Hi everyone. You don’t see me around much up in AoE3 land, but recently I’ve became interested in this game again you could say . Along with this comes my own ideas and views on future content etc., as you’d expect.
So I wanted to ask how adding ‘New France’ to the game would be viewed by you all.
Would you be open to a New France civilization?
Yes
No
Maybe
0voters
I was really thinking about starting a civilization concept thread but decided I should see how it would even be viewed. We know that the developers have kind of ‘split’ civs by adding USA and Mexico, which is fine. But the current French civ actually does have quite a lot of stuff about it that is linked via New France. Although it is also obvious that most probably never think of New France when they play this civ, as it is still highly centered on the European landmass.
I’m interested in hearing your opinions :). How could the French be reworked if we had a standalone New France? Would they share things like the Couer des Bois, and the native relationship things? Or would they be remade into purely Europe focused civs?
I do have ideas of how a New France civ would work but with the current French design I was unsure.
Excuse me, wan’t New France the French colony?
Should Siberia and Russian-American Company also become civs?
In my opinoion, even though the French Republic is better for civ than New France, it’s still more better as an revolution option for French. But I’m still looking forward to your ideas on the civilization of New French, maybe something that would be helpful to the French update.
Only if it comes as part of an expansion pack adding New Spain, New Netherlands, Alyeska, Klein-Venedig, Portuguese Brazil, Thirteen Colonies, New Sweden, Italian Guyana, and the Hospitaller Caribbean.
Wasn’t all the US and Mexico also colonies?
Same as Indians, and Hausa! The developers already opened the gates to make colonies into civs!
What does this even mean? You are talking about revolt options now? I think French are already more French Republic.
Perhaps. But really New France is very unique and a blend of Europe and North America, and would be too much for the current French civ to try to adopt. New France basically begins in 1534–1763, and from then branches off on its own tangent. When all the Wars in Europe happen (Thirty Years’ War, War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years’ War are probably most significant within this time frame), New France mainly continued on its own. It was basically autonomous. Even after France lost it to the British in 1763, It still remained practically autonomous because the British did not want even more resistance. They had their own wars in north America against British, natives.
I don’t really know any histories of these, but New Spain is close to Mexicans ingame, and Colonial Brazil would be very nice. We have no Latin American civilizations (apart from medieval inca). And as far as I know Portuguese don’t really have any reference to Brazil. Spain on the other hand is almost completely focused on what it did in the New World, and has nothing that is really referencing Old World Spain (honestly terrible civ in terms of authenticity atm ).
Thirteen Colonies are literally the USA.
New Sweden, Russian Alaska, Klein-Venedig and Italian Guyana are all too short lived to have made their own story. And if Malta is a civilization now, I guess Hospitaller Caribbean would not be bad? I am just going off what is in the game. It seems like you are saying we CAN’T add New France because it started as a colony, while the same things are already in the game.
From what I gathered from you two, you automatically think New France and France are 100% the same thing. Which is false
If you actually look at the US and Mexico, you’ll find they are very different from New Spain and the Thirteen Colonies. Outside the very first few federal states, many of their mechanics and units are from the post-independence period; gatling guns, Chinese immigration, and Hamiltonian economic policy all came after major hostilities between the UK and US, and while the situation with Mexico and Spain was more turbulent, the Maya Caste Wars, the French Intervention in Mexico, and the various revolutions (especially Texas and the Californias) are all clearly post-independence.
While I acknowledge the mark left by the original colonies on the Federal civs is undeniable, they also suggest that revolutionary civs are geared towards representing successful rebellions against colonial rule that led to the rise of independent countries. If New France is ever released, it will be most likely to be in the form of a Canada DLC.
Indians I sort of understand, but Hausa? Exactly which part of Hausa represents British Nigeria, except the ability to invite British foreign experts at the very last age? Is it only the fact that the Hausa were eventually colonized by Britain that leads you to say they represent a British colony?
Well I am not bothered to spend hours researching just to debate that.
