It is understandable, obviously for many the American civil war is a complicated issue ( ̶a̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶T̶e̶x̶a̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶M̶e̶x̶i̶c̶a̶n̶s̶), but as I mentioned: in my perception it was wasted potential.
Personally, I would have liked the 178,000 “colored soldiers” who fought in the civil war to have been honored: they fought for their freedom, recognition and above all for equality. I would have liked them to create a specific unit of the USCT regiments that inspire the feeling of freedom (of which so much is talked about).
For me it was a mistake to mix “colored” soldiers with “white” soldiers as if they were ordinary soldiers, the fight for equality is part of world history and I felt that omitting that fight was an offense to all the people who intervened so that today everyone in that country can enjoy rights as essential as freedom. The truth is that I don’t know the reasons for this decision and it must be emphasized that, in my particular perception, it is also a bad design criterion, taking into account that AoE 3 is a game influenced by all kinds of visual mass.
As additional information, the imperial uniform of the regulars is very similar to the South American uniforms of the time (I suppose it was part of the military fashion).
With a few modifications, the “imperial regular” model could be used to represent different musketeers from various countries in the final period of AoE 3
Of course, I still think that when things calm down a bit in the United States they could get involved in the American civil war, at least from the side of the Union and making clear their support for Lincoln’s civil rights…imagine all the drama they did with the Native Americans and the battle of the Little Big Horn in the Chayton/Shadow campaign and with Andrew Jackson in the historical battle of New Orleans for all that his presidency meant to the Native Americans…
The thing is that Copper Mines is so ridiculously specific. They only pretty much only show up in Araucania.
A more appropiate (and globally useful) technology would be Chañarcillo Outcrop, since silver appears in most maps. Maybe send some silver prospector mines while you’re at it.
Whether we like it or not, by adding the “imperial regular” model now AoE 3 has gotten involved with the civil war theme and has also sided with the Union faction, so what can be done now is to exploit the positive points of this topic (although it may generate controversy in some southern states of the USA).
This is not a new issue in some arts such as cinema and videogames, when I saw the “rework” of Chayton’s campaign (replacing the Indian wars with bands of outlaws) it reminded me of the censorship of the game Sunset Riders for the SNES ( yes, it’s an old game and i played it when i was a kid).
SNES
ARCADE (Original)
Personally, I never liked the “cowboys” theme of the “wild west” in AoE 3, these concepts do not fit into the narrative and mechanics that AoE 3 tries to provide in its gameplay period. I guess these concepts were added in AoE 3 because they knew it had to do with Native Americans plus the concept of cowboys could be interesting and appealing to the US market.
However, and being a constructive critic, I consider the following defects:
It is described that AoE 3 covers the periods between the 16th century and the year 1850, the Battle of the Little Bighorn took place in 1876 and although there could be a tolerance of several years or a decade more (from the year 1850) this battle already has a 26 year lag.
It’s incongruous to see “Wild West Outlaws” type mercenaries being recruited in Age III while your soldiers are still wearing tricornes.
One of the Sioux’s star units, the Age III trainable Rifle Rider uses a repeating rifle designed in 1873.
As a personal opinion, I would have liked that in the Chayton campaign there was some “plot twist” where it is explained that the outlaws had disguised themselves as Native Americans to attack towns generating a “False Flag Operation” (If we are going to make a fictional story, make it interesting).
Now, and taking advantage of the fact that the issue of the maximum year up to which AoE 3 should be involved is already being discussed, for me the maximum year should be 1870: A) for this year most of the American countries had already become independent from Europe. B) the war had already changed a lot after this year:
The basic unit of heavy infantry is the “musketeer” which, as the name says: uses a musket, a muzzle-loading weapon that was used from the 16th to the 19th century, the last of this model used massively being the Minié rifle used in the American civil war. In 1870 the Franco-Prussian War was already underway, where the Bolt action rifle (implemented in 1860) and weapons such as the repeating rifle were used… and these weapons are not “muskets”…
1850 could be the start of the “great new era” for a possible future game in the AoE saga spanning from the Franco-Prussian War to WWII (and even after) as the industrialization of Empires changed the way to make war.
This is my personal opinion, and that’s because I consider the “musketeer” as the iconic unit of AoE 3 and the whole game should revolve around this unit (And I am aware that there could be “inconsistencies” like the fact of using cavalry and tanks in the same period… although it is historically accurate).
Hi @MatM1996, apparently we’ve gone off on a tangent a bit. So I will summarize the criteria to consider in the hypothetical addition of Latin American civilizations in AoE 3:
Respect the historical period: initially AoE 3 covered from the 16th century to 1850, however, with the addition of the Lakota (Sioux) the period was extended in an extraordinary way to 1876 with the battle of the Little Bighorn. Personally, I believe that AoE 3 should not extend from the year 1870 because the historical event of the Franco-Prussian War was transcendental and bolt-action rifles with a rate of 12 shots per minute were already used (much higher than the 3 shots per minute of the musket), also this historical event could be the start of a future AoE game.
