I think Malta is supposed to be a fan service civilisation.
It uses campaign assets on purpose and adds a few cool things that are more semi historically like the rockets or the fact that the Hospitalers get High Medieval helmets with the right upgrade.
The fact that they are a defensive civilisation also makes them a nice civilisation for less experienced players.
They are also just fun to play with things like every unit speaking a different language and things like getting some of the coolest units from other civilisations like Lancers or Cassadores.
7 Likes
I played them today and they are pretty fun. Difficult to master and have very unique strategies. Its very new because it doesnât really have a stable, really cheap barracks, units have unique perks. Gameplay wise its very good.
History wise, I feel like its really subjective. I think having Malta is another paradigm change, like US was. US brought modern factions into AoE3, and Malta is bringing in a new kind of faction - an order of knights. I personally donât mind, as long as their history is done right.
In my opinion, they donât really look that bad. If you hadnât seen the depot, fixed gun and commandery before in the campaigns, you would probably be okay with it.
I dont think the âimportanceâ of an empire is what they are using to determine if a civ makes the list. Itâs nice tho that they are putting in things that are not necessarily big empires of the time.
Malta is a very fresh addition. I didnt expect to like them so much!
8 Likes
Been playing them for a few matches and I kinda disagree with most parts of this thread except that it would be cools if they got the walls.
Hospitals being 100 wood isnât really a big concern, You wonât be able to make use of it all that much, the healing is nice but it doesnât save you, more of a good thing when your units survive to heal them back up. It isnât quick enough to be able to do that.
I agree with some posters about the hospitaller knight guard and imperial upgrades still being a knight from the 1200s. I donât mind the first or the second upgrades, but after that they should show the progress and a more upgraded appearance, especially when they get the dignitaries upgrade with the pistol. Hospitaller - art & models [criticism] - #11 by LinkXLank made a post about that already.
Otherwise Malta is fantastic, it is fun, it has a strong theme and it is quickly becoming a favorite in terms of gameplay.
7 Likes
Because the Devs chose to move away from the colonial theme they cant just suddenly argue their civ had colonies and thats why they are in the game. Even if they did Denmark was way more significant.
Malta is such a tiny nation, of insignificance compared to dozens of other civilizations not present in the game. (Persians, Indonesian civ, Korea, Mapuche, like basically half of Africa)
Also I dont know if you made this argument but others have, it doesnt matter the dlc name is knights of the meditteranean as the devs could have chosen any name for the dlc fitting wathever second nation besides Italy was going to be introduced. Also even if the Devs wanted a medditeranian style civ Morroco could have been easily added.
People saying they reused campaign assets is justified because they only have a budget or whatever reason they state to make only 1.5 civs are just wrong even by their own logic (as previous dlc was just 1 civ, so by that logic they would have 0.5 budget over right? Making it 2 for this dlc?). Look at the assets made for Italy, a lot of unique (papal) units and 2 unique buildings. All of which had to be moddeled. While the papal units are fun, they are not necessary and which means another civ could have had 2 unique units (argueing that the papal units dont have skins for upgrades if I am not mistaken)
This would have made more sense in the European civ mechanic style anyways as Italy already kind of has too many unique units in my opinion, but non the less Italy is really fun to play.
Reused assets is never good as it will almost automatically make content look worse or fan made. Also it removes uniqueness of the campaign and a reason to play the campaign. Not everything in the campaigns has to be playable in a skirmish game.
3 Likes
Getting lancers and cassadores is stupid as that are unique units of other civs, adding them to Malta doesnt make them unique anymore now do they? Like a one 1 time building or unit from another civ is okay, like the Japanese bank, but when they get destroyed its done, the devs chose to make them retrainable which is just stupid.
2 Likes
Tiny yes. Insignificant? NO.
They did what Byzantium couldnât. They blocked Ottoman advances- ESPECIALLY when that leader was Suleman the magnificent! They single handily saved Christian European from Ottoman Empire.
How is that not significant?
4 Likes
I hear people saying this a lot, but I was always under the impression that most people hated the AOE3 campaigns or at least the mythology-based Black family campaigns from vanilla. Similarly, the lack of support for new historical battles or single player campaigns makes me suspect that many never cared about single player content in the first place if they even ever completed them.
Itâs fine if people like the Maltese civ, their mechanics etc. but the nostalgia argument seems to be mostly bull imo. Some people may have nostalgia for Morgan Black and his Scottish accent (I know I do) but I donât think that applies to the majority vehemently defending the civ.
1 Like
You want me to take you seriously when you say things like that?
Also didnt know the Knights of Malta were at the siege of Vienna.
Can you send some supporting links to this claim?
3 Likes
So? These two sieges were important for different reason. Maltaâs siege is important because it prevented Ottoman dominance in the Mediterranean Sea. The first siege of Vienna is important in the terms of land.
