My advice of the new civilizations

its was also the 2nd most populous continent, africa is in 3rd and latin america in a distant 4th with north america and oceania basically none existent.


over half the population asia lived in either China or india, and i dont imagine either being split.

between the 3 factions we have from asia they make up 208 million of those 255 million, 229 if we include pakistan and bangladesh in india. there are still a couple of notable countries in population missing: Persia ,korea, siam and indonesia (and yes im aware we can split etc. but we assume we dont). but most of these are smaller than most of the european nations in the game atm. Europe simply just created a larger amount of somewhat competitive states.


i know this is weird because its modern borders etc. etc. it still kinda paints the picture.

now you mention khazakstan, sadly i cant find concrete numbers on my quick google search but based on the picture it looks about the same as the netherlands or denmark-norway, so lets say 1 million people, by 1900 it was apparently around 5 million which would match that. the PLC had a population of 7.5 million nearly 2% of the worlds population.

Poland actively fought the Ottomans, the Germans, the Swedes and the Russians and had a real impact on what those countries did. Polish victories over the Ottoman empire marked the long decline of the Ottomans from one of the worlds largest powers to the poor man of Europe.

“In the mid-1500s, united Poland was the largest state in Europe and perhaps the continent’s most powerful nation.”

what did khazakstan do? after the fall of the golden horde, you say they fought the russians, chinese and persians but to what extend is the question, did they really change the policy of any of those countries cause a quick glans at russian expansion east or the politics of china etc. suggest no, they didn’t. so how do you make the conclusion and argument that they are more important than Poland.

its a toothless argument that so far you haven’t given any evidence or arguments to suggest it is. if your argument is that you can make a unique and fun faction, then good, argue that. but its nonsense to sit and suggest its as important as Poland, it just doesn’t match reality.

im sorry to say this but europe simply produced the largest amount of competitive civs, Asia was dominated by China, japan and the mughals. i think there are still important pieces missing from there but there just isnt 12 or 13 or whatever the amount of European factions one could come up with.

3 Likes

The number of civilizations per continent is a pretty distorted metric. Asia starts off in a stronger position than Europe, but since they are so successful and powerful, they are consolidated into gigantic empires. Just China is equivalent to half of Europe combined, but that’s all contained in one civ. By the time the game ends, the Europeans have become so powerful that they are carving up China so an emphasis on what becomes the most powerful nations isn’t unjustified.

But realistically, European nations should be about 20-30% of the civ total, not 50%. That’s about the percentage I’ve got in my ideal list of civs that should be in the game.

Europe (12)

British
French
Dutch
Spanish
Portuguese
Austrians
Russians
Prussians
Italians
Poles
Swedes
Danes

Asia (16-18)

Ottomans
Persians
Mughals
Chinese
Japanese
Koreans
Mysoreans
Maratha
Siamese
Burmese
Vietnamese
Omanis
Javanese
Malay
Uzbeks and/or Kazakhs
Sikhs and/or Durrani

Africa (12-13)

Ethiopians
Hausa
Sudanese
Somalis
Mandinka
Akan
Yoruba
Zulu
Moroccans
Kongolese
Shona
Malagasy
Egypt (or as a revolution)

Americas (10)

Iroquois
Muscogee
Sioux
Cree
Haida
Comanche
Mayans
Inca
Mapuche
Guaraní

Oceania (2)

Maori
Hawaiians

Revolutions (~30)

A whole bunch

I cut out really insignificant and anachronistic civs like Malta and Aztecs, and limit the colonial civs to being revolutions.

3 Likes

Personally I do think India should be split

The subcontinent wasn’t unified for most of its history and the official TAD description for India straight up mentions the Mughal empire was fractured and full of competition at the time

i can totally see why people want an india split, i just doubt it will happen, its not so much my personal opinion as it is my logical conclusion.

i think Bengal could be a fun idea? maybe some sort of south indian confederation could work too, but again i somehow doubt it will happen.

1 Like

in a perfect world where we get 50+ nations, sure i agree. i just don’t think we will.

i think if we lived in the perfect world where every faction people reasonably wanted would be added then we wouldn’t be having these conversations, but sadly there will come a day where the last civ is added and its likely to be far before we hit that stage. and when one lives in such a world one has to ask themselves what takes priority, splitting “umbrellas”? or adding new? adding long standing factions, or short bottles of lightning? adding based on regional origin or power?

these are all questions that are hard to answer, i don’t have a perfect answer to it, i just have my own, biased, rules for what i think should be added and why. some have opposite views of me in that regard.

sure it would be fun to split India into 5 but its just not realistically going to happen, and that isn’t just my personal opinion talking.

