Many factions are very archaic and completely out of place alongside new civilizations like Mexico and the USA. If this is going to be the direction the game is headed in, these older factions need an overhaul to both bring them up to speed with new mechanics and also make things a little more historically consistent.
Inca and Aztecs need a revolution mechanic to not be hopelessly anachronistic
The Aztec Empire ended in 1521, a full 300 years before Mexico came into existence. With its revolutionary theme, the new Mexican civilization brings up the timeline to at least 1910 (Mexican Revolution) if not later. Aztec and Inca need something to bridge that 300+ year gap. Although it would be diving somewhat into some counterfactual history (at least for Aztecs), a revolution that allows Aztecs and Inca to form a sort of pseudo-Mexico or pseudo-Peru/Neo-Incan Empire. This could give them units such as:
- A ranged light cavalry unit such as the Bolas Rider
- A horseman with a spear similar to a Chinaco/Llanero/Lancer
- An irregular rifleman similar to a Salteador
- Artillery such as Light Cannons and Petards
Revolutions need to be more consistent (include more features from USA & Mexico)
The expanded revolution mechanic was heading in the right direction before it was derailed with the inclusion of the USA and Mexico. This could be partially ameliorated with the following features:
- American and Mexican revolutions should enable some of the units of those factions
- All revolutions should have appropriate immigrant cards
- Revolting should transform your explorer into a general
- Spain and Britain should have the option to revolt to these factions in Age 3 and then age up again to gain more of the features of those factions
- As said above, actual revolution options for Aztec and Inca
Archaic European factions need a more modern flavour (British Skirmishers, etc)
The British should not have only longbows in the Imperial Age. Skirmishers should become available by at least Age 4 if not Age 3. They could even be a unique type of skirmisher with uniforms like what was worn in the Anglo-Zulu war. Upgrades like Roger’s Rangers could be moved to Age 3 and also enable skirmishers then.
Spain should have Haciendas. They were implemented in every Spanish colony and Spain is the blandest faction in the game and could use more interesting mechanics.
Unique Church cards should function like the American Legion cards and enable the training of those units at forts. That would make it so factions like Russia aren’t limited to archaic horse archers in the Imperial Age.
The Imperial Age needs more modernization (At least for Europe and Japan)
The Imperial Age should enable technology like ealy steamships, gatling guns, and advanced artillery.
Possibly even training things like tractors from factories.
Add Italy and Prussia (Age-up by adding states)
Adding on states is not something unique to colonial nations, it was an integral part of the expansion of Sardinia-Piedmont into Italy and Prussia into Germany. Since 90% of the current German civilization’s attributes are based on Austria/HRE, Prussia could easily be made as another civilization with state-building age ups and the current German civilization could become Austria with only minor tweaks.
6 Likes
Game is fine. The only thing I want to see is steam frigates in imperial age.
7 Likes
So imperial longbows make perfect sense to you?
Game spans across around ~380 years. From the discovery of a New World to the industrial revolution.
Of course, many things will collide with each other. AoE games are not warfare simulators nor history teaching tools, but games - technology constantly moves forward and they would have to limit the scope to 50-70 years for things to not be out of place in this sense.
AoE III always has been this way, even before WarChiefs expansions. It’s fine, all they have to do is balance it out to make all civs viable.
Historical consistency is a deep rabbit hole. Not saying they shouldn’t jump in at all, but now it’s WAY too late for AoE3. Be happy 3DE is receiving new stuff, it’s more than I would have ever expected 
4 Likes
This is as much about consistent mechanics and features as it is about the history. When it comes to the history, there’s no way to un-■■■■having both Aztecs and Mexico in the same game. There are half a dozen out of date USA campaign civs and the traditional revolution options that don’t match up at all with the full civs. Why don’t regular revolutions get Immigrant cards? Why does USA get extra units enabled at forts from the Legion shipments but the European unique church cards that do roughly equivalent are one single shipment? Why does USA start the game with rifles but British can’t even get them in the final age?
1 Like
yeah, they give flavor, otherwise all civs would be using guns.
This is a game, it needs asymmetry, as long as a longbow goes toe to toe with a sniper rifle, I don’t mind.
Just drop it already. Devs are doing their best to keep the game alive and there’s always someone like you who keeps complaining about historical accuracy. By your logic, it makes no sense to have the base euro civilizations, because the revolutions are basically replacing them.
