How we still don’t have a Campaign about the Napoleonic Wars?
And I’m talking about a real campaign, not these historical battles.
The Campaign could be divided into two acts, one telling the events from the French perspective and the other act from the perspective of the other countries, with each scenario being played with different nations.
How this DLC hasn’t been thought yet.
Real campaign.
Couldn’t agree more!!
The Napoleonic Wars are some of the most famous in the AOE3de timeframe, it seems absurd they are not included in the game properly as a campaign.
As we are getting a new European DCL we may get some Napoleonic content but i’m not sure.
The campaign could actually be divided into 3 parts: a preface that would extend from the Seven Years’ War, through the cabinet wars of the 18th century… the second act would be the campaign of the revolutionary wars, and by the act contemplating the Napoleonic period.
It would be interesting if the player could choose their civilization to go from the beginning to the end of the campaign, so the “same scenario” would yield different missions.
A conquer-the-world style campaign map (ala Rise of Nations) tailored to the era (in this case a Napoleonic-focused map) has been oft-requested - it’s crazy we don’t have anything like that!
I still find it boggling that at release AOE3 missed maybe the to-go campaign setting of the period and have not done it since.
It’s like a medieval game with zero mention to the Crusades or Hundred Years War.
I know the “America-only focus” in the beginning and I consider it a mistake overall.
Thirty Years’ War, Northern War, Ottoman Wars, Prussia’s victorious wars… lots of interesting options.
Because it takes time and money to develop campaigns, and on top of that they are a small team in FE that knows little about the Bang Engine scenario editor…if they gain experience with the editor to make campaigns for AoM, then they can do the same for AoE 3…
Yes, I think that we will have new historical maps (now from the 18th-19th centuries, since in KotM we had historical maps from the 16th-17th centuries) and there, in a future European dlc, campaigns for Suleiman (1526-1565), Gustavus Adolphus (1629-1632) and Napoleon (1792-1814)…
Yes, too, but my idea preserves the idea of TAD… it would be necessary to make covers for the different acts…
Sure, port the world maps of the New World and Napoleonic Wars from RoN to AoE 3 as a game mode… every game you win you receive 3 new cards for the HC…
Of course, as they proposed the approach of AoE 3 from the beginning it was wrong… it should have been American Conquest then a European dlc “a la Cossacks 2”, then the rest of the dlcs: TAD, TAR and so on until the day of today… instead we had a campaign straight out of the Age of Mythology, of a fictional family, who fought in the Siege of Malta (in a European theater that was removed in development), the Seven Years’ War (actually the Franco-Indian, since the Seven Years’ War occurred well…in Europe) and the Latin American War of Independence against Mexican rebels? (which never happened because the USA was an ally of the Mexican rebels) and alongside Simon Bolivar (which I can pass on to you even though the Spanish flag is anachronistic by then) and against an Illuminati order that seeks the fountain of youth (Assasins Creed RTS edition)… in TWC corrected a little with the “Haudenosaunee” campaign (an ode to the American revolution) and Lakota (which FE destroyed in the DE for being PC) and also in TAD (although they made the same mistake of doing a fictitious campaign with the Chinese vs Aztecs)…
I know I’m always the one that complaints about these things, but I guess I can’t help but play into character here.
The early modern era is like the setting where it makes more sense to have events happening all over the world and different theaters of war, having the main event happen over Europe feels… boring?
Like you have an entire world to explore, in a game themed about exploring the world and you just go and stay in Europe like every game before it.
A failure of imagination if you ask me.
The Seven Years war is a much more compelling setting in that sense since you have action all the way to the Americas to Europe to Africa to India to the Philippines, a much better showcase of everything the setting and the period has to offer.
We’re talking about adding ONE European campaign that the game has ZERO for more than a decade, while it has five campaigns exclusive to (North) America, three in Asia (one of them traveled to America halfway through) and multiple standalone scenarios none of which in Europe.
And we already need to start worrying about the campaigns being too Eurocentric.
