manager corpo speak about sales and numbers.
Hypocrite means someone “ feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not”.
For example, gatekeeping others’ random writings on Poland or Denmark because what they want (imaging being angry for others wanting something) is not important or relevant while being fanatic about something equally or less irrelevant.
For example, jumping up and down in a random thread someone created about some European nations, while immediately screaming like a victim when someone else does the same to his post.
For example, bashing other people’s ideas because they lack the research, but when someone presented the research:
For example, saying all Napoleonic uniforms all look the same so they should not be made unique (then escaped when detailed info and discussion was provided and finding another place to repeat the old propaganda) while making every Latin American infantry, which ironically largely imitated European doctrines, a unique one.
For example, using Asian or whatever civs that are not European as the shield every time but when someone really talks about Asian civs:
For example, escaping from this very argument again and finding yet another place to repeat the same propaganda.
Openly expressing disgust to such behavior, on the contrary, is the direct opposite of hypocrisy. It’s impolite, for sure, but sincere.
I don’t think other regions are less relevant and I’m interested in Latin Americans.
But of course whoever disagrees with you must be another “brother” of Polish fanatic camp and calling Poland irrelevant will hurt them the most, as you are such a noble and virtuous individual, it must because they are from an “opposing camp” not because they are disgusted by your manner.
The very embodiment of “moving goalposts”.
Someone asked why you’re solely focused on 19th century and you have to cover the entire timeframe. It’s a silly argument that can be easily refuted with reason.
Your stress reaction is “Poooooooland!!! They think only Europeans are valid! I’m being oppressed!”
No i just think Kazakhs and Uzbek are super boring.
They where barely functioning states to begin with, and its not fair to include them with Persia, Persia’s population was more than twice as big as Uzbek and Kazakhstan combined and it was a centralized state that operated as a regional power.
In the grand scheme of things they where a pushover for the Russians, it isn’t longer than that. I don’t buy your nonsense that they where Regional powers cause they weren’t.
I don’t have a problem with native states being added, i just don’t think there are many i would consider necessary or which i think would add interesting gameplay. I think Comanche are cool based on how long they managed to resist, but i would be lying if i said i don’t think they would largely mimic the Lakota playstyle, which i along with most players don’t really enjoy.
Maya is perhaps another example where i can see what people are going for but i feel like they would just be less interesting version of Inca and Aztec and frankly i think with the Mexico Maya rev they are well enough represented considering how dis-unified they actually where even at the start of the period. Long gone was the Mayan confederation.
And ill admit i think Haida etc. sound super uninteresting to me, i don’t think countries have to be great powers or even regional powers but I’m not a fan of Malta tier civs.
Like listen i think Denmark and Poland are interesting, they are going to bring new ideas to the table, 1 is going to be a clear cavalry faction in a game that doesn’t have that many of those, and the other is going to hopefully bring in a bunch of ships we haven’t seen in the game yet. Your suggestion basically seems to be you think 2 or 3 cavalry civs in 1 DLC would be interesting. But apparently to you its a crime that i am looking forward to the factions, I was disapointed with the USA, Malta and Mexico civs but i never made it a crime to think they are fun to play.
You are not discussing the merits of either Poland or the Steppehorde factions you are asking for, your are instead arguing its unfair people are more interested in a regional power with 2% of the worlds population cause there exist this other horde faction most people have never heard about that could somehow have that arch-typical cavalry gameplay. For you its not a discussion about the historical relevance of either of those options, how interesting they are to the vast majority or how the gameplay actually will be, no to you its a hatred of something because its european.
And then after that you go and ask for more European civs, as long as they speak Spanish or Hawaiian.
Is this still a Latin American post?
If so, I want every southamerican country as a playable civ, I ask them because I want them, I wont elaborate further, nor give advice, history nor ideas or how to make them
Just old plane and simple I want them in the game
I see that in my absence the forum was diverted, by a small group, question for jonasnee8581 and LlegóLeader22 Because they don’t go out and touch some grass, they clearly need it.