4 Likes
There are plenty of Native, African, and Asian civs that can use bows in the late game. Longbows don’t go toe to toe with snipers and aren’t good compared to other archers like Yumi so no one would miss them. Brits have to almost no unique units so a unique skirmisher would give them more “flavour” by having another unique unit on top of Longbows. Maybe they could even share Sharpshooters with the USA.
I’m not saying we can’t have new factions. Mexico fits in the game better than Aztec ever did. But the devs created a very robust revolution system with tons of potential and then flushed that down the toilet with the inclusion of USA and Mexico as starting factions. Implementing them as early revolutions would have offended no one and worked great.
Yes because Spain stopped existing after Mexico formed 
1 Like
Oh boy, here we go again.
The funny thing is, the revolution USA is often times much better than the actual USA faction 
Just so you know, in the game, the oldest historical moment is the discovery of America (1492) and the moment closest to our days is the Battle of Little BigHorn (1876). In theory, it is the entire timeline of the game comprising those two years.
I’m not aware of 1492 actually being referenced specifically so in that regard the start is ambiguously ~1500. I haven’t played the Asian campaigns but apparently they reference Chinese events from the mid 1400s. There are also cards that mention things like the boxer rebellion which brings it up to at least 1899. And now with Mexico being focused on revolutions it would need to extend to 1910 to include those events.
De certa forma quase toda Civilização possui esses anacronismos no campo de batalha, umas menos, outras mais, talvez a mais anacronica seja a Alemanha, pois mesmo a Espanha sendo projetada para usar unidades arcaicas ela ainda pode treinar unidades modernas; enquanto a Alemanha em sua Era Imperial treina carroças de guerra hussitas do século XIV ou XV e Doppelsoldners / Landsknecht, que desapareceram dos campos de batalha depois da Guerra dos Trinta Anos.
Independence of Romania is in 1878. This was the latest event mentioned anywhere in the game until TAR. I think TAR bumped it to 1907 with the Hausa HB.
Boxer rebellion is in 1901.
Independence of Finland and Hungary is even later (after ww1) and they are almost “hypothetical” revolts in aoe3 time period. (Of course if you count independence attempts, all of them are much earlier)
2 Likes
I think one reason anachronism stands out more in aoe3 is because early modern technology evolved much faster than ever, and we are more familiar with events that are closer to us.
For example people may spot anachronism of weapons by only 1-2 years early in a WW2 game, or immediately realize a The Three Musketeer-styled feathered hat and a shako do not belong to the same time period.
Meanwhile many would see an early modern full plate armour and consider it “medieval”.
1 Like
I don’t see much reason for the original civs to be overhauled. Their still better then most the civs that have been added
1 Like
Well in my mind i always assumed the game should span till ww1.
A questão do chapéu do mosqueteiro foi um bom exemplo, entre o chapéu de abas largas e plumas e o shako napoleonico, deveria haver um tricornio ou bicornio;
Para ser mais exato acho que seria algo assim:
Mosqueteiro sem atualização usa um chapeu de plumas.
Mosqueteiro veterano usa um tricornio
Mosqueteiro da guarda usa um bicornio
Mosqueteiro imperial usa um shako
Bom por outro lado eu imagino o quanto será estranho se o Soldado Mexicano tiver sua skin original como da época da guerra dos sete anos (casaca branca, bicornio) lutando contra piqueiros e besteiros espanhois na Comercial Age.
1 Like
Musketeer is probably the only unit that follows the actual “progression of time” and can be used to pinpoint the timeline of the ages. On the contrary, pikemen, crossbowmen, rodelero, lancers etc. continue to wear renaissance- or thirty-years-war-styled armour up to the late game. Longbowmen even medieval.
In the meantime the entire hussar unit looks too advanced for the “colonial/commerce age” where the musketeer wears wide brimmed hats (~1600s). Most nations in the game did not have hussar regiments until late 1700s and the unit looks quite Napoleonic.
We also have the weird dragoon unit with a very Napoleonic helmet and also a cuirass.
So I’d say the timeline is already quite messed up in the very beginning. With more civs added this is sure to mess up even more.
1 Like
Just a name for a card.
Looking at the unit design of the entire Chinese civ, it is quite concentrated in the 17th century.
Sure it is. We were just talking about “the latest event mentioned in the game”.
1 Like
