Retrospectively, how would you re-design some DE civs?

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
1

Retrospectively, I think some DE civs were either hurried or recycled, and not all their designs were well-thought out.
Several people would want certain civs removed. That’s a different topic. Let’s assume we keep them here. Also, not considering business needs or practicality.

We are mostly talking about themes and mechanics here, not balance. That’s another topic too.

Swedes:
Okay. But since they are the “merc-as-regular units” civ, I’d make their basic roster maybe more limited with units roughly multi-purposed but specialized as none:

  • Caroleans as the ranged cavalry counter with an all-round melee and ranged attack, but not very good at either.
  • No crossbows. You have jaegers in age 3, and no counter-goon pressure in age 2.
  • Hakkapelitt return to heavy cav with a ranged charged attack (like the Oromo) and replace hussars. No goon. You have black riders.
    And then make their German merc access cheaper. Now they have a full barracks-stable roster without duplicating units.

Inca:
I’d rather prefer them to be a more streamlined non-cav, pre-gunpowder civ, like Aztec but with some more defensive bonus and other gimmicks (like Chimu’s ability and poisoned arrow)
No conversion
Their war hut roster is the same as Aztecs. That’s fine, but the Kallanka units don’t have to be “look like Aztec units but with roles and tags randomly shuffled ”:

  • Huaraca could be a super skirm, not a culverin and mortar hybrid, like the jaguar is a super halb. Both giving them counter-infantry means since they lack artillery.
  • Bolas warrior should be a regular ranged shock infantry with snaring and AOE, not a heavy infantry. They could also have more anti-artillery bonus since Incas don’t have arrow knight
  • Maceman should be even more siege-oriented.

Ethiopians and Hausa:
Okay. I actually think they have the most coherent designs. Not too streamlined, not all over the place either

US and Mexicans:
Their federal state cards should be less diverse, and combinations should be more limited. Many designs should be scattered around natives/revolutions/other civs.
I don’t think they really need the inspiring flag.
They have a good base roster already, so they don’t need that many options to train European units either. Maybe tercio and cdb could remain.
Same thing with the natives. Unlike Africans who have a very lacking roster, their rosters are very good already. So their excessive access to extra natives is not necessary.

Visual and theme nitpicking:
They look 200 years ahead of every other civ.
Their age 2 unit designs should represent early colonies, not the revolution (1800s)
Gatling guns should replace horse artillery in age 4, not falconets in age 3.
Steamer should be an age 4 unit, or an upgrade of galleon (and give them galleon——that’s the staple “colonial ship”). Sloop is already better than caravel, and that is thematically more accurate: they relied more on swift, small ships most of the time rather than large European ships. Or steamers should be a shared European unit or upgrade.

Italian:
Mostly okay. But maybe some too state-specific units like papal units, schiavone (Venetian) and bersagliere (Sardinian) should be locked behind city state cards like native American allies——basically the same system as the NE mod.
Make the pavisier viable late game.
And things like “papal lancer” and “papal bombard” never existed. Too fantastical. Maybe they want to avoid reusing the elmetto and Li’l bombard which were originally meant for Italy in 2005. But we have so many mechanics of gaining strange access to units already. It shouldn’t be a problem if Italy is more merc-focused. Similarly, basilica units should all be mercs.

Maltese:
This is the least thought-out and obviously most rushed civ, both its theme and gameplay.
They need a serious re-design. So many re-used assets. “Consulate-like” mechanics are too overused at this point.
Commandery as a defensive building training consulate cavalry is fine. And not more than that. The Tongues cards should provide bonuses and one-time unit batches, not training. Could be re-sent.
Fixed guns and depots are too gimmicky and out-of place. Especially weird as they were all used by their “enemies” in the campaign.
Their defensive bonus should be more on TCs, commanderies, forts, walls and towers. That’s already a lots of options.

