I think you are fighting the war which I didnt join. Personally, I dont support adding US. And what the devs are going to do after addition of US is beyond my interest now.
My point was by avoiding buying US DLC I probably cannot prevent loosing US rev option. That was my reply to @MUTYLATOR5553
Probably you are right, because the revolution mechanic would loose its meaning.
Right. While the Dutch and British could get Australia in place of the US, what about the French and Swedes?
I think he should add a lot more European revolutions.
Why would the Dutch get Australia?
That might require some rework and to be honest I donāt have an idea.
The new revolution, however, is already not consistent by itself. For example, Hungarians as a people or ācivilizationā always existed, but Hungary as an independent nation came much later than the game span.
The old one is even worse of course.
I do think the revolution system needs some major rework to be more consistent, but I donāt really know how.
it was never colonized by them, but yes, first European contact was Dutch. So how can Dutch have Australia if they never colonized it?
Itās just a suggestion, Jesus ā¦
Well, if they add teh USA, the Revolution system needs to be deleted.
It makes no sense to have Revolts, if you already have Revolt civs as base civs, even if it is just one.
If you have the USA, you MUST have Mexico, Canada and Texas, IN THE LEAST, also in the game.
It is just a really, really bad choice.
Age of Empires 3 is already a failure because of fantasy, so why add more?
MY day was not so good either so i apologize in advance if i am blunt/rude
Itās like because they added Burgundy they must also add Flanders, Bohemia, Milan or Novgorod.
No offense to other nations but there are always some civs considered by the dev to be āmore importantā or āof greater interestā no matter how many you add to the game.
Like US, Mexico and Brazil are kind of those with sufficient contents to make up a whole playable civ, while some other colonial civs may not (no offense again) and fit better as a revolution option.
Nothing happened 
I just wrote that the Australian civ could be the Dutch, but it doesnāt have to be.
Maybe they want to make a revolution option for the US?
Texas, CSA, California? ā¦ Redmond
The worst thing the creators could do is recognize USA civ as a European X D
To say that what more European civs? You have USA ā¦
No offense but those are the states/territories the USA co-existed with and fought with or against. They are an important part of United States history.
I mean, however you define ācivsā you can are always define āsub-civsā or civs that got independent from them.
For British you have US as the āsub-civā.
If US becomes a civ itself, Texas, etc. becomes that āsub-civā (and also another revolution for the Spainish, etc.)
Honestly the revolution mechanic doesnāt really have a place in the game, even though they make sense historically. They were originally meant to be a way to end stalemates when both players are stuck in industrial, but thatās a very niche thing.
Then they made revolutions somewhat more viable in DE by allowing you to rebuild workers, and they even added āeconomicā revolutions, like Canada or South Africa.
I think making revolutions playable civs, with their own units, cards, decks, buildings, tech would be a step in the right direction. If they make revolution countries playable and more fleshed out, I think in the end the game will be far better off.
I mean honestly now, how often do you use a revolution? Outside of vs Ai and some cheesy FI starts.
They could get rid of the revolution mechanic entirely for all I care. I never cared for it when it was introduced and I still donāt now.
Some of them give you access to units you wouldnāt be otherwise able to get, so they are nice in that way. Good for chilling around in vs AI or stomping noobs in PvP, but not much else.
A lot of people enjoy revolutions and use it quite frequently, and new strategies and BOs are being written every week to learn how to use them to finish a game. Lets throw that out of the window for an obvious cash grabā¦ saying the rev mechanic should be scrapped, come onā¦
Argentina was recently used in a tournament, because of the Granaderos, which have no obvious direct counter.
I think they should rather focus on developing revolutionary civs as viable options rather than scrapping revolutions or worseā¦ adding a revolution civ as a main civ which doesnāt make any sense in the context of the game