That’s the fair and balanced representation of early modern wOrLd we have been fighting for.
This game has always lacked a flagship campaign, and it is one of the most criticized aspects of the game.
The absence of the most important war conflict of the period that the game is supposed to represent feels strange. It’s like a Superman movie without Superman.
I also notice that there is a recent survey that has been reported on Steam. In case anyone hasn’t heard, I’ll leave the link.
There are many related questions about what you would like in a campaign, so now is a good time to answer them.
I agree with you, Europe could not be the focus this time.
And I believe that in fact other events of the time should have their own campaign.
For example, when the USA and Mexico were launched, I had the expectation that we would eventually have the launch of Brazil and Paraguay in a possible DLC about the Triple Alliance War.
Today, I don’t think that will ever happen, at least not with the campaign.
That said, the Napoleonic Wars appear more plausible, simply because they are a more commercially viable option.
But, i agree with you.
In fact, as a player who preffer campaigns to multiplayer modes, I’ve been saying that AOE3 should adopt the campaign style of AOE2, with those slideshows and narrations, so that, in that way, they can deliver some kind of campaign, the which has not been done since the launch of TAD.
Fun fact: there is no European campaign or scenario at all. Literally. We probably need 2 full campaign dlcs (which may take a decade) before talking about European being the “focus”.
Oddly one criticism about AOE3 I hear most frequently on Chinese forums is “they skipped ALL (literally) important events in Europe” (and of course also Asia).
It’s not like a large portion of Chinese players have the “I’m not from that region/I just haaaaaate that region so it is not important and not interesting” mindset, which is especially odd considering how much our historical education emphasizes the damage of westerners to China and other parts of the world in the early modern period.
Because it’s naturally interesting. Period. Most players do not need to go through some political propaganda before playing a game.
This is very likely to be bombarded, but: there are events and settings that naturally gain more interest.
For example I’m not going to deny medieval and WW2 are more popular than any other historical setting. Or high fantasy more than any historical setting.
And among medieval settings, crusades is naturally more popular than two barons fighting over one castle. Hundred Years War is another popular setting. And Hundred Years War with Jeanne d’Arc is the more popular among the popular, compared to say the same war from the English or Burgundian perspective.
Same would apply to early modern. And French Revolution and Napoleonic War is one of the most widely recognized. Everyone learns it from the textbook. I don’t think anyone making a historical game of this period would skip it unless intentionally.
That is not going to be twisted by some you-ask-for-Europe-you-bad bot. In a game about early modern history in a series known to portray major historical events, people have their natural expectations, and “some fictional family seeking treasure in the Americas” or “some Chinese fleet sailing to the Americas” do not come on top of the list.
It’s not that AOE3 didn’t want to but we know it was an AOM-like spinoff turned into a main title, so it was too late to do that. But DE is a great chance to correct that mistake.
EDIT: another example:
Battlefield V chose the “lesser known part of history” of WW2. The campaign omitted all the popular settings like Normandy, Stalingrad, Pacific, etc. that people may be “tired of” and started with mostly unknown events. And it was very poorly received.
In fact, if BF V came after a queue of back-to-back games about Normandy Stalingrad Normandy Stalingrad Normandy Stalingrad (like the first few COD or Medal of Honor games), then it might feel fresh. But it was not the case. It was a return to WW2 after many years and people were expecting a modern rendition of the classic WW2 events. That never came.
Similarly AOE3 was the series’ first touch on the early modern setting. People were expecting modern, 3D, large-scale representation of the events they were familiar with (and rarely included in most games). Missing all the important events is unacceptable.
It’s not that games cannot explore less popular settings. In fact I consider it a great idea and I’m interested in learning more. BUT you need to make it spread in the first place, then think about educating people. That’s why most of successful historical games start with the popular settings as the majority of their initial contents, then gradually enriching it with the lesser known ones (see AOE2).