In case you didn’t know, this topic arose because Latin Americans were creating many civilization designs, so the existence of this topic contradicts your statement of “I ask them because I want them, I won’t further elaborate, nor give advice, history nor ideas or how to make them”
Con todo lo que comentaron después terminaron dándote la razón.
Re-directing the topic.
One thing that occurred to me for these towers is to give them the possibility of mounting artillery on the top and thanks to this the tower would gain the characteristics of that artillery. For example, a culverin would help defend the walls and a mortar would help against bases that were too close, obviously the artillery population would be added to the tower for balance reasons.
To be fair, the original argument was about whether units in the civ design should cover the entire timeframe. It’s not even about whether civs are relevant.
The one who diverted it to Poland and needs to touch grass:
Ya sé papito, yo también puse mi diseño de civ, cartas, tecnologías, nativos e ideas muchas veces, ¿hace falta que diga que hice para que dejen de pelearse los otros dos? Pensé que estaba implícito
That conversation ended the moment Hoop commented, but you guys got involved and continued it, I ask you not to divert the topic further.
Ok, perdón, no es fácil saber cuando alguien es sarcástico en un texto.
Re-directing the topic.
For a potential Argentine civilization, the patrician regiment could occupy almost any position, they could be equivalent to Crossbowmen, Musketeers or Guerrillas.
Personally, I believe that an Argentine civilization should have the militia mechanics that the United States has, but instead of having super units, you would have the Patricios to defend yourself and the Blandengues to counteract units of mercenaries and outlaws.
The Patricians would not lose life as long as they are close to their own or allied buildings, and the Blandengues do not lose life, but they are only strong against mercenaries and outlaws, so it is not advisable to use them to defend yourself.
I know that not everyone would like the idea, but for me the revolution and a potential Argentine civilization should have the gaucho as an equivalent to the villager, the infernal could take the place of the current gaucho and in a complete civilization he could be a mounted guerrilla.
I don’t know why he is given that authority or privilege, especially when he did not really respond to that topic at all. In fact I helped him respond but he did not even care.
Because he is THE great modder?
EDIT in order not to divert the topic:
If you choose to shelter someone who is enthusiastic in destroying other threads’ discussion, don’t complain when someone else does the same to yours.
That’s all I want to say.
It was not because of authority or privilege, it ended because the person to whom the message was directed did not respond. I recommend that you finish with that topic, I have no interest in continuing to answer something that does not concern me, I just want you guys to stop diverting the conversation.
Re-directing the topic.
I remember that two topics were made about what a potential Brazilian civilization could be like and one was from a modder, I wonder if one day we will see the mod he was working on, I am looking forward to seeing the result.
Ah yeah, Roda. I helped him design the civ and with some modding knowledge but unfortunately most of the people he was gonna work with him lost interest and the plans mostly fell through.
Gotta say, it was actually kinda difficult to tackle Brazil from the right angle to get a compelling civ design. I had a fun idea about giving them Bandeirantes who plant flags with multiple stances rather than the single flag Generals use, but it was too complex and I never got it to work as intended, oh well…
Interestingly enough, Brazil makes a good case for a civ where you can include the colonial aspect of it into account. In fact I’d say colonial Brazil provides as much if not material to make a full design than the imperial period. At least it’s more inspiring to me because there’s a lot of tabletop and RPG games themed around Bandeirantes and the Entradas into the Amazon, they are just an intrinsic part of their national narrative, which can be translated ingame into a treasure hunting themed civ, which is something that hasn’t been explored yet.
They become available to age 3 for balance purpose, but especially because we have to imagine it takes to time for these heavy technologies and materials to reach our humble settlement. A falconet is not something you can bring when you explore with a bunch of explorers and covered wagons trying to found a new colony (Age I: Exploration Age).