I believe that AoE 3 should add as many Latin American nations as possible, however it is impractical to add Latin American civilizations separately. In this post I have already suggested a way to add several Latin American nations in a single civilization, however, I am sure that there can be many more ways to add more civilizations, in a more practical and fun way.
AoE 3 is one of the few games that has added Latin American nations (either indirectly), and that’s why many Latinos are grateful. And all the effort of the AoE 3 designers is admirable, however, it is necessary that they must “have a north”: the game already weighs 52 GB, much higher than the 11.6 GB of AoE 2 DE, even much higher than 32 GB from AoE 4. “Limits and Constraints” must be created to optimize AoE 3, separate luxury from necessity. Obviously, many Latin Americans want to see our nation represented in AoE 3, but our countries were created at the beginning of the 19th century and these countries are very similar to each other… besides, AoE 3 still lacks relevant regions around the world.
Why do we even act high and mighty and pretend we know what is the stance of Forgotten Empires on the issue? Can’t we just get off the high horse for one minute and just post dumb Civ design like the old days without having to go on asinine debates on what civ is “worthy” of adding to the game and which one isn’t?
It’s kinda getting tired, especially with the discussions about a “gold standard” of what fits in the period or not.
Like I said at the beginning of the thread. I don’t care whether Forgotten Empires will add the civs or not, even if they don’t, I WILL.
I think AoE 3 timeline could be extended to 1899/or 1901 so that the end of its timeframe would be the Boxer Rebellion in China - this is the perfect theme for a Historical Battle or even a new campaign.
As for more modern weapons, I think they could be added as brand new Home City cards that would be available for Age 5. Of course, there are no Home City cards for Imperial Age, but I believe they should be added for all civs. Could be unlocked with Capitol “Blockade” tech (for non-European civs in their counterparts). Alternatively, another technology could be developed which could become “Belle Époque” and offer Home City cards for the Imperial Age - this technology could be very expensive as it would be powerful and there could be some limitations to it, e.g. limit to only one card in the game multiplayer. Of course, there would be an option to disable this in matchmaking. This way we would have units from times that AoE 3 already covers in timeframes, but not necessarily in units. I think that would be cool and could be very practical for creating brand new Historical Battles and even Campaigns that would be in the 19th century.
So we could have the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War and many others.
In my opinion, three post-colonial civs for South America are enough: Argentinians, Brazilians and Gran Colombians. Here’s what the DLCs could look like:
Brazilians solo civ DLC
Argentinians & Gran Colombians civs pack DLC
Frankly, I’d prefer South American Native civs: Muisca, Mapuche, and Tupi. Optionaly also: Caribs. For North America I would add these civs: Mayan, Cherokee, Council of Three Fires and Cree. Optionaly also: Chumash, Pueblo, Comanche and Seminole.
That’s why I think that Argentinians, Brazilians and Gran Colombians are the best option for South America. You don’t need more. The rest of South America’s nations should be represented by revolution options, which should be reworked to make using revolution more fun for players. Because you have to remember that most likely civs that would be based on nations created after the Spanish colonies would be very similar to each other - therefore Argentinians and Gran Colombians would be completely sufficient and could focus on other aspects. The Brazilians, as they were a Portuguese colony, could bring more news.
I super disagree with LatAm nations being that similar but I get that the team must prioritize. I’d rather have Haití instead of Argentina, though. Haití funded Bolívar in his independence wars (and weren’t pirates). I suppose if they add Argentina they could have Uruguay and Paraguay as revolutions.
Argentinians would mock Chileans and Peruvians if they become a civ and CL and PE don’t, though
Mapuches would be cool, though.
Edit: I’d argue that gameplay wise, the end of the timeline is 1850, because muskeets. If we wanted to represent late 19th century I think that the best alternative is an Imperial Age upgrade for each and every muskeet unit to single shot rifle
¿Por qué los desarrolladores no hicieron campañas verdaderamente
históricas en el juego original y usaron en vez historias fictias?
Definitivamente no entiendo
Hubiese sido el mejor Age en cuanto a campañas y contenido de un jugador
Tal vez ahi si compitiendo con el 2 y sus hermosas narrativas ilustradas al principio de cada campaña
El 4, por su parte, super chéveres las campañas con sus documentales, pero se me queda bastante corta de contenido. Lo que me preocupa es que al tomar este formato, son bastante caras de producir.
Hasta donde yo sé, originalmente el juego no era parte de la saga de Age, era un spinoff, como el Mythology, pero un mandamás quería que fuera Age III, así que quedó como Age III
El mismo Bruce Shelley (el diseñador de juego de la saga ) se refirió a esta entrega como un “error”
Lo que querian era tomar una parte del 2 básicamente,
otra parte de otros juegos de la competencia, y otra parte innovar.