The overuse of charged attacks should also be restrained:

  • Now fire throwers can have three attack modes in one stance. They could only get the flamethrower
  • Sentinels don’t really need the rockets. Just buff their stats.
    Maltese were famous for using thermal weapons in the Great Siege, and since their design has some Byzantine vibe, flamethrowers would fit. But rockets were more of an Indian, Chinese and later British thing.
2

I think a lot of civs were given too many mechanics. The USA’s “free techs that cost more time” could have been fascinating as a core mechanic for some civ. Totally underused and a missed opportunity.

Mexico is too complex.

I think Sweden needed a unit comp with actual holes; same can be said for Malta. One of both of their rock/paper/scissors needed to be real weak to at least soft-force the use of mercs/foreign supplemental troops.

Inca ideally wouldn’t have been an Aztec clone.

Italy was probably pretty well executed actually. Not really my favorite, but not too much I’d do differently.

The African civs are awkward. Really complicated and probably too low of a reward for the APM/complexity required.

I think my leaning is each civ should have “a thing” or 2 things and several unit comps. Even with fairly minor differences you can make fairly major differences in how they play.

Dutch - coin and banks
British - house boom
Ports - free TCs
Russia - cheaper units in groups
French - better vills who can fight
Germany - SWs and “free cavalry”, also more mercs
Spain - cheaper shipments and lots of melee units
Ottomans - poor eco, but really strong units
DE Ottomans - nearly everything is just better
Japan - shrines and better, but pricey units
India - vills with shipments and early access to units
China - mixed batch units and villages
Aztec - better plaza
Huad - fast rush or strong ff
Lakota - No houses and really good cav (post DE that kinda changed)

3

I think they were much better designed than US and Mexico. But the livestock market and field could be turned more friendly.

Agreed. Civs that have many access to alternatives should have missing parts in the regular roster, and civs with a complete roster shouldn’t have too many access to alternatives. Maybe just one or two as a gimmick or a further boost of their already-existing strength, like British highlander.

But the fact is US and Mexicans have a strong and complete roster AND a lot of other options (outlaws, mercs, natives, even European units that overlap with theirs), while the native Americans lack both.

That’s why I think the African designs should be the staple: they have major holes in the main roster, and many alternatives.

1 Like
4

The African civs might be better designed, but they feel different enough that I’m already “off my game” by the time I’m dealing with all the new stuff.

The hunting aura building and split market ups, and then placing everything so the fields work later, and then making sure I have influence for my natives, and then managing my livestock, and then a building for age up techs that change depending on how I age, etc.

America feels like a European civ (similar building set etc) so it’s easier to adapt to the wacky mechanics. Mexico is kinda on a different level due to all the revs.

2 Likes
5

Simplifying Fields/Granaries would solve like 90% of the issues with African civs. They’re just a tremendous APM sink at all points of the game.

In age 1-2 you’ve got to waste time construing Granaries, dealing with pathing around them, and focusing intently on herding so the villagers don’t shoot all the herds a million miles away from them. Then in age 3+ you’ve got to tediously place many, many Fields, construct them extremely slowly, task villagers, and set them to the correct resource.

Giving that tedious of a mechanic to a Euro civ would be enough to tank the play rate of that civ. But the African civs have the Livestock Market which already requires a ton of attention. With Ethiopia it’s a double whammy because MM are yet another building that has to be managed and they conveniently run out exactly when shit hits the fan with transitioning to Fields. Hausa is at least manageable because their Universities are set it and forget it and you get Cows for free so all you have to do is remember to sell.

The other big issue is that everything that costs influence costs only influence. So you either have enough, or you’re screwed. And since there are way too many competing things that you need that cost influence, you’re almost always screwed. If the cost was split with other resources (say natives cost 80% influence / 20% wood, and mercenaries cost 80% influence / 20% coin) then you could stretch it further in the early game and have more flexibility in how you use it. It could also damper the very late game when you’re swimming in influence because you’d still need some wood or coin to spam mercs and natives.