1 Like

The original post said German Empire. The German Empire had a strong army and that’s were they excelled at. I’ll agree that 1871 French army performance was pretty lame. But I was talking about the German Empire, not about Prussia alone

Britan and France didn’t form an alliance against Prussia. They formed an alliance against the German Empire, of which Prussia was the creating force, but was not the only polity in it

You could create a new survey here and post it to reddit. I’m not joking. I suppose that would settle this discussion once and for all

Edit: it’s important to apply it in the most places as possible, because every place has its bias. Here is different of reddit and both are different from wololoposting and different from Free Food Party and ESOC discords

1 Like

Eye, that answer is good…

And Poland too… From the Duchy of Courland… The Duchy of Courland was the smallest of the European countries that had colonies in America. The Courland colonization of America consisted of the creation of a colony in Tobago, New Courland, between 1654 and 1659 and again between 1660 and 1689. Courland was established as a duchy in 1561, a feudal ###### of the Polish-Lithuanian Confederation, in present-day Latvia. It had a population of only 200,000.

The same, I use it for laughter…and sometimes gives good answers…

This is not AoE 2, I do not think they do so many civs, at most they will put the most important…

We will be governed by AIs xd?..

Yes, but that happened after the AoE 3 period, or at least in its last bars… the German Empire would look better in a modern AoE…

True…

But just as the PLC occupied an important area of Eastern Europe, had a golden age from 1473 to 1572 or even 1648 and fought against Swedes, Russians and Ottomans…

Sure, that’s true…

In fact it was because as it is a Mediterranean dlc you had to have two Mediterranean civs and the only ones that were missing were Italy and Malta…

Of course, the devs already said that they were not going to divide Germany or India; they will put thematic cards and nothing more…

Burma, Vietnam and Korea were not colonized until the late nineteenth century…

Sure, sure…

Of course, in AoE 3, unlike AoE 2, it is easier to have civs from all over the world, since Europe occupied all the West in the Early Modern era…

I would divide India into Mughals and Marathas and nothing else…

If they really said that about India, I hope they change their mind. India is already way too big of an umbrella and thematic cards will just make that worse.

I’m fine with only two playable civs but I think on top of that we should get more minor civs (NON-RELIGIOUS, PLEASE) and the Deccan map should be split into at least 5.

Yeah, maybe some day…

In fact, I made a thread full of map suggestions, mostly masp splits (including Deccan): Some ideas for new maps

Had to look up subregions of a lot of places I didn’t know much about. :laughing:

Yes, I think that in an Asian dlc, they could divide many Asian maps…

We could also finally get maps based on the Persian plateau.

Yes, when Persia arrives and if they put Oman you can have the maps of the southeast of the horn of Africa…

Question for everyone, do you really think the developers will add more civilizations?


  • Yes.
  • No.
  • We don’t need civilizations, we need fixes and balance patches.

0 voters

Note: I hope this helps everyone to understand the survey


Yes.
No.
We don’t need civilizations, we need fixes and balance patches.

I’d like to see them flesh out other civs like they did with Germans (who still have potential for and Austria/Prussia revolution like the French has for Revolutionary France) before adding more civs, but I do want to see a handful more.

There is one huge difference between France and the German empires: Prussia and Austria. The French Republic was founded by revolution. Austria and Prussia arose over hundreds of years as natural monarchist empires.

So to make the Prussian and Austrian revolutions would be historically incorrect and stupid at the same time. The only German revolution that would be possible would be the March Revolution (which would otherwise work best for the Prussians civ) - no other.

  • Austrians civ would have revolutions based on the peoples that inhabited this empire: Hungarians, Romanians, and numerous Slavic nations (such as Czechs and Croats).

  • Prussians could have revolutions based on their colonies and more: March Revolution, Kamerun, Akan (or Benin), South Africa and Tanzania.

1 Like

All they need to do is just add Prussia as a proper civ representing the confederacies and the eventual german empire and just change the royal guard unit name for the germans skirmisher and that’s pretty much it. The devs could even be cheeky by adding Frederick’s father as the Prussian ai leader.

2 Likes

Afghanistan also successfully repelled direct colonization (excluding territories lost to the British) and became sort of a buffer state between Russia and British India.
However, the main reason the should be a civ is because of the Durrani dynasty, which created one of the most important Islamic Empires of this period.
The more I read about them, the more convinced I am the Afghans should be a civ.

By the way, I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Mongols (including myself, I forgot to put them in my list).
Even though Genghis had died long time ago, there were still several important Mongol entities, like the Dzungar Khanate.

Central Asia is such an underrated region. I hope we’ll something from that place. Afghans, Uzbeks, Mongols and Kazakhs could be very cool additions to the game.

Same thing with South East Asia.

1 Like

I never mentioned Mongols because I didn’t know they were relevant in this time period. Good to know I was wrong.

1 Like

Obviously they weren’t as important as during the Middle Ages, but they were still quite relevant in Asia before the Qing dynasty obliterated the Dzungars.