Pero, asi lo haya dicho su creador y me sigan disgustando algunas cosas del juego, para mi es mi favorito.
Porque en un principio querían que fuera un spinoff como AoM y como a la gente les gustó la campaña de AoM,pues dijeron “pues sigamos haciendolo así” y luego Microsoft les dijo que no iba a ser un spinoff y que sería la tercera entrega numerada y bueno salió como salió…como la gente criticó que las campañas que aunque eran buenas,eran muy ficticias,ES y BHG decidieron volver a hacer campañas más históricas para las expansiones:en TWC,Fuego (Guerra de Independencia Estadounidense) y Sombra (Guerra de Nube Roja y Black Hills contra los Sioux) (aunque en el DE la jodieron por querer ser políticamente correctos y solo dejaron la batalla de Little Big Horn,ahora renombrada Grease Grass) y en TAD:Japón (Unificación de Japón,aunque en el DE no corrigieron la fecha del Asedio de Osaka),China (aunque ésta es ficticia,se basa en los viajes de Zheng He mezclado con la hipótesis de 1421 de que los chinos llegaron a América y de paso metieron a los aztecas que no tuvieron campaña en TWC) y la última,India (basado en la Rebelión Cipaya de 1857)…
Claro,aunque AoE 2 tuvo 5 campañas en su lanzamiento,más las 3 de TC (Atila,El Cid y Moctezuma),dando un total de 8 campañas en total…AoE 3 tuvo 3 campañas en su lanzamiento,y luego las 2 de TWC y luego las 3 de TAD,dando también un total de 8 campañas (4 ficticias y 4 históricas) (aunque para eso requirió 2 expansiones)…A AoE 3 solo le faltaban las batallas históricas,como las que tenía AoE 2 en TC y TF y aunadas en el 2 DE,cosa que logró con el 3 DE,aunque le faltaron más batallas históricas en Europa y Asia,aunque quizás algún día las metan si meten nuevas civs…
Sí,los documentales están buenos,pero las campañas son un poco erráticas:la campaña inglesa arranca bien,pero luego se desinfla al final al volverse repetitiva con 3 misiones de “defender el bastión”…la campaña francesa,es una montaña rusa (algunas son buenas,otras más o menos,la misión de Orléans la odié por estar muy limitada y hacerme añorar la del 2),luego la campaña mongol estuvo buena,pero desaprovecharon la opotunidad de meter a los abásidas en el medio de la campaña,o sea tenés 4 misiones contra los rus y 5 contra China,al final medio repetitivo también y al final la campaña rus,que sería la mejor de todas,porque tenés bandidos en los mapas y podes comprar ciudades xd y ya luego de estar a la defensiva derrotar a los mongoles en Kulikovo y pasar a la ofensiva conquistando Novgorod,Lituania,Kazán,Ucrania (bueno esa no todavía) xd…
Claro,eso fue idea de Microsoft,originalmente este juego no iba a ser Age 3,pero Microsoft lo quiso vender así,porque como era la secuela de Age 2,esperaba que tuviera excelentes ventas…que las tuvo,pero muchos jugadores de Age 2 medio que se desconectaron de la saga (ya que muchos se saltaron AoM ya que era un spinoff) y prefirieron quedarse en el Age 2…por eso Age 3 no tuvo el éxito esperado,aunque como en mi caso,trajo muchos jugadores nuevos que no habían jugado la saga o algún RTS hasta ese momento;así que le estoy agradecido al juego ya que me enseñó un género hermoso como es el RTS…si no fuera por el Age 3 quizás ni jugaría RTS y solo jugaría shotters y mundos abiertos…
I wished people read the rest of the interview he gave. In it, Shelley went on to praise Frontierville, a Facebook freemium game made by Zynga, the company he was a part of at the time of the interview, calling it a “real game”. That game lasted less than 5 years until it shut down, so I would take that interview with more than a table spoon of salt. And besides, although he was one of the designers of the game, he wasn’t the only one: Sandy Petersen, who was the lead the designer for both the expansions of AoE and AoEII, says that he was proud of the result. So take that as you may.
Sí,de hecho fue el primo de mi papá el que me lo mostró…el sabía que me gustaba la historia y me dió un cd con la demo (o al menos la alpha) de aoe 3 y probé un poco,tenía mi colonia inglesa y los españoles me la destruyeron…pero como me gustó dije “me voy a comprar el juego”,jugué el tutorial y el resto es literalmente “historia”…en 2006 probé en un cyber el aoe 2 y dije “we,es re distinto”,poco después en otro cyber probé el aom y dije “ah con razón”,luego en 2007 llegaron las expansiones de aoe 3 y the conquerors para aoe 2,en 2008 aoe 1,en 2009 empire earth,en 2011 aoe online y así sucesivamente hasta llegar a aoe 4 en 2021…xd