And this means New France can’t be different to France? The ingame French, again, barely hint at anything to do with New France. And if they did, it would become one mess of a civ (it has been so heavily defined as a european civ already).
There was no reason for New France to rebel, because it was practically self-governed.
But Canada only stopped being a colony in 1867? A bit late? And it would literally just represent everything within the British and French colonies before that date. So it seems you have not really given it much thought.
They are revolutionaries. Their civilizations are no longer European colonies, and even they had imperialist expansion.
Say hi to the Mughal Empire, the Maratha Empire, the Hausa Kingdoms, and the Sokoto Caliphate.
Before the Europeans came, they were regional powers.
I think the European civilizations in the game already mainly represent the colonies of those countries.
There are settlers instead of villagers, explorers instead of generals, and especially the French civilization with Coureur des Bois instead of female villagers. I think perhaps the most worthing looking for is to give the current French more colonial flavors like you desire through the update.
Btw, we all know it’s an opened jar of worms, but we still have time to close it. Of the revolutionaries and colonies, only the Brazilians were a potential civilization with most consensus in the community. I think that’s enough.
It means, to be a new civilization, the French Republic is more suitable than New France, but on top of this, the French republic is more suitable as a revolt option than a civilization.
No, they should do the opposite:
Change the Napoleon to the Louis XIV.
Because the game is focus on 16-18th Century, not post 19th Century.
Using Napoleon as AI back in 2005 was HUGE MISTAKE, and DE should REWORK that since DAY 1~
At first I thought “New France” means French Republic or Napoleon Empire.
Until I saw you mean French Canada and even compare it with US and Mexico, really disappointed me.
I said numerous time, the reason US and Mexico become full civs is because they existed in the origin campaign, the origin game already featured Pistolero(Gunslinger), Renegado(Owlhoot), Comanchero(Cowboy) with 1890’s weapon and train etc, these WILD WEST and Mid-19th Century contents as well.
New France dissolved after French-Indian War and Louisiana Purchase, not to mention they never revolt against Kingdom of France.
If you want the French Canada, just UPDATE the current Canada revolution by adding more French contents.
If you want to change to Louis 14, you need to make a lot of changes and redesign the interesting voice of the leader. This is not worth the loss. It will increase the workload of devs. The easiest way is to change the flag and change the flag of the Bourbon dynasty to the French tricolor.
That’s why I’m really DISAPPOINTED when they launched DE.
Such LAZY and minor UPDATE but wanna claimed “Definitive Edition”???
Never mind, I guess its because my stander is too high for modern video game industries.
Compared with aoe3de, aoe2de does not even make any changes. All civs use European troops, European siege weapons and European villagers. That’s what I don’t like about aoe2. Simply too lazy.
Simple brain always just wanna play simple game, that’s it.
People already said numerous time:
NEVER COMPARE AOE2’S GAMEPLAY WITH AOE3.
The developers added 4 MORE civs with AOE2DE, each civ with an campaign, per campaign with 6 missions and per campaign with 5 missions for following EVERY DLCs..
Such HUGE different treatment counter with AOE3DE, and everyone knows the reason:
Because AOE2 is super CASH COW, but AOE3 is not.
Therefore, developers doesn’t consider AOE3DE deserve to be loved at first, that’s why they made the TERRIBLE RELEASE at very beginning.
But once they founded the player’s reacting level over their expectation, smelled the potential smell of cash, they started regret with hard working on US and Africa Royal, and decided to continue update the game until now.
As long as you are not blind, no reason you don’t upset and pissed off.
Unless you recognize modern game industries should normal to be LAZY and CASH COW.
I am a huge fan of New France and its awesome to meet someone else who appreciates its history and that of the Canadiens. That said I’ve always felt satisfied with its representation as part of the French civ. The coureur de bois, free native guide, explorer, native cards and other techs and cards make it very clear that the French civ is largely meant to represent France’s empire-building in the New World, especially Canada.
Would love to see more historical battles featuring New France during the colonial era tho.
. Along with this comes my own ideas and views on future content etc., as you’d expect.
I think French are already more French Republic.
).