The European powers took Ottoman seige in Malta seriously that they sent aids to help them out. Knowing that if Malta falls it will be Sicily next and then possibly southern Italy.
I see no sources, you claimed they single handidly saved christian Europe from the Ottomans, yet now you say other countries sended aid?
1 Like
See this video
Also while small history of Malta basically summarizes Mediterranean history in a nutshell. Just looking at its history you can get basic understanding of historical climate of Mediterranean history.
Perfect fit for the theme of Europe and Mediterranean.
1 Like
It is no argument to say Maltese are justified on the basis that they fit the theme of the expansion âKnights of the Mediterreaneanâ. The DLC name was chosen to fit the civ choices, not the other way around.
3 Likes
All Malta did was withstand a siege for four months which at that time isnât all that impressive. Even the video itself says that it was Spain who made the Ottomans retreat, not the Maltese.
Also it only saved a potential Sicily/Naples from Ottoman invasion, but regardless if Malta was taken historians are pretty sure the Spanish would have retaken the island in a matter of months. Not to mention that a big part of the Maltese garrison was of foreign powers, not of the Knights of Malta.
And if this siege is all they did of âsignificanceâ then there is no arguement for their inclusion
1 Like
Maybe so but I still mantain my belief that Malta is important and if one was to look at its history⊠it was a badass little Island. And I for one respect them for it. It has been one of small but strong walls of Europe.
2 Likes
If it wasnât impressive why didnât Ottomans try to attack it again? It isnât like Suleman had no reason for them.
The fact that this tiny Island managed to survive attack of Suleman the magnificent itself is impressive and Europe took notice of it by giving them gifts.
Impressive does not equal significant. Heroic defense which sure it was does not necessarily equal impressive, again sieges lasted for months in the time period and mos forts didnât have huge garrisons.
Why would the Ottomans try again? Their failure was due to over extension, not to mention the Ottoman fleet got hugely damaged at the Battle of Leponte. âHowever, modern scholars tend to disagree with this interpretation of the siegeâs importance. H.J.A. Sire, a historian who has written a history of the Order, is of the opinion that the siege represented an overextension of Ottoman forces, and argues that if the island had fallen, it would have quickly been retaken by a massive Spanish counterattack.â
Because the island has a strategic potition does not mean the Maltese are significant and a perfect addition to AoE III. Does every strategic important island if not in general strategic place have to be in the game? Whats next, Mauritius as a civ? They had barely any influence, barely an army, barely a state and barely did anything of significance if at all.
2 Likes
But Malta did have an army. And the siege isnât just small war with barely any casualties. There are a lot of casualties
The number of casualties is in as much dispute as the number of invaders. Balbi gives 35,000 Turkish deaths,[4] Bosio 30,000 casualties (including sailors).[5] Several other sources give about 25,000.[41] The knights lost a third of their number, and Malta lost a third of its inhabitants. Birgu and Senglea were essentially leveled. Still, 9,000 defenders had managed to withstand a siege of more than four months in the hot summer, despite enduring a bombardment of some 130,000 cannonballs.
Also you said this wasnât significant⊠but wikipedia disagrees
Jean de Valette, Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, had a key influence in the victory against the Ottomans with his example and his ability to encourage and hold together people. This example had a major impact, bringing together the kings of Europe in an alliance against the previously seemingly invincible Ottomans; the result was the vast union of forces against the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto six years later. Such was the gratitude of Europe for the knightsâ heroic defence that money soon began pouring into the island, allowing de Valette to construct a fortified city, Valletta,
Basically it showed that Ottomams were not invincible monsters but that like anything had weaknesses⊠it gave European leaders a hope against Ottomans
The other thing that could be changed is the ugly appearance of the upgraded Hospitillars as previously mentioned here:
Something with plate armour such as the image below would look much nicer than a guy with chainmail and a top hat.
1 Like
That I agree with⊠he shouldâve look like Medieval knight in a shinning armor
Where did I say they didnt have an army? Also casulties in one siege doesnt equal significance of Malta
Where does it disagree? All it says is that Jean de Valletes descissions were key for the victory against the besieging army. The example talked about is the entirety of the Ottomans losing, not just that Malta fought a siege for 4 months, and you know who made the Ottomans lose? The Spanish. The significance of the battle, was that the European powers saw the Ottomans werent that strong anymore.
Did Malta single handidly defend christain Europe? No. Did Malta do something unseen or unheard of? Not really. Did the Ottomans do something unheard of? Yes as they made mistakes and overextended. Did the battle have any importance? Yes in the sense of the European powers seeing the weakness in the Ottomans, does this mean Malta is significant? No. One siege won, wich wouldnt have happend most likely without Spain, in which the Ottomans made many mistakes, doesnt qualify Malta at all as a significant state to add.
1 Like