I think the revolution mechanic is shaping up to be a way to add functionality to your starting civilization, which works in some specific scenarios, more in treaty than supremacy. You can look at it as if it was some extra cards and units you get in exchange for not going to imperial age. Gameplay wise it makes perfect sense and some revolutions have neat synergies with their base civs.
I see no reason why revolution civs should not also be fully featured civs in their own right.
Especialy, when there is a lot of civs which should be included. I saw a grat idea (even a mod) for Persian civilisation, the others: Austria, Poland, Italian states (with their political complexity) North Africa (not only), South Asia. For me it doesnt make any sense including a civs which already are in the game by a revolution mechanic.
Exactly. I would only add that there is not a choice: new postcolonial nations or no any new nations (as some enthusiasts try to suggest), but currently (as long as M$ finds adding new content to AoE3DE profitable), the choice is: some new nations or some other new nations.
There really is no rational reason to start with the most controversial proposals, the presence of which is highly debatable and only divide the community (to make it even more absurd - these ones were already represented in the game in some way and were not even in the TOP10 of any of many polls about potential new nations), while there is a lot of more suitable and accurate choices, that are repeated everywhere you look (Steam, Reddit, this forum, etc) and majority of the community just seems to anticipate them the most.
Especially, that after the release of such a controversial DLC, sales may be lower than expected and M$ may decide that it is no longer profitable to sponsor more addons (what seems to be less likely if developers simply follow community expectations). Ok, in the case of the USA, such a thing can be considered as an easy cash grab, as the USA is a large market and such use of patriotic advertisement to attract of potential buyers may be beneficial. But in the case with Mexico there is no argument like that. So why take the risk? Just one rational reason…
You sound as if a company you call M$ deliberately make decisions that do not profit more, despite knowing that beforehand.
First permanent new world settlements:
Spain: Isabela, 1493
Portugal: Sao Vicente, 1532
England: Jamestown, 1607
France: Saint Croix Island, 1608
Dutch: New Netherland, 1609
Germany: Germantown, 1683
Russia: Three Saints Bay, 1784
Ottoman: None?
These are obviously all coastal. How long until you reach some interior or western areas?
Great Lakes: 1701
Alaska: 1741
Great plains: 1771
Rockies: As depicted, 1832
So I ask again, when you load up a game of Russia v. Germany on great plains, what year is it?
¿Es realmente necesario tanto conflicto por una civilización que no es obligatorio comprar?.
¿Qué es lo peor que puede pasar?.
These new civilizations are so well designed that they overshadow any contradictions we can find. The revolusions is what would most conflict at this time.
Welcome Mexico!
Una cosa interesante es que las civilizaciones coloniales eran revoluciones muy mediocres o de uso muy puntual.
Espero que con este DLC también mejoren la revolucion mexicana del juego base
PD: Alguien esta feliz porque le hicieron caso sobre agregarle mas utilidad al ganado ¿no? 
The devs weigh that making Mexico is far less of a risk than something like Poland. After all, the goal is to make money. These forums represent only a small percentage of the actual playerbase, and the devs have deemed that the average player would be more interested in Mexico. Forums have potential to give platforms to vocal minorities that don’t always represent what the average player actually cares about.
Plus, the devs may just have had a lot more creative juices flowing with the idea of Mexico, and wanted to explore that design space because it led to interesting play. Ultimately making an engaging and fun-playing civ is more important than appeasing the forums’ fan-made polls on civ preferences.
Whats your point??
Europeans coming after Spanish conquest doesnt mean that aztecs werent on the continent before. They were the 1st “empire” that had contact with europeans, so they dont need more justification than that to be ingame. Its not the same adding a civ that fix thanks to being from the start that adding a civ that appears from others already in the game while its already in the game by the best way (as a revolt)
If you say all that dates for the mexican topic, I repeat, Mexico didnt exist neither Mexicans did, they were Spaniards that become independents (revolt) and AoE3 is about people, not nations.
They had cultural differences with “european” spaniards, of course, but which country doesnt have cultural diversity??
All of this stuff could have gone into the existing revolution mechanic instead of directly contradicting it.
Now another rule that I’ve never heard of.
Who ever said that?
I wouldn’t want colonial civilisations to be a majority or anything, but I think 2-3 are quite reasonable, evocative for the period, and mechanically distinct.
As it is we have five main families of civilisation: European (British, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Ottoman, Swedish), Native American (Haudenosaunee/Iroquois, Lakota/Sioux, Aztec, Inca), Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Indian), African (Ethiopia, Hausa), and Colonial (United States, Mexico).
Aside from the truly massive European category - which is understandable as they were the vanilla civs, they’re the least differentiated from each other, and they establish the colonial theme - every other category gets between 2-4 civs. I would be happy to have 2-4 colonial civs in the game. I don’t think we need more after Mexico and the US, but even so, if we were to get Brazil or something down the line, I would not object.
Of course, I would also be happy to get another Asian or African civ! I’m not too picky about new content.
Would rather preffer more of Asian civs. Game is overloaded with europeon civs.
verdade amigo coreanos ou vietnamitas seria muito bom
My point is that people take the timeline of this game rigidly when they want to and completely ignore it when they dont want to. So much fuss is made about the first age starting in 1492 so a country shouldn’t be in-game unless it existed in 1492, yet if you look at the dates most of the matches would be historically taking place much later. So much later that the US and Mexico are less out of place than the Aztecs (not that I even care).
But - even though my whole point is that all the arguments are way too rigid and any major civ active between 1500-1880 is fair game - you want to play semantics with nations v. people groups. Turns out though that Mexico does have it’s own distinct people group
A large majority of Mexicans have varying degrees of Spanish and Native Meso-American ancestry and have been classified as “Mestizos”. In the modern meaning of the term this means that they identify fully neither with any indigenous culture nor with a Spanish cultural heritage, but rather identify with the uniquely Mexican identity which incorporates elements from both Spanish and indigenous traditions.
Up until the release of the “United States Civilization DLC” for AOE3:FE, every single playable civ in the entire AOE series including Age of Mythology were based on nations (people groups) as opposed to nation-states. A rule based on precedent, not on some written code.
AOE1: assyria and babylon (two Mesopotamian states with almost the same culture, religion and language), carthage (which is a phoenician colony), palmyra (which is one city state), even rome is not so much of a people but a political entity
AOE2: briton (a non-existsnt concept in the middle ages), byzantine (a political entity), burgundy (a duchy), sicily (a kingdom or even a region that the devs admit as a mixture of byzantine/muslim/norman rules, definitely nothing close to a people), bohemia (another duchy)
AOE3: british (still non-existant as one people at the start of the time period), ottoman (a dynasty/empire/political entity and a collection of many peoples like Byzantines)
Before AOE3: BHG, the rule based on precedent for AOE3 is “everything about this game is american”, so TAD should be purged.
You can use an existing civilization to fight against itself.
BuT you should not revolt into another existing civilization.
Go to select civs, you can choose spanish, french, british, lakota, germans, dutch, chinese… I cant read anywhere about any dynasty or nation, thats the reason why chinese and indians are perfect as they are