You can already fight a civ against itself or send Lakotas to Asia and Africa. Some natives are playable civs while some are native tribes. I see no point of throwing out “historical accuracy” here.
And who made another law that “every skirmish battle starts from 1500 and evolves all they way to 1800s following the exact course of history”? Especially when you have cazador (a Napoleonic era unit) and organ gun (a medieval unit) unlocked at the same stage, or rodeleros and longbows upgrading all the way into the industrial age.
When Mexicans fight US in 1800s you can still design a campaign or custom battle starting from the “Exploration age”.
And that is NEVER a problem. In previous aoe games you can have a late antiquity campaign starting from the “tool age”, or an early medieval campaign upgrading all the way into imperial.
2 Likes
It causes major issues with game progression when there are huge timeframe disparities. You are supposed to gain access to more technology as you progress through the Ages and move from more archaic to more modern units and upgrades. Having civs that weren’t present for the majority of that timeframe (like Aztecs and Mexicans) really ruins the progression through the Ages. A faction that never got beyond stone weapons fighting another that skips over the early progression and starts off with modern weapons is jarring and disjointed.
Fighting in different locations is simply a necessity and much easier to suspend disbelief for. If the game didn’t work like that, the only matchup Aztec would ever face would be Spanish.
I think people should first realize “ages” in this game is simply a glorified version of “tiers” or “phases”.
If they are actual ages, many civs should start with large cities and much more population and also quite matured artillery from the first age.
What is the time period of the “commerce age” where there are bayonets and hussars but no artillery?
What is the time period of the “industrial age” where Aztecs are still using wood and obsidian?
Why did Joan of Arc, Attila or Amelia Black jump between different ages in the playthrough of one campaign?
Alright. Locations can be inaccurate. Matchups can be inaccurate. BuT age progression has to be perfectly accurate.
3 Likes
They revolt, they revolt and again they revolt. About maps, u cant block civs for some maps lol. I didnt say that you cant play USA vs Mexicans, easy revolt for both teams.
Mexico is already ingame, if you dont want to see that point thats not hard to understand I dont know how to tell you.
I dont care about ages’ names, they are orientative (what a fortress age is??/industrialization for no europeans?).
Wars with same civ in both teams can be seen as civil wars, also You cant (or couldnt) use the same AI in both teams, so Akbar vs Akbar battles dont exist.
All devs had to do was REWORK revolution system if they want more use of postcolonial civs.
2 Likes
Ages obviously aren’t set time periods and need to vary in length and timeframe depending on civilization. The problem arises when there is literally zero overlap (and even a 300 year gap) between the most advanced and least advanced factions.
This is precisely the problem. Aztecs weren’t around long enough to even attempt a reasonable fit into any age. It’s why you need to have archers that outrange cannons and stone club guys that are stronger than guys in steel armour. It was a problem in TWC but the addition of USA and Mexico are making it even worse by introducing the same issue on the opposite end of the spectrum and that’s why people are upset.
2 Likes
Natives are already in game and again they are already in game and again they are already in game lollllllllllll.
Best argument in a debate ever.
Great video. Without a doubt, the metropolis is one of the best game mechanics ever created.
Nice. I do not want to repeat the same arguments to prove the same thing to people on the two different sides. Let’s settle this.
@Ekdal1378 You think the game has been accurate and consistent about civs and time periods so they should not add US and Mexico because they break that consistency.
@M00Z1LLA You think the game is already messed up with its time periods and they should also fix the existing civs and not add anything that breaks it even more.
Now my point is: the fame had already messed up with both its civ representations and time periods and I DO NOT THINK IT IS A PROBLEM AT ALL.
I’d welcome aoe5 or aoe6 if it is a more synchronized or more accurate early modern RTS , just like how aoe4 is a more synchronized and more accurate version of medieval RTS compared to aoe2 (and that single feature is not sufficient to make it a better game).
But aoe3 has never been that game and it should not pretend to be or turn to become one.
If you agree with my summarization of your points, I’d happily stop repeating the same stuff over and over again.
2 Likes
the simple fact of the Lakota having cavalry in age 2 should already give away that the timeline is shifted for different civs
3 Likes
BTW, I think problem also arises when two civs met on a map where they never went to.
Of course I don’t but I can.
If you hate Mexico vs Aztecs or industrial clubmen too much you can ban either one of the civs, or strictly restrict the starting/ending age of the game whenever you use them.
The thing that annoys me the most is that we got yet ANOTHER civ in North America! I understand that Mexico is different enough from both the Spanish and the Aztecs, but couldn’t this civ release wait for another year? In the mean time we could’ve gotten something like Persians, Brazilians, Mapuche, Argentinians, Colombians or Siamese.
