I’d love to see the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth added as a new civ due to how powerful it was back in the day.
9 Likes
Hopefully we’ll see it some day, along with many other cool and powerful civs like the Persians, Siamese, Afghans and many others.
The Poles could also still offer mechanics significantly different to other European civs, like full focus on cavalry, at the expense of infantry, for example. We even already have two units in the game (Winged Hussars and Lipka Tatars) that should be among their unique units.
6 Likes
I mean, since both are units already ingame I’d expect them to not be part of their roster.
2 Likes
It wouldn’t be the first time native units have been removed when a new civs is introduced to use them.
If we ever get the Persians I think they will also be given the Qizilbash
2 Likes
Last time it happened was about… 2006 I’d say?
Back when the original team was developing the game.
1 Like
It also happened with the Inca units in definitive edition…
And some mercenaries like the Hakkapelits
Andother native units have been changed
And let’s not even talk about the massive rework of European civs.
I don’t understand that skepticism
2 Likes
PLC was not powerful. In AoE 3, we come to the Polish-Lithuanian Union at the time of its golden age … and immediately begins its slow decline. Each century was worse for Poland. Besides, if civ Poles were added to the game, how would they be presented in Imperial Age? Poland didn’t exist then X D.
All people who are not Polish want Poles civ because they heard a song about Winged Hussars that saved Vienna - AND ONLY FOR THAT REASON. To be correct, one would have to create a project of Poles civ, one that would present the “slow agony” of Poland, which, due to external and internal factors, disappeared from the map of Europe.
Other civs have this problem, like China or India, and made into the game. Sweden for example also started to decline a couple of decades later than Poland.
On the other hand others only appeared close to the end, like USA and Mexico.
What about all native americans civs, or the Hausa. Or even the Indians. The Aztecs didn’t even make it past 1521…
I personally have wanted the Poles in aoe3 from many years before I heard of that song for the first time.
Not necessary, as I said, many if not most of the civs in the game peaked and later declined during the time frame of the game and don’t have these mechanics.
Say that to Italy 
3 Likes
My point is that the House of Jagiellon was explicitly made to represent Poland ingame. It pretty much includes every single last unit Poland could have had, as Pancerni, Lipka Tatar and Winged Hussars are pretty much all the unique units Poland would reasonably have ingame. (Yes I know the Winged Hussars are in House of Vasa)
The native sites from Knights of the Mediterranean were pretty openly designed to cover all the places in Europe that couldn’t be made into playable civs ingame. Asking for even more European civilizations feels like overkill when even the devs have demonstrated they’d rather move elsewhere.
Although I know fully well we do have this discussion almost literally every month.
4 Likes
They’re split evenly, since the House of Vasa also has the Golden Liberty tech, which is a reference to the PLC.
I kind of agree with that, but my interpretation is not as radical. I just think they’ve done this since they don’t probably want to touch Europe in a while, but I wouldn’t say forever really. If Poland had been made a revolution (like Hungary for example), then I would say we shouldn’t expect it ever. But they are keeping it a bit ambiguous (unlike Prussia for example, which they’ve confirmed they don’t want to add). Maybe they prefer to keep Poland partly covered by the Royal Houses than not covered at all.
Also note that the Qizilbash was added to the Sufi even more recently, but I still think they will be part of a future Persian civ.
2 Likes
i think devs had show clearly that they will not make any new contents about europe for a long time, maybe forever. but people here just deny it once and once again, repeatedly say something like haud, lakota, aztec and inca had been made into civs.
if one really wants a particular new content, i will suggest him to make a mod himself, rather than keep making dlc wishlist.
besides, official works often do not satisfy everyone, why keep asking for something may disappoint oneself at the end?
3 Likes
This is complete nonsense. The Polish references are spread between two royal houses because they ruled Poland, and they wanted some actual Polish references. That didn’t stop Aztecs, Inca, Lakota, or Iroquois from becoming civs so I don’t see why it would stop Poland from being one.
Representation in royal houses is probably going to be their argument against a German split, but there is no indication that they wouldn’t ever do Poland if they had the resources to do so. At worst, it’s hedging their bets by ensuring there is some Polish content if the game loses support.
If they can shoehorn in a hacked together and recycled Malta civ, there is no reason they can’t do the actual missing European civs like Poland, Prussia, and Denmark.
5 Likes
Truth be told, I don’t think the Qizilbash is necessary for Persia at all. They were mostly just relevant during the Safavid Dynasty and they completely fell out of the scene after it. Persia is definitely not lacking cavalry unit options and I full heartedly believe you could get a fully functional unit roster without needing the native site unit.
3 Likes
Not bad. Add Baltic aboriginals on the maps like the Prussians and Pomeranians to commemorate their history of colonization by Germans and Poles.
They had a key role creating the first modern Persian state.
As you point out, later reforms got rid of them, but that doesn’t change their previous relevancy. The same can be said about the Tercios for the Spanish, the Caroleans for the Swedes or the Jannisaries for the Ottomans. They were all totally absent in their respective countries by the end of this time period.
And I agree, I think the Persian units should be mostly based on Nader Sha’s army (who should also be their leader). But there should also be some units from the Safavids, by far the most important and longest-lasting Persian dynasty of the Early Modern Era. And the two most clear units to represent them are the Gholam and Qizilbash.
1 Like
This is total nonsense…
Adding Royal Houses like: Hohenzollern (Prussian kings), Hochberg (Silesian princes) and Griffin (Pomeranian princes) makes much more sense !!!
You can still give them Qizilbash unit shipments from the site man…
1 Like
Ah the bi-weekly PLC topic! 
PLC = worthy addition with a nice range of unique units.
However…
Asian/African/Native American civs need much more love
3 Likes
You could use a rough equivalent unit like the Qurchi, who were an elite corps recruited from Qizilbash, which has the same function but different stats. I had also proposed in a past thread allowing Qizilbash to be enabled by either an age-up or a card.
As far OP, it’s as I’ve said in other threads, a historical argument is not enough. What would a PLC civilization add that could meaningful contribute to the gameplay in a unique way? In other words, what would be Poland’s talent/trick/quirk, or even gimmick?
1 Like
If anything that just reinforces the idea that you don’t need an unit called Qizilbash in the Persian roster.
1 Like