Revolutions needs a rework

I think that the revolutions could be improved, I propose the following ideas.

  1. The revolutionaries should be able to be created in the barracks and should replace the musketeers.

  2. The scout should become a revolutionary general and have the same skills as other generals in the game.

  3. Revolutions should have new unique units that can be unlocked with new cards exclusive to revolutions.

  4. The decks of the revolutions should be customizable.

  5. The unique units of the revolutions would have to replace the units that fulfilled their same role.

  6. The revolutions should have the same experience systems as the Spanish but for all the revolutions.

Anyone who wants to add more ideas feel free to comment.


While I find more important to revamp minor natives than revolutions, it would be cool at least to finish a portrait for every unique variant that is already ingame and revamp the cards for a clearer strategy with every revolution.

Specially the cards benefit treasure hunting… in post IV age!?


About natives, it was just a small comment, you can find good topics alrrady about redesign and proposals in the forum.

The thing is that revolutions usually mean a big all in, so I think that there’s not much room for improvement.

hello, this is my opinion on the revolutions and their possible rework, the revolutions since the classic edition of Age of empires 3 have been a tool for “all or nothing” plays, however I think that with the dlc of the civilization of Mexico where they really did an excellent job with all their revs
among them the best are Texas and California since they have many unique characteristics in addition to having decks of many more cards

What I would like is that they implement this to all the revolutions, especially those of Spain, since they have very few cards and effects compared to the revolutions that are from the Mexican civilization.

moving on to another topic so far the only revolution coming from another revolution are the Mayans where it is mandatory to revolutionize with Yucatan perhaps they could use this to implement countries like Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru-Bolivia confederation etc

thanks for your attention


A man can dream.

I’m pissed because I always try to say about Finland villager… but got time to redraw the Medic stuff… Yes, it was updated, with a woman portrait, kinda cool actually. Would need too much to put Karelian Jaeger the Villager Tag and let him build eco stuff??

1 Like

We need something to improve the arrival of revolutionary cards in the late game.

Giving a free shipment when doing the revolution, or adding an extra experience trickle somewhere. It’s a little frustrating to end up with a new deck but send very little.

Another idea to speed up the return of the economy, give “Arrive fast” to cards that unlock villagers.

As mentioned above, spies is missing for revolutionaries.


Some revolutions are apparently too lacking compared to others.


I had seen it, the idea is interesting but I think it’s a bit OP with some revolutionary decks.

This was always part of the “all-in” Age 4 gamble. You hit the revolution button to quickly end the game before the weight of the Age 5 bonuses crushed you. And they’re considerable. With Age 5, you get techs that give +50% to harvest rates on all 3 resources, and you get the individual +50% attack/hp upgrades on the units. It’s expensive, but it’s a lot of power. So, if you shove all your villagers onto the map as revolutionaries, and you fail, what then? Should you just be doomed to lose?

Mexico showed that didn’t have to be the case. They have 3 separate viable Age 5 revolutions. They have fully fleshed out decks and unique play styles that all compensate for some but not all of the lost Age 5 upgrades, and give a path to winning.

I’d love for the standard revolutions to get a similar rework, mainly because it’s a way of including many countries who often get requested to have their own full civs but which don’t really have enough to justify it. We don’t need 5 mini-Spains with new Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and Argentina civs. Mexico and Spain already cross over a ton (and they should), for example. What we need is for these revolutions to be unique and viable Age 5 paths that you’d want to play. You might even make a deck just for one of these revolutions, anticipating using it.

These should probably keep some fundamental elements:

  • INF fort cards
  • INF revolutionary cards
  • 1-time card to enable the revolution’s unique unit if it has one

The Citizenship card needs to be baked in. Right now, it’s a mandatory first shipment because you must rebuild your economy. Just let us train the citizens as soon as we’re below the pop cap again. The penalty is still there without having to also chew up a home city shipment.

Beyond that archetype, get creative and give each revolution a deck with a unique feel to it. Maybe you’re more focused on military. Maybe you get a few unit upgrades. Maybe it’s just a unique unit. Maybe it’s a swarm-style approach and you get free units via some mechanism.

Maybe your civ is more economic focused and gets a strong economy once it rebuilds. Maybe it’s a change in the economic model from farming to livestock (and if so, