There is no “british people” before the actual Great Britain as a nation.
The entire “ottomans” refers to the dynasty or the empire and can include turkish, arabian, greek and manu other eastern European peoples, depending on whether the Ottoman empire is ruling over them.
Ironically, Indians is one of the most bs civilizations in aoe3 because it combines too many different peoples and also states.
You have said it, borned from Spanish one, then revolt from Spain. I repeat again, I dont have any problem with Mexicans, they just were ingame in the best way they could be. Devs should rework revolution system instead adding this kind of civs.
Thats the reason they are called indians instead any sultanate as AoE4 does. Well from your POV there wasnt any “Spain” as there were 2 kingdoms with different laws and monarchs. Same with Germans, they are any german speaking people ingame. Also dutch.
Dutch is the best example, they fix cause they existed before ruled by Spanish kings, they are a completely different people that speak a completely different language with completely different habits. Mexicans dont
First of all, there is already a spain at the beginning of aoe3’s time period.
Before that of course there is no spanish people and nobody consider themselves as “spanish”.There were only castilians, aragonese, etc. It is us present day people who look back into history and call them “spanish” collectively.
Just like no frank or goth or vandal or suebi people would consider themselves “germanic”.
In that sense, there was only “english”, “welsh”, “scottish”, “irish” before the formation of an actual Great Britain. The reason why we call them collectively as “British” is because Great Britain as a political entity existed.
And that is the reason why it is bs.
The last state that covers the majority of present-day india that lasts long enough to be considered one culture is probably the Mauryan Empire which was 2000 years before aoe3.
After that there had been no “Indian” civilization or “Indian” people before modern India.
Representing them as one “Indian” civilization is taking a region and throwing everything within that region into one civilization. Probably the worst way to design a civ.
I can easily make an “European” , “Scandinavian”, “Iberian” or even “North African and Levantine” (if you like) civ in that way.
And they really did the last one. It was “saracens” in aoe2 and many consider it as equally bs.
Oh now we are using language as the new criteria?
Do you know how many different languages are covered by that “Indian” civilization?
Also that “German” covered not only the actual “Germans” but also Bohemians. So despite the common argument that “Prussians are not necessary because Germans already cover all German-speaking peoples”, that civ ironically is more likely to represent the HRE, which is again a political entity.
BTW in case you did not see that, Ottoman is a political entity not a people
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not talking about whether “civilizations” should be based peoples or cultures or political entities. You can debate about the distinction of these concepts with more than 1000 pages and get no conclusion.
What I’m saying is video game representations they are actually more likely to rely on political entities, nations (sometimes present-day ones), or even geography, however they are called.
Colonial nations are fine, they are even necessary if we ever want to have an european dlc. Why? Because some european civs have elements that only apply to their old concept of creating colonies and having presence in the new world. Thats not the case anymore.
If we want to have napoleonic battles, the siege of vienna, Lepanto and other european based conflicts, maps and dlcs, the old european civs must be stripped from their old colonial attire and become more continental, as the game have been widening its concept for a while now. Once they embrace that side of their identity and leave the colonies to new colonial nations, you can start to have very interesting matchups and the game would at last allow us to have a presence in every region of the world it has touched before (sorry, Australia).
Seeing the mexican civ, I can see that it has been created with the intention to represent part of their colonial period, along with their post independence history. Even if the trailer talks about being born from their independence from Spain, some techs, units, shipments and mechanics were being developed before that moment.
Now that they have started, id like to see at least all latin rev civs become full fleged. And before one says we already have incas/mapuches/tupis for Peru, Chile or Brazil… latin american people are not european nor native, latin american identity is distinct and has been for more that 200 years, taking influence but also separating itself from their cultural forefathers.
TAD should have been a good opportunity to get rid of this, but they missed it. Even after TAD, the European civs still have little element representing their presence in Asia. Courer-de-bois is exclusive to Americas. French still start with a “native (American) scout”. They have no access to Asian native ally or mercenaries, not even British who raised large number of local units in India and sent them to other parts of the world (and why did India get the Royal Green Jackets card?)
With the new revolutions like Hungary and Romania, I’m glad to see they are finally starting to add contents beyond that theme which does nothing but limiting the potential of the game, and I would not mind if it is broken even further.
Moving away from the colonial thene is a good idea. Imo, the game focused way too much on the Americas.
The day they completely strip the colonization and exploration theme from the Euro civs is the day AOE3:DE stops being AOE3. Expanding upon the game and opening up the game to new settings is one thing, but you propose to completely up-root the entire foundation of the game’s theme. Maybe you’d still have a good fun game at that point, but at what cost?
The solution isn’t to alter the fundamentals of the game, the solution is to make adjustments to new civs.
Honestly this whole deal reminds me of that famous episode of South Park that dealt with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas “violating” the Indiana Jones franchise.
No. The day they completely strip the colonization and exploration OF THE AMERICAS theme from the Euro civs is the day AOE3:DE stops being AOE3.
Oh that happened 15 years ago.
At the cost of someone’s whining I guess?
No it is still there. The American maps are still prevalent, the colonial Euro civs still outnumber all other civs by far and still include “settlers” and “explorers”, the single player still focuses on the New World, and Native American civ-group still has more civs than any other civ-group barring the Euros.
But as I said, I’m not necessarily opposed to expanding the setting beyond the Americas. I am opposed to erasing pre-existing mechanics and themes from the original game.
which we all know actually went to China and Japan.
which definitely includes Asia
But according to what you said, the game is still about colonization and exploration OF THE AMERICAS so we all agree TAD should be purged huh?
And all of these you’ve mentioned can be easily changed by even renaming some units and adding a few more maps.
Keeps being Europeans visiting other lands (cough cons… cough consulate)
Oh and with Europeans themselves having no Asian content (excpet Ronin, who were present in TWC)?
BTW @KingStarscream9 believes the European civs are still about colonizing the Americas and you think TAD is already bringing them to Asia. Maybe you two first settle your disagreements?
Seeing more purism zealots in AOE3 than AOE2 gives me the best laugh of the year. Seriously.
Actually, only Spain, Portugal, France and England are european colonial civs in the americas. Russia only had Alaska, and besides that never did much on the continent. Also, their unit roster is much more european/asian than colonial. Dutch had more presence in Asia. Germans didn’t had colonies in America past 1556, and their unit roster is also continental. Ottomans didn’t colonize (“but they promoted the discovery of America” still, they never reached it and there were only american maps at the beginning).
Besides, its not like you are deleting them, it’s just better representation if they would release european maps to have mother countries and their colonies be differentiated.
I believe the thematic focus of the European civs is American colonization. Again, I’m not opposed to the expanding of the game’s setting. I am opposed to revamping the Euro civs to strip them of their original AOE3 identity. The distinction is one of addition vs subtraction.
TAD and TAR are easy enough to reconcile with the original theme of the game without completely chucking it out the window. Europeans were gallivanting around Asia and Africa too during the early modern period.
Mexico on the other hand? The only reasonable conclusion is that FE simply do not give a crap about the legacy game. They’re out to create their “own game” which was built on the shoulders of giants (like your favourite, Sandy Petersen).
I also believe so far the thematic focus of the European civs has been American colonization, and I also believe it is a terrible idea which should have been discarded in TAD.
The “stripping” is as easy as you can think:
Poof. Now they are not colonial American anymore.
Im agree they should
Great we agree on that.
BTW @KingStarscream9 thinks no. So the floor is yours now.