Agreed, the direction they’re going in would be best as another game. Something with the timeframe of ~1750-1930 would be perfect for postcolonial nations like USA, Mexico, and Brazil. In that timeframe European factions with a purely European focus would also make more sense.
2 Likes
That’s only if you consider “colonial nations” only came to be the day they became independent. The names Mexico, Perú, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and such come from before their independence, and their cultural significance and characteristics too. Saying Mexico only exist from 1821 onwards is dismissing the fact that the mexican people, differentiated from the spanish people for hundreds of years even before independence, did existed and have their own history on the same time frame where many people here would just call them “spanish”. Spanish subjects, sure, but spanish people? No.
3 Likes
I think not all of them because we are left without revolutions. Only those that are considered powerful or very influential in some way after their independence.
Exactly. Colonialism was the opening theme of the game, but that does not mean that we should be anchored to this concept as a basis for adding new content.
The civilizations of colonial origin are being very well approached so that they fit in the right way. But please let us respect the concept of revolusions. It would be willing to accept another 2 or 3 nasions of this type and there would be enough nations left to replace the gaps they would leave in the system of revolutions.
1 Like
Nobody is suggesting a “purely” European focus (which never actually happened in the entire early modern period. The European nations had as much to do in Europe as they do in other parts of the world throughout the time).
Let’s just split by the timeframe you proposed and see what the Europeans were doing:
1500~1750:
Europe: a whole lot of religious wars and succession wars
Outside Europe: exploration and colonization of America, India and Africa
1750-1930:
Europe: Napoleonic wars, Crimean War, WW1 and a whole bunch of revolutions
Outside Europe: continued expansion in India, expansion in East Asia, scramble for Africa, revolutions in the Americas
The problem is the European civs are almost “purely” colonial America focused.
Giving them a few new cards and techs that are related to Europe and other parts of the world except the Americas (or even reskinning some) would not kill them.
And I also think it is intuitively better in a game where everyone else is about their own early modern history to have Europeans with their own early modern history (which also includes America), than to limit only the Europeans exclusively to America.
6 Likes
When you study latin american history, you’d see that most of them were heavily engaging with european and other powers at the time, many times standing tall against them: The war against Spain years after the independence in Lima, where many countirs with access to the pacific fought Spain when they tried to recapture the colonies, Argentina defeated England and France in naval battles, and also the fact that many of the wars between latin american countries in their wake had european powers behind them, in the context of imperialism.
That’s without going to the diplomatic, economic or cultural ties many of the new nations did in their first years.
1 Like
It was just suggested here:
“Purely” was probably the wrong word to use. What I meant was have their foundations in Europe (not things like Courrier des Bois). Obviously there are tons of things Europeans did around the world at that time. But even just European content would be substantial with things like the Napoleonic Wars, revolutions of 1848 (and more), the Great War, etc.
1 Like
If you add a few more cards like Asian/African/European native allies you’re stripping that theme.
If you change the wild-west saloon to the current tavern you’re also stripping that theme.
You don’t need to completely remove everything about a theme to strip it. When you expand it you’re already stripping it.
Reskinning courer-de-bois or native scouts and retaining their original functions is not going to kill the French civilization. Just like how they reskinned the wild west saloon and the related techs. Or maybe that is not even necessary because has anyone questioned why Lakota can be in Africa?
Now the problem is, if you want to play Europeans as outside Americas or even in their home region, there is no way.
I would say it is naturally and objective better to have European civs covering more of their early modern history (which includes America) than to limit them exclusively to the America. Simply go out and ask someone “would you prefer a game about early modern history of the entire world, where the Europeans are represented as colonies in America, or as their home nations with some assets related to America and many other parts of the world?”
Not to mention, why should you keeping the American colonial style while you already have Asian maps 15 years ago?
I simply cannot see why objecting having more contents and possibilities, or inventing as many laws and theories to limit future possibilities.
So did Italian wars, thirty years war, religious wars, wars of succession, northern wars, seven years war (in Europe), etc.