5 Likes
6

The state age ups probably wasn’t something I would have come up with, but would actually work really well if they had 13 options total across the 4 times you age. With each age up you’d choose one of 4-5 states from the original 13 colonies, each with regional cards etc. Maybe Gatling Guns come with age 4, or maybe not. I’d probably lean hardest on 1776-1812 USA.

I could frankly see limited artillery options until age 4 as I’d imagine most of the cannons were imported from Europe. For age 3 specifically, I could imagine having cards that send French consulate cannons (for a price), but no ability to create an artillery foundry until age 4. Sharpshooters could be turned into anti-infantry units with a kinda big bonus vs all infantry on a really low attack (hard counters are hand cav and artillery). State Militia would remain a traditional skirm. In age 3, you might need to get creative to deal with cannons, kinda like how Huad does.

Roster looks something like:
II:
Minutemen (faster training Musketeer, kinda Rusket-y but maybe keeping 14 range)
State Militia
Hussar
Sloop
Galleon (as you said)
III:
Sharpshooters (redesigned as above)
Dragoon or Carbine Cavalry
Frigate
IV:
Culv
Heavy Cannon (trainable?)
Mortar
Monitor

Unique economic bonus might be tied to your age 2 state card choice. It’d kick in late, but you could pick between a few options (none of which would be too revolutionary).

7

I believe, on the contrary, that Italy was mainly thought of as a standard European civilisation. Home city cards do reflect the key points in the history of the city-states and the alliances they had, but they don’t do much more than that, simply because as a card, the way in which you want to represent political, historical and geographical specificities is simply limited. And Italy suffers from that. I’m thinking of an average player who has a limited knowledge of history, but who would like to learn from civilisations (which we’ve all done): what could they learn from this design other than Italy seems having always been unified, that it has a Schiavone as a papal unit, a risorgimento as an useless church upgrade and so on? Historically, the conception is not accurate. I have nothing against the few fantasies of the developers if the civilisation is faithfully represented in its singularity.

Change that it’s what i’m doing and i hope it could be ready for the october 18th!

8

Malta: (general ideas)

  • Sentinel should be an hybrid between infantry and artillery, even a full microartillery. Big, siege attack with a small area and pushback, slow to deploy and move, tending to be fixed to his place, like the Wall Gun suggests. This would combine very good with their bonus.

    image
    image1109×845 101 KB

  • I read somewhere the idea of give them a new unit instead of the Hussar: a non-merc Mameluke. A heavy armored, not very damaging, but very durable heavy cavalry. They should be a good way to fight against Howitzer armies. They should look like these guy:

    image
    image489×750 70.5 KB

    Albeit personally I would like seeing one of these bad boyz:
    image
    image720×960 64.3 KB

Aztecs

  • Chinampa replacement for farms and plantations.
  • Someway, remake their economy showing the excellent ways for their commerce in all Mesoamerica.
  • Just like the Insurgente can have different weapons and (someway) ROF, Macehualtin should have bows in addition to slings. Also, desynch their attacks really help them. I have tried, and they are like fragile human Gatlings.

In general, I would like that artillery and heavy infantry attack the unit right in front of them, not the nearest one.

1 Like
9

I’ve suggested something like that before. It’s possible someone else suggested it before me though. I like the knight pictures btw. Way cooler than a ~consulate Hussar.

10

The Lakota should have gone all-in on the horse theme. For the life of me, I can’t figure out who thought that improving their infantry and weakening their cavalry was the best option. Literally the worst possible choice you could make in regards to the civ’s design and the culture’s history.

And the mortars are a cop-out to actually trying to design something interesting and unique.

6 Likes
11

The civ is my favorite to play both in Legacy and DE because I love the Cavalry which I wish wasn’t nerfed.

1 Like
12

Simce caroleans have bonus vs heavy cav at range, hakalpels should have been melee cav (like in TAD) with bonus vs light cavalry.