3 Likes
Mexicans civ are also supposed to include the Maya (as an option for the revolution), so I would even call it a two-in-one civilization. I think with the release of this DLC we can definitely stop adding more North American civs - but more maps and Minor Nations are always wanted.
South America could do with more maps and Minor Nations. Since North America has been decorated with two post-colonial civs, much less well-groomed South America also deserves a little love (even more than North America). Argentines, Brazilians and Gran Colombians would be the perfect new South American civs - they would fit perfectly with the US and Mexicans. Along with the Incas civ we had one civ for each direction of South America:
- Argentines - South
- Brazilians - East
- Gran Colombians - North
- Incas - west
A few more maps for South America and a few new Minor Nations (e.g. Muisca), and it’ll be nice.
Mapuche I think they could be a revolution option for the Argentinians civ as well as the Maya in Mexicans civ.
The current Asian maps are too chaotic and contain a weird replacement for Minor Nations - Orders. In my opinion, Asia takes a lot of time to get really nice maps from Minor Nations representing the Asian nations. I think that as much time as possible should be allowed for the developers to really improve Asia. The current Orders should remain in the game, but should be limited only to the maps in which they appeared - as an additional Minor Nations. Overall, I would split all of Asia into two DLCs: the Middle East (Omani / or Arabs and Persians) and the Far East (Tatars [combination of Tatar and Mongolian peoples] and Siamese). New Far East Minor Nations should be at least 10. New Middle East Minor Nations should be a minimum of 5.
3 Likes
I like it, but I think it should be the other way around. You start out as Mapuche and turn into Argentina.
For Brazil. You start as a toupee and turn into brazil.
For Mexico it must have been Aztecs who become Mexicans, but since there are already Aztecs, then Mayans become Mexicans.
I believe that the Mayans should have been how Mexico should begin and eventually become an ocsidentalized civilization through a revolution.
1 Like
This would not be true because Native American civs have mechanical limitations. Postcolonial American civs since they have the ability to represent Native Americans, that’s great.
There is some chaos, but:
-
USA - Lakota and Iroquois
-
Mexicans - Aztecs and Mayans
- Gran Colombians - Muisca
- Brazilians - Tupi
- Argentines - Mapuche
-
Incas are Peru xD - Incas
The USA could therefore focus on typically American revolutions because it already has some Indians from its area as full-fledged civs. Mexicans already have Aztecs, so the Maya will be their revolution.
South America, unfortunately, is less polished than North America as usual - so it would at least receive one more postcolonial civs. Latin American countries have had many different revolutions and other internal disputes (including conflicts with indigenous peoples). I doubt we would get more Native American civs from South America, so although I am counting on a lot of Minor Nations from this region, maps and many indigenous peoples links in Federal States Age Up mechanic.
he mentioned in a comment that he was going to make one.
1 Like
Except not because that would mean one revolution out of the many would get way more fleshed out than the others. There are too many revolutions for this to be feasible.
I think the door to post colonial civs is blown wide open. I think the question now is what is the overall philosophy any how many more civs will AOE3 be adding. Its possible that it is now somehow profitable to make new content for AOE3. If that was the case then we may see quite a few more. I think expansions usually introduce new regions, and one off civs for dlc are usually ones that have a large market that they can tap into. That gives me the feeling that future dlc may be split between 2 of civ regional expansions of relatively obscure civs and one off civs that appeal to a broad audience.
Civs that I think are probable on the short list:
Italy - probably one off dlc based off of venice/genoa etc, mishmash of city states.
Persia - increasingly conspicuously absent and would fit in with TAD civs
South American Expansion- im just getting this vibe, these might be separate, but i think packaged together they would be more appealing like african civs
Brazil
Gran Colombia
Pacific Ocean expansion-
Polynesians - either Maori/Hawaiians/Samoans combined via age ups or Maori are separate civ.
Zulu
Moroccans
Other than that, I think everything else that would come out would be surprising to me, not that more content itself isnt surprising. I think there will be a bias towards civs that are away from Europe.
If there is a new Native American expansion, I can possibly see Pueblo or someone from the southwest like the Apache, and my choice the Haida or a Pacific northwest catchall civ. In order to do Native American civs it probably requires a lot more work to avoid the pitfalls that came about when the Warchiefs was released and they would likely have to hire cultural consultants, which I can imagine makes it harder and riskier from a corporate standpoint.
People talk about Canada, but I think it will probably be handled as it is now with a revolt for British and French (maybe with some new cards and stuff to fill it out a bit more). I can see it possibly being a civ at some point, but it would be a stretch.
There is no “door” to be blown open. That is just your mind. There is no irreversible slide. Our words and whining can deter devs from making bad decisions. Knowing FE, anything we say won’t matter, but their bungles are only inevitable when we allow it.
I’d love more Native American civs but I think we’ve see the last of them if the recent polls are anything to go by. Most people just don’t find Native American civs and history as interesting as many of us do.
