Oh boy Aussie_Drongo made a video about this forum and you guys

personally i dont think there is anything wrong with being positive, obviously i am not myself a fan of the US as a faction (esp if like drongo you think this was going to be 1 of the last DLC factions) however i am guessing based on comments that “AOE 3 will continue being supported after AOE 4” that the game might actually still get more DLC in the future.

i think most people know i would love a Persian and a European (Danes, Italians and Poles) DLC but well just have to wait and see if that happens, based upon the leaked units i think it has a small chance of actually happening. my wish for them to continue support was also why i brought the US DLC, because i hope that if it does economically well that maybe that would encourage future development of factions i would rather see.

when it comes to reddit vs the forums then while the forums aren’t perfect they are at least a little better moderated, and people like DF would not be able to be toxic here as he is allowed on reddit. reddit does have advantages tho, for 1 it is a lot easier to access and it also is a good place to come ask questions (provided DF aint around). the forums are better for more in-depth discussion i think, esp the picture sharing is of great utility when it comes to making stuff here.

3 Likes

actually if you want real aoe3 discussion, you’re lookin for esoc forums

5 Likes

Really want to see this

People keep on saying the US doesn’t fit in with the timeline, but it fits in better than some other civs in this game, the Lakota as a perfect example. The Lakota as they exist in the game were a nation almost exclusive to the 19th century – they didn’t even get horses until 1730, and it takes time for a culture to completely shift to revolve around something like that, which is the state which the game’s version starts off in. They’re even more anachronistic than the US if your timeframe is “16th-18th” century, because at least the US started in 1776, and the 13 Colonies went back even further. Even the original 8 are completely anachronistic and backwards – why does Portugal not unlock organ guns, a medieval invention, until the fortress age (ca. 1700 in real life)? Why are halberdiers a Fortress and above unit, when they became obsolete before the game’s timeline even started? What even are “The Germans?” There are so many historical anachronisms already present in the game, that it makes no sense to single out the US for being slightly off in the timeline. Hell, Gatling guns are closer to the “Fortress Age” than culverins, and no one seems to be complaining about those.

I personally think it’s better to have more specific and focused civs than overreaching and overgeneralizing messes like “Indians” and “Germans”, because you can get a more nuanced and idiosyncratic experience and can be truer to the history. There are a lot more specific details that inform the American card selection (such as Hamiltonian Economics, Reno Gang, etc) than a lot of the more general original civs, just because it’s a more specific period and location from which to draw inspiration.

8 Likes

Reddit is clearly winning the meme war

1 Like

What do you have against the USSR?

2 Likes

image

2 Likes

Its so weird to me how people want new civilizations, but when I go online 80% of the people are playing either British or the newest OP civ (USA now, Sweden before). How about folks actually use some of the existing civs and all of the diverse strategies possible instead of picking Brits, manor booming and spamming muskets? (Or insert latest OP strat/civ).

3 Likes

We don’t need new civs, we need the current ones to have a balance overhaul, starting with TWC civs - Aztecs, Lakota, and Hauds need some modifying, if not full-on reworks, from the foundation upwards.

Their changes to the Lakota and Hauds were just woke nonsense, meant to appeal to their own sense of righteousness without any thought about how bad the civs are done from the start. If they actually cared about the Native civs, they’d have invested in making a full rework of the three as a free DLC to release later on.

New civs just over-complicate things where they don’t need to be. One or two here and there isn’t bad, but a whole DLC for new civs just makes everything harder to balance, especially when the game is sitting on a shifty and shady foundation to start with.

7 Likes

Subreddits are always going to be circlejerks because of the downvote system. Critical opinions can be pushed down before they get any attention.

4 Likes

I dont entirely understand the argument of be glad we get extra content. We know there is an African dlc coming and we knew before the event there was going to be something in the future.

Just because they add stuff doesnt mean you have to like it for the sake of them adding content. All I want is African civs, but if they add 10 African civs and the Soviet Union I wont be happy with that.

You probably also saw the hype generate by the announcement of the Africa dlc and no one is sad that the Africans are coming, on the contrary. My point besides a whole lot others but not necissary here is that the US civ wasnt necissary, it wasnt needed to remind us they are still working on the game as if they showed like 10 screenshots of the Africans in the event whe would have also known and get hyped.

It can also not be the money as the dlc is like 5 buks and you can unlock it for “free”. Not to mention Microsoft owns them and them already working on the Africans.

4 Likes

I believe and sorry if I am wrong that you are Lakota or other Native American?

If so do you think the tribal marketplace was a good addition? In my opinion it was kind off a nerf as it is more micro intensive and unesissary really to add. It could have been a fun mechanic if actually based on fur trade like getting coin from hunts or something, like have it be a kind of capitol style building were you can select if you want to gather food or coin from hunts.

And if you are not again apologies.

Not Ana (obviously), but my own two cents is that the system doesn’t make sense. It still depletes the coin from a mine, even though it’s supposed to be representative of trading furs, meat, tobacco, or wampum (depending on your civ). It’s not particularly realistic, and feels like a band-aid.

I agree that a more accurate system should allowing players to gather coin from hunts and berries, perhaps similar to how the new US ships can gather coin from fish. And instead perhaps mines could be used as passive XP generators similar to the way the Japanese use hunts or the Indians use herdables.

2 Likes

i think the larger issue is the dance system, which is just annoying to work around.

More reasonable as a Revolution than Canada that is still part of the Commonwealth to this day.
Yes the Russian Revolution only happened in 1917 but Socialism and Communism were a thing long before that so a Revolution could have happened earlier and within the time frame of AoE3.

But definitely not the USSR as a playable civilisation they are very definitely a successor to the Russian Empire unlike the USA that exits next to the UK.

100% this. Allow coin generation via “fur trading” with hunts (not at a 1:1 ratio though). This is what I had thought fur trading was going to be originally. The tribal marketplace can stay as a building perhaps for fur trading yield upgrades, or foreign technologies (for the Haudenosaunee esp.). Having the tribal marketplace deplete gold mines doesn’t make logical sense to me and “breaks immersion.”

Actually, now that I think about it, just remove the tribal marketplace and community centers. Tribal marketplace is redundant with the above fur trading idea as we already have a “market” for every civ, and the community center just sounds like a lame SJW-esque addition.

It makes no sense to have USSR at all, since the game does not go up to WW1.
There are no Trench mechanics, no Airplanes, no Zeppelins, no Radio, no full-steel navies, no Machineguns, no modern Mortars, no Tanks, no Bunkers, no Barbed Wire, no Minefields.

This game has no way to represent any engagement or society from the 20th century, it even struggles with 18th and 19th centuries.

They would have to get an Age after Imperial that COMPLETELY changes the gameplay in every way, for it to justify USSR.

AoE3 just does not play like a 20th century warfare game would.

2 Likes

No I’m not talking about the real historical USSR.
South Africa, Canada, Indonesia, Finland and Hungary didn’t get independent during the AoE3 time frame some of them not even after WW1.
So why not a potential early (1850) communist revolution as an option?

Hungary had a Revolution in 1848, which is likely what the Revolt is about.

There was no 1850 communist revolution, so it should not be in the game. Communism, though a 19th century ideology, only gained traction in the 20th century.

Since the game goes from 1500 to 1880 why not the Paris Commune Revolution? I love the Revolution mechanic and the french have some really awful revolutions (Haiti is unusable, Canadá is Meh and the USA is just nerfing french).
Another possible revolution from France would be Belgium which is actually one of the best revolutions they could implement (both for Dutch, Germans and French)

4 Likes