On what makes sense for a possible European DLC

it would be a little weird if you could play with Venetians but not with Italians xd…

1 Like

I’d rather not have “European minor natives”. It doesn’t make sense and would look awkward on maps, as it did in many fan mods which did similar things.

“Minor Europeans” should be kept as mercenaries where they make sense.

I would like to see Italians as a civ, however. Mostly for the Venetians so I can re-enact the Italian Wars, the Battle of Panto and the Siege of Candia.

3 Likes

Well,for e.x the Sharifate of Marrakesh will be playable in the historic battle of Three Kings in the african dlc and the Crimean Khanate will be a new revolution for the Russian and Ottomans…

longbows, lancers, rockets, rodelero and organ guns where all pretty unique when the game first launched. yeah some of them are “replacements” but they are still significantly different.

i could see some unique stuff, esp in terms of age of mechanics where Italians could have states and Danes could have great people as age up mechanics. beyond that you could just make the units from the factions unique enough to warrant being in the game.

sure the factions would obviously still not be as balls to the walls as America and the Africans but never the less different enough (besides atm i see some people wanting less super unique civs anyhow).

So you make Portugal, a faction which has a problem due to lack of uniqueness, even less unique?

1 Like

well, the unit doesn’t make sense for portugal to have to begin with. frankly nothing portugal has makes sense, they barely used cavalry at all and yet they get the best dragoons.

idk how to fix it, perhaps give them access to that new unique “abus gun” unit they give to the africans?

1 Like

disagree with that statement.

well maybe not so much the Italy one, but still that is a very lofty argument to make.

1 Like

You know, I do try to understand this historical discussions as best as I can (Even thought I’m not particularly good at history).

But I find really difficult to understand that some of the same people that said that the US is a “anachronical disaster” for the game because they had their independence too late for the time frame of the game, is now with pitchforks in hands against Poland being added into the game with the justification that they were conquered in much later date than the US independence.

Plus, all the native American civilizations in the game were eventually conquered at some point, and they still are in the game. So I don’t think this argument of “they where eventually conquered” is enough to justify completely discarding they as a possible addition.

On the Italy, this argument that they don’t fit the time frame of the game could be applied, since the Italia Kingdom itself was founded in almost a century after the game time frame, and during it, Italy was a bunch of independent states. But I think maybe some “replacements” could be considered. Like Papal States, Venetians, Sardinians or something along this lines.

I like the idea of the Papal States, based solely on a “interesting factor”. As the units from this faction would be very unique and cool looking, and could add some interesting variations to the game. (Like having a civilization with super crossbows and halberdiers instead of skirmishers/musketeers, for example).

Also, as a disclaimer: I honestly don’t care if the developers add a civilizations of creatures of the underground invading the earth (Or something ridiculous like that) as long as the civilizations is decently balanced and interesting civilizations in general.
For me, it’s just a game, and do not need to be 100% precise historically. I’m just like, trying to participate on the discussion or something…

4 Likes

i personally disagree with that :slight_smile:

while i obviously put poland in as a possible faction i will point out a few things.

yes Poland was on the map till 1795, but they had been in decline for decades by then, even before the first partition.

you should view factions as “nationalities” that are loosely based on countries rather than 1 to 1 factions. so view it as “Italians” rather than as “Italian kingdom”.

that is generally how i would like an Italian faction.

4 Likes

Please do not suggeest that Poland can be covered by Germany or Russia…
These countries (Germany in particular) were and still are the mortal enemies of Poland. History of wars between Germany and Poland has a 1000 years already. They tried to destroy Polish nation many times (biggest attempts by Teuton Order in XV century, Prussia in XVIII century during partition of Poland, Germany in XX century during WWI and WWII).

They even succeeded in 1795 and Poland was gone from European maps for 123 years. They were able to came back and restore its own country in 1918 because Polish people felt independent and because they still remembered their own separate culture, language and history.

So, please don’t say that Poland can be represented by Germany. For some Poles this would be a biggest insult possible. There are still people who remember what Germans did to the Polish nation during World War II.

1 Like

Sure they could do that, they could do a lot of things. I still don’t think Italians are a good candidate for a new civ. The Italian city states where a minor player in larger nation’s conflicts that didnt have any semblence of true unity.

Those age up mechanics wouldn’t truly be a new mechanic now would they? With the limited design space of an euro civ I’d say their one unique mechanic should at least be something new instead of an allready excisting one re used
I don’t mind simpler civs, I prefer the euro civs to the more exotic ones we have currently. But if you get basically a single unique mechanic let it be something not seen in other civs at least.

How about European maps have “mercenary camps”? You could find for example a swiss mercenary or German mercenary or Italian etc. camp on the map were if you build a trading post you can train those mercenaries from?

1 Like

Poland has no sense in AoE III’s theme of Europeans.

Denmark and Italy really the last ones who do.

I guess you did not actually read what I was saying if that is your take on my comment…

TDLR:
Saying that Scotland is represented by the British civ. is like saying that Poles are represented by Germans: those both have different cultures and languages, they are independent at the beginning of the game timeframe (Scotland and Poland), but technically part of the other civ (British/Germans) by the end of the timeframe and more or less represented (like with the Polish card in the German pool of cards).

no it is not the same.

Scotland was practically already a part of England since 1603, and was united under a scottish king.

the act of union in 1707 was a solution to economic and political issues that esp Scotland had faced. it was not forced by military means and the scots where generally speaking not treated like 2nd class citizens.

the Scottish ARE British, the faction is not called English but British.

but Poles are not German, they are occupied and treated as second class citizens, pretty big difference right there.

the card is a reference to siege of Vienna, and nothing else.

6 Likes

That’s your own ranking:

Doesn’t Scotland fit perfectly there too?

That’s actually an interesting question
In the 2011 Census in Scotland:[31]

  • 62% identified themselves as Scottish only
  • 18% identified themselves as Scottish and British
  • 8% identified themselves as British only

There is obviously the question of how you define British. As a culture, it does not fit Scotland that much, and I think this is somewhat reflected in that pool.
If you go for a geographical definition, than Scots are British, but Irish and Colonist aren’t.

if it fits anywhere it is in the last “unreasonable”.

1 Like

I love the colonization theme of AOE3 but I wouldn’t be too bothered if they added in other civs that were relevant during the era and at least fit themes of imperialism and conquest, which the Poles do.

Also, after Italy and Denmark, the Poles are the only other European power not in the game that had any real power in relevance in the early modern era. Might as well throw them in. It isn’t like it would open the floodgates for further non-colonial European powers because there would be no European powers left after the Poles.

7 Likes

Poland didnt conquer much (Lithuania was a union) and I dont think they were much imperialistic.

Also my main cocern is that the newer civs get copied bonusses from other civs. I rather have them explore new continents and unseen (important cultures) around the globe for new and interessting mechanics.

1 Like

I don’t think new euro civs should be a priority but if the devs go there anyway i think Danes and Poles would be the best choices

3 Likes

personally i am obviously biased towards Danes.

but beyond that i would love Persia and then maybe Siam.

southern africa/oceania also would be cool esp the maps, tho i struggle to see a main faction beyond Maori in that area (which is fine i guess if the maps are good).

3 Likes