but overall i am not so worried about the civs but about the gameplay.
im readin the comments in “the art style of this game” and indeed, it looks quite cartoony. missing the dark, serious elements of Aoe2. alrdy missed that in Aoe3. and it is either totally spready with cheap buildings all over the place aoe2 or complete base-orientated like aoe3. a intermediate thing like big base and adding some smaller bases would be a nice thing.
yea especially those Balkans in the east are always looking for fights. i dont like the mentality there tbh. if i go south to the beach i prefer italy, spain or greece. much more relaxed there.
Lakota, Mayans, Cree, and the Diné - historically, the largest nations on North America.
It’s a game. I know these nations would have had nothing to do with where the game’s campaign will be located, but is there something wrong with including civs that won’t be part of the campaign? All three would have incredibly interesting concepts to bring to the table, if done correctly.
Uh, I’m not sure I trust them to make anything remotely accurate regarding history of the First Nations. They brought in a Sicangu and asked for ways to change the Lakota and Haudenosaunee without actually changing anything at all, I can’t see them bringing in a Mayan historian and a Cree, Lakota, and Diné cultural officer and actually listen to them. Most game studios bring on consultants to look good, not because they’re actually going to pay attention to them.
I’d personally prefer they not do a campaign at all than make one and horribly ■■■■ it up.
The so called Medieval era conventionally ends at 1493 with the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, and that’s already quite stretched.
The ascension of Portugal to the status of a world power barely falls within this period.
Portuguese Colonialism fits perfectly to AoEIII’s setting that is all about the Age of Discovery. But not at all to a medieval one.
By 1492 Portugal had considerable territory outside Europe already, and had just crossed the cape in 1488. And since we are going past 1492, my point remains. Early renaissance can easily go to 1520’s, just 20 years shy from Portugal reaching Japan. But if you want Matchlock Samurais, you better go to the 1550’s.
Dont forget Portugal started their expansion with Ceuta in 1415 setting the stage for their world expansion.
AoE2 actually fits quite nicely aswell as you can see with the Francisco Almeida campaign already existing in AoE2.
Edit: I actually dislike AoE3 how Portugal is a late game Civ, when It should be a Commerce/Fortress age one.
From 5th to late 15th - early 16th century, there’s about a whole millennium in between, whereas what you wish for begins during the end of that millennium and goes up to the 20th century.
If you’d like to see Portugal because it is your country and you love it, that is completely fine and there are several small Iberian kingdoms that you could wish for.
But please don’t overstretch its importance with arguments of that kind, because they are fallacies;
The great achievements of western colonialism where wealth was made through slavery, exploitation and genocides, are known. This period falls into the timeline of AoEIII where the Portuguese Colonialist Empire belongs.
News flash, every empire was built that way. Shocking innit.
It’s a rather a poor argument aswell.
How long did the Mongol Empire last?
But I’m sure Ghenghis Khan was a great guy, I bet he didnt rape and pillage and kill, how many people can you remind me?
And since that bothers you
Do something about it.
My point remains, Portugal had the first GLOBAL Empire, and its covered by the game timeline, Dark Ages to Renaissance, which lasted to 17th century.
So please spare you your veiled nationalistic accusations, you dont know where I’m from, nor do you know anything about me, and I can offer whatever opinion I want, I dont need gatekeeping on a thread where people are discussing factions they would like to see.
You focused on the wrong part of the argument on why the Portuguese Colonialist empire doesn’t suit the setting, but since you decided to go defensive and emotional about it, I guess it couldn’t be helped.
Also since you can “offer whatever point you want on a public thread where people are discussing factions” you can also get an answer by anyone who decides that historical fallacies and inaccuracies should not stay unanswered.
I don’t recall accusing you of anything, but the very fact that you went so defensive after a mere expression of a well known historical reality, I think speaks of itself.
Portuguese Colonialist empire, -the first “global” empire-, was not a medieval empire so it simply doesn’t suit the setting of the game. Nor was just a commerce or “global empire” as you wanted to portray and whitewash. Colonialism is the setting of AoEIII. You can enjoy Portuguese colonialist water boom there as much as you want.
Lmao, nah mate, your argument does not hold water, and then you decided to go all political on me.
There are no fallacies in what I wrote it’s all facts.
But in the end your argument is that Portugal does not fit the setting of the game, when it starts earlier and finishes later than the setting on AoE2, where Portugal is present and with a Campaign.
That is argument enough to end the discussion.
That’s it, were done on this bit.
Spain existed during the middle ages, Spain is an actual and ancient nation, it was just divided into States (medieval kingdoms), you can read the Spanish chronicles (there is a book from the 13th century literally called “Estoria de España”, History of Spain) and see how the Spaniards talk about Spain being something before “le 1492” (which is not the unification of anything, just the conquest of Granada, the political unification of modern Spain occurs before actually, in 1479). Just the Crown of Castile was among the biggest, richest and most powerful kingdoms of Europe in the late middle ages and this was before the unification with the Crown of Aragon, another powerful kingdom. And Spaniards are not a mix of visigoths, berbers and whatever you say, civilizations or cultures passing through a territory doesn’t mean that they are part of the population of that territory, the genotype of Iberian populations has hardly changed since the Bronze Age, in medieval Spain there was a huge segregation between Christians, Muslims and Jews, there were even laws and legal documents called “estatutos de limpieza de sangre” literally meaning blood cleansing statutes. You have a very vague conception of Spain and its history.
Quote from “Estoria de España”:
“Te dexo de toda la tierra de la mar aca que los moros del rey Rodrigo de Espanna ganado ouieron”
‘I left you the lands that the moors take from the king Rodrigo of Spain’
King Ferdinand III the Saint to his son, Alfonso X (1252).
“Crónica de Bernat Desclot” (1282):
“Yo son hun comte de Spanya a qui dien lo comte de Barcelona”.
‘I am a count of Spain who is called the count of Barcelona’.
Great Zimbabwe culture was more of an economic pwerhouse, as a civilization it makes sense only in civilization 6 style games, Age of Empires series should focus on militaristic civilizations like Comanche, Zulu, Hawaiian, Aztec and Mayan.
On second thoughts Comanche, Zulu and Hawaiian will fit AOE3 tumeline more. And more varieties the merrier.
Spain was already answered. As for Poland? During AoE4 time period Poland was created (a bit before battle of Hastings - which is one of the first battles in the English campaign) and rose to power to became (together with Lithuania, as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) one of the most powerful European countries in XVI century. It had more than 1mln sq km, 11mln people. In XVI there was religious freedom, election of the king (yup, the first signs of democracy - at least in Middle Ages) etc. Yeah, truly insignificant country. Oh, and very insignificant work was published in 1543 by Polish astronomer: “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium”.