All of these are still missing from AOE3 European civs at present.
1 Like
Have you been in Spain?? It’s a very diverse country with 4 recognized languages (spanish apart), Mexico wasnt the exception. Every country is not an homogeneus one. They speak spanish, most are catholic and share some habits
2 Likes
Yes, but Im using “spanish” to represent the in game faction, which is called like that. If anything, a possible spanish rework can introduce elements for Aragon, Catalonia, Navarra, Valencia, rather than just being a Castellian faction in the new world. That would be awesome to me.
I do not know what level of shamelessness it requires for someone constantly pulling out Sandy Petersen (who did not work on aoe3, fyi) as his own spokesperson (most of the time either dying or having a heart attack) to call him “my favorite”.
Noooooo the game was about COLONIZATION OF THE AMERICAS and anything outside the Americas cannot be reconciled.
BTW your beloved ES did not do any single attempt to reconcile the Asian contents to the existing civs (not a single new unit or Asian ally card, still using settlers and courer-de-bois and native scouts, still sending shipments “to the new world” in their descriptions) in TAD (which you may not know was actually made by BHG, so maybe consider putting it on your purging list as well).
So I have no idea what you mean by reconcile.
he did, he was one of the designers for both vanilla and war chiefs.
2 Likes
In the meantime: “it’s okay to throw several Indian peoples who speak vastly different languages and have very different cultures and religions into one civ”.
2 Likes
The wiki page only gave him credit on aoe3, but did not mention in his work experience.
I tend to think he did not involve in the actual design and implementation of aoe3 but was listed nominally.
he has talked several times about his involvement in the project and is AFAIK currently in the midst of making a video in regards to AOE3.
1 Like
Okay maybe he did.
What is the video you are mentioning? Is it teased somewhere?
Not sure about anything upcoming but he talks about designing AoE3 stuff in this one.
4 Likes
That’s interesting to watch. Thanks
Im fine with the Spanish civ, there are galicians, basques, aragonese… in the same country without any problem. Have you seen any complain about that??
Only in AoE2 but not in 3, where it has sense to be only a civ.
I was referring to that Mexicans werent that different to say that they werent spaniards cause in the peninsula there are other languages and habits too. They REVOLT against the crown government and thats fine, but they REVOLT. They werent there before Spanish colonization, they didnt exist unlike dutch or germans did
2 Likes
First of all, I still do not know where the law of “existing at the start of the time period” is coming from.
My point is, “civ” designs are pretty arbitrary. There are peoples (Dutch), countries (French), countries formed much later (British), larger political entities (Ottomans), regions (Indians), and mixtures of these (Germans). I have no idea why some people suddenly turned to academia level seriousness when it comes to post-colonial nations.
There is no rule of what makes a “civ” distinct from another. Even scholars cannot agree on that not to mention video games. As long as it can be perceived and designed as a separate civ it could be one.
That is to say, “Mexicans” who lived in a place far separated from the Spanish mainland for generations and mixed with native cultures had developed its own identity long before the revolt.
This is purely retrospective: imagine if Portugal also joined Castiles and Aragon through personal unions or England and France came under one throne in the Hundred Years War, and remained ever since. In that case they may not be considered as individual “civs” in games made by present-day people.
Or if Dutch never became independent from the Habsburgs in AOE3’s time period. In that case they might be as well incorporated as part of a “Spanish” civ just like how Bohemia is incorporated into the “German” civ.
So the best justification of “why Mexico is considered a separate civ while the difference is not greater than that between castile and aragon (which is highly questionable but let’s first pretend it is the case)” is “because it indeed formed a separate nation and had its culture”.
1 Like
As I said before they revolt from the “civ” that originated them, thats the concept of revolution mechanic, this kind of civs are unneeded. Dutch, german, french cultures were a reality in Europe, Mexicans didnt exist before Spanish arrival to America, their culture bornt from the spanish one. It has no sense having Mexicans without being Spanish before. See the revolution mechanic as a evolution from being a spanish viceroyalty to a free nation, thats historically accurate.
3 Likes