That way it should have been truly unique.

Also, I would remove giant grenadiers for them, they didnt need it.

And imperial mercenary contractor from dutch. Or even better, that stupid card of training mercenaries from standard buildings. That should remain a swede bonus.

13

US and Mexico

Both of these civs are both culprits of skewing the time frame with their units and national identity, so for both I’d re-design them to fit in better, with Age 1 - 2 at the very least being the same as British and Spanish unit rosters for US and Mexico respectively (aside from Unique Units as I don’t want them to steal all the assets). There’s still room for units that are unique to these civs early on (pre-rev) such as Trained Bands for the US (colonial English militia).

Age 3 or 4 could be when the national character of the US and Mexico are in full force - all European unit lines in military buildings are removed and replaced with their own national units upon age up. Kinda like a pre-determined revolution.

Other smaller things:
• Naval units are the same as Euros. Steamers and Sloops become upgrades for all Euro-style navies - modernising the Galleon and Caravel respectively. Why on earth are Steamers puffing along to fight Galleons in Age II, circa 1600-1700s?
• Gatling guns - not available until Age 4. US get standard Euro artillery roster.

1 Like
14

I would do several historical reskins and give more UU to the British, French, Portuguese and Swedes… that is, like how the reworks were done…

15

I think if we want to keep the musketeers UUs representing their unique “standing armies” in contrast to colonial troops and irregulars, they could be simply tweaked like this:

  • US: state militia and pikeman or a UU pikeman (age 2), regular and sharpshooter (age 3)
  • Mexico: salteador and insurgente (age 2), soldado (age 3)

No early training of sharpshooters or carbine cavalry——they are already “too advanced”

The problem with the current roster is that there is no standing US or Mexican army in the 16-17th century if you don’t want to give them standard musketeers. So their age 2 aesthetics directly jump into late 1700s and one age ahead of every other civ.
This could fit the transition from 16-17th colonial irregulars to revolutionary then standing armies perfectly. In fact no civ has age 3 musketeer (like NE mod Swiss) is a miss.

1 Like
16

Really don’t think a pikemen would make sense. I suggested a “minuteman” musketeer that would be rusket-ish.

USA could have regular militiamen like other civs do. Especially if a “civs shouldn’t have been so complicated” design philosophy were taken.

17

Well , I have already propositioned how I would have liked the Maltese to have been designed so I’ll just link that here.
As far as the African civs I quite like them but I strongly agree they require way too much APM.
I like the US design much more than Mexico—partially cause half of Mexico’s revolt cards are just USA ones but better—and partially because I’m American. I would hardily disagree with moving back their time frame—I personally love that time period of the US shown and the uniforms are awesome. I suppose since we already have Redcoats fighting Jaguar Prowl Knights I just don’t care too much about some wackiness in the timeframe.

1 Like
18

I think all civs should roughly “start” at a similar tech level, but for civs like Aztecs who didn’t reach later stages in reality, they could be stuck there.
All other civs start at pre-1600s. Having two civs start much later than everyone else feels a little off.

1 Like
19

Yea it does feel somewhat off but I think it would feel weirder to have the “united states” be not the United States.

20

No one is arguing against including that time period, the issue is their starting point being essentially at age 4 for everyone else. It completely ruins the progression of ages when some civs start the game off on 3rd base. But fitting USA and Mexico into age 1 and 2 is an impossible task because they straight up didn’t exist yet.

Rather than being full civs out the gate, fitting in USA, Mexico, and others as more fleshed out revolutions would have been much more satisfying. It doesn’t have the issue of forcing in anachronistic xbow/pike/galleon analogues or making up units for the sake of uniqueness because you’d just be Britain/Spain in age 1. Most revolutions could have the option for subsequent age ups with federal states, and the country you start with could impact what options are available to give a wider selection of states (So British/Dutch/Swedish USA could all have their own flavour).