A Napoleonic campaign would be very cool. Two particular thoughts:
The campaign could span from the Third to Sixth Coalition, then skipping to the Hundred Days. This could create a very compelling story, as Napoleon goes from: 1) defending France against the continental enemies (Austria and Prussia) and eventually subjugating them to 2) invading an ally (Russia) and failing to 3) fighting and losing against the whole of Europe to 4) remilitarizing France in the Hundred Days. The story can be narrated from the perspective of a (increasingly disillusioned) French soldier/officer that experienced though these events.
Aside from the well known battles (Pyramids, Austerlitz, Borodino, Waterloo, etc.), the Battle of Leipzig must be featured. It is the “Battle of Nations” and arguably decided the fate of Europe for the next 100 years. Implementation-wise, the French, Polish, and Italians (along with German minor civs) would have to fight increasingly larger Coalition forces from Russians, Austrians, Prussians, and Swedes, manage defections from the Saxons and Württemberg, and then organizing a retreat across the White Elster River. (Use The Battle of Kalka River in AoE2 as reference).
Curiously, depictions on the Battle of Leipzig in media is really scarce, as even the historical battles in Napoleon: Total War does not have Leipzig. Why?
I think if the game was 100% about revolutions, a Napoleonic Wars campaign would be great, unfortunately we’ll have to wait and see if Microsoft ever makes an Age of Revolutions. Until then I doubt it will happen, but don’t lose hope. 
Yes, that’s true… there was a lack of imagination or they simply moved too far from what the campaigns in AoE 2 were…
Technically Blood occurs in the Caribbean and Central America and Steel half occurs in South America (The Andes)…
Technically Blood occurs in the Caribbean and Central America and Steel half occurs in South America (The Andes)… but yes, we are missing campaigns in Europe and Africa (battles and historical maps are not the same)…
Yes, the lack of more campaigns is where AoE 3 falters…
I already did it…I put more campaigns, long and varied, and greater communication…
Yes, from the USA and Mexico we are missing the battle of the Alamo between both civs and obviously the War of the Triple Alliance in South America (which occurs at the same time as Shadow)…
Hey at least you have the historical maps xd…
Yes, Cossacks 1-3 and American Conquest did it right, it was AoE 3 that did it wrong…
Don’t remind me, I still have the thorn in my side about being left without Stalingrad, Omaha and Berlin (maps that had been in BF1942)… with how well they had done in BF1 and they ruined it in these last two games (I’m afraid whatever BF6 brings, or rather what it DOES NOT bring)…
Yes, with AoE 1 and AoE 2 they did it very well, it was with AoE 3 and its campaigns that they did it all wrong…
Yes, for a Napoleon campaign it would have to be like the Napoleon movie:
The Siege of Toulon (1792): French vs British
Napoleon in Italy (1796): French vs Italians
The Battle of the Pyramids (1798): French vs Ottomans and British
Battle of Marengo (1800): French vs Germans and Italians
Battle of Austerlitz (1805): French vs Germans and Russians
Invasion of Spain (1808): French vs Spanish and Portuguese
Invasion of Russia (1812) (this will be like the missions eg: Crossing of the Andes and Valley Forge where you have to resist the cold while your troops weaken): French vs Russians
Battle of Waterloo (1815): in this case you change the protagonist from Napoleon to Wellington: British, Germans and Dutch vs French… you have 60 minutes to prepare the defenses until Napoleon attacks with everything…
It won’t happen unless they revisit the period of AoE 3 in another AoE, which I find unlikely…
…and none of them are in Europe. The closest is Algiers.
EDIT: misread. Sorry.
Historical maps, not historical battles.
Europe is a little overdone but it would be a huge omission to skip the Napoleonic wars entirely. The Egyptian expedition would be an excellent choice for a short campaign that showcases Napoleon without being too European focused. You’d get a mix of battles between the French, British, Maltese, Egyptians, Bedouins, and Ottomans.
Could go a little something like this:
With Prussia and Austria being fused into one Frankenstein civ it would be kinda difficult to properly portray the battles on the continent anyways.
