New unit hinted in the hotfix notes?

Yes, but that’s more related to the unit rather than the revolution itself. Nobody says we should lose the special units. In fact I am sure everybody here wants new units or rare units. I appreciated the fact that Sweden allows you to use mercs in mass. This is one of the things I always wanted in TAD - a civilization that relies mostly on the rare, cool mercs. I also appreciate that revolutions give you access to rare units. Turning a revolution into a full civ should be more about that. New units, new tech, new buildings.

The way I see it, the revolution mechanic is essentially the turning of villies into militia. That’s about the only thing special about them. Units, upgrades, shipments, these can all be kept when translating revolution to fully fledged civilisations.

I have people do FI against me and then revolt, and I was able to beat them using age3 tech. There really isn’t anything special about the revolution, other than the nice, unique units that you cannot get easily otherwise. If those units make it into playbale civs that I can play from the beginning of the game, and not through some obscure tech, it will be better off for the variety of the game.

So this whole USA civilization all depends on how they implement it. If they just copy paste british and give them gutling guns, then yeah, that’s bad. My guess is that they chose USA because they have left over campaign units to put it together faster.

And we go back to the original problem: revolution civs were born (they didnt existe AT ALL) when the game starts, as the european powers are JUST arriving to america, the sole reason for the existence of said revolutionary nations. They are succesor states of states that are already in the game and as such have their own mechanic that relates to that fact.


Hauds and Lakota already have gunpowder and horses when the European powers are JUST arriving to america, though.
Lakota even have repeating rifles before any European civ gets one (no they don’t even have that towards the end of the game).

The new world is even teemed with outlaws armed with stereotypical western rifles and revolvers when the European powers are JUST arriving to america.

1 Like

Not all historical events and mechanics work in the actual game.
Besides, the USA itself did a fare share of colonizing in the wild west. There’s even a campaign about that. They probably colonized more than the western EU nations.

My idea of a fully fleshed out revolution mechanic is to add around 20-25 cards for each rev civ that is part of the home city of the parent civ. If the player decides to revolt they have plenty of cards to choose from in order to make it worthwhile.

That way people can implement strategies much like the rest of the main civs.

Only the explorer, and its for balance/flavour reasons. It’s true they maybe shouldn’t, but it doesn’t justify the us: hauds and lakotss were not succesor states that were born after a break with their former european metropolis, they were nations and peoples in their own right. Its true that lakota didn’t had horses until fortress or industrial era, but they were known for that fact so for the game to work you have these consessions. It’s not about being 100% correct historically, but respect the internal logic and consistence of the game itself and realising that if the first eras reference the arriving of europeans, having since the start of the timeline a nation that only existed because a revolt against said eutopeans is more aggravating to that logic and different than having lakotas with horses.


Yes i agree there are historical misconceptions in the game that are kinda silly but that shouldn’t be an excuse to add even more nonsense such as an existing American post-colonial civ in a game about exploring the new world.

In a game like this there will always be some historical errors but at least let’s keep them to a minimum.


The best way would be to make the Revolt specific units actually stronger than Imperial units (Hajduks, for example, aree weaker than normal Musketeers), and to give cards that compensate for the loss of Imperial Economic upgrades.

So far, only South Africa and Canada do this, with Wonderlust and 3 Factories(SA) and Metis upgrade for Vills + Infinite Blackwatch and a bunch of Native Allies (Canada).

Did anyone ever claimed that the “logic and consistence” of the series is “every civ should exist at the beginning of the game?” I don’t see it happen with previous expansions.
Also nobody knew where Lakotas were before ~17th century and they really became important in late 19th century.

I wonder how people can always come up with the excuse of “balance/flavor” reasons for all the existing contents that already breaks the “logic and consistence” in the first place while cannot accept anything else that breaks it also.

If the game is about “exploring the new world” then Asians should not be allowed on American maps in the first place.

No. It’s already at its maximum from the very beginning.

Lakota people existed before the Europeans arrived, Americans are a result of colonization and should stay in the revolt mechanic.

I know you could have all kinds of bizarre matchups with the existing civs such as Lakota fighting Swedes in Japan and there’s really no way around that but at least let’s keep the main civs to pre-colonial/colonial times and post-colonial nations such as USA, Canada and Mexico to the later stages of the game.


The us already appears in the game in the later eras as a revolt civ, because those revolts ocurred in that era. That is the game logic, its a mechanic in the game. Having them since the beginning breaks that logic, that is already present in game mechanics.

Having minor civs become full civs is not analogue, btw, because those native civs did exist from the beginning of the game’s timeframe


But the Lakota are clearly portrayed as the result of colonization.

There isn’t a rule or law for that. It becomes a “rule” because that is what we have so far but that does not mean we should always keep to that.
Again, before TWC I can say let’s keep the main civs to colonists because natives should not use shipments on their home lands.
Before TAD I can say let’s keep the main civs to Americas because it has been so.
Whatever is already in the game you can always find a rule that justifies them. Just move the line a little bit.


They even have Club Warriors and Bowmen in the Colonial Age. They have to wait till Fortress to even get Gunpowder unist, and even then they never get Cannon.

The Hauds have WAY more Colonial/Contact aspects to them, than the Lakota do.

1 Like

The Aztecs, Iroquois and Lakota already appear in the game as a native ally. Only Europeans are fighting overseas so that they have home cities. That is the game logic, its a mechanic in the game (which is actually THE core mechanic of the game). They should not be converted to playable civs.
“Natives sending shipments to their home land” is even more nonsense than “having a civ that did not exist from the beginning of the game’s timeframe”.

The “fortress age” in the game is designed around early 18th century (mixture of tricornes and morions, etc.), when the Lakota get repeating rifles.
I’d say Hauds are very colonial/contact-based as well.
Clubs and bows have always been weapons of native Americans even in late 19th century.

No it’s not: the incan empire had colonies on its borders, they send people that didnt submit to their annexation to colonies in the amazon, the andes and the south american coast to expand the empire, thats why it grew so big. Not only that, but because of the andean road, they DID send shipments not only from cuzco but from every corner of the empire to these new settlements. You could have a fresh fish arrive from lima to cuzco in a day or so with the tambos and chasqi system. As for lakota and iro, they dont have a metropolis, but a tribal council that sends support from the nations of the tribe as they did when they gathered to make decissions as a people.


Following this path, Brazil should also appear as a playable civ, after all, it colonized large areas of the Amazon. Besides, it would be a balance between North America and South America - one rev civ and the other rev civ from both Americas. But it would still create an endless problem with America’s revolutionary civs.

1 Like

See, you can always come up with ways to justify something like that.

However, I am a time traveller from 2006, and I believe the core mechanism of the game is European colonists. Look at the home city. The first building is called “New World Trading Company”. They cannot just give the natives another name and fit that into the game.
If they do so, they need to have the shipments sent immediately for the Lakota when fighting on the great plains.

Where are the Incas in TWC by the way?

Yeah, because having native civs that already existed in the americas is way more justifiable than adding the US