Elmetto is a 15th century unit that exist for extended relevant historical reasons. If it was there at the time the timeframe starts, then it can still be there at the end of the timeframe, and it’s kind of up to the to the player to continue using archaic techs or not. On the other hand, Elmetto is a very European unit, not something we can expect to find in remote colonies. So we can imagine, once again, that such things can take time for an Italian colony to get access to something so special.
In the case of proposed Latino “civs” I’m still waiting to see something that is relevant to the whole timeframe. At least things from the late 16th century, that are neither too portuguese or spanish. After that period, we got to see specifities, creolization, special jesuit stuff, maroon slaves settlements, brazil-born bandeirantes etc. That’s the kind of stuff I’d like to see in a south american civ. That’s why I think something like a Guarani civ would make much more sense than anything else of these horrid “post-colonial states” stuff that so many like to suggest.
Sí, ya ni me caliento en corregirlo…mientras se entienda la idea lo dejo así y ya…
Pero dentro de todo, queda linda…sino es muy genérica meter la de la revolución o la de la campaña de Amelia…
Yes, they are already very picky about the forum, you write a sentence and they censor all or 90% of you…
True, one thing does not mean the other…the post-colonial civs are appreciated, but the civs that covered the entire period of the game are more important (Poland and Denmark, Persia and Oman, Burma and Siam, if you want the khanates of Central Asia before being conquered by Russia) and from there expanding the game to all corners of the globe…
Likewise, the base musketeer of the 2nd age has a hat from the 17th century, then his 3rd improvement has the tricorn hat from the 18th century and finally his 4th age improvement has the Napoleonic hat from the 19th century…
Yes, that is already questions of balance and gameplay…
Yes, it is a video game…otherwise you would have to limit the game to only 18th century civs like in Empire Total War and it would limit you a lot…you could not have Aztecs, Lakotas or Incas nor post-colonial civs, leaving empires out. like Mexico and Brazil…India was conquered by the EIC in 1757 so outside and so on…
I’m not saying it has to be with Persia, but as a successor dlc to The Last Khans from AoE 2…
Yes, don’t look for so much return…we will have a cavalry civ and another naval one that is good for the game…it’s not anything to write home about either…
Yes, I agree, based on the fact that they add content to the game both in civs and in units, they will correct the historical errors that arise over time…
A shame, I hope he didn’t get too discouraged, I hope he manages to put together a new team or at least manage to inspire others to try to create Brazil as a complete civilization.
As long as the Brazilian identity is maintained, I think it should not represent a problem, although I think that is something that only Brazilian players have the right to decide.
Re-directing the topic.
Idea for an Argentine civilization
Argentina could have a mounted Caudillo as a heroic unit, this unit could train outlaw units and with some cards even some mercenaries or normal units.
Potential Cards.
Don Pedro de Mendoza(Age I): The Caudillo gains 50% health and damage; Now the Caudillo can train Landsknecht.
José Gervasio Artigas(Age II): The Caudillo can now train Blandengues; The Blandengues gain the Combat Promotion ability.
Martín Miguel de Güemes(Age III): The Caudillo can now train infernals; The Infernals gain the Skill Promotion ability.
Juan Manuel de Rosas(Age IV): The Caudillo gains 100% more health and damage and can receive shipments.
Sable de San Martin(Age IV): The Caudillo gains the Valor Promotion ability and units close to the Caudillo move 10% faster.
Note: I would have liked to add a card that would allow the Caudillo to train native units, but I can’t think of a Caudillo that would receive support from the natives in the area.
Ahahah that’s exactly what should NOT happen. Being from that country means you have a strong biased opinion and knowledge. Plus, being from Brazil doesn’t necessarily implies one has a solid enough knowledge of one’s own country (especially given the situation the country is in).
The identity of Brazil based on actual Brazilian people is as much important as the perceived identity of Brazil based on non-Brazilian people in order to represent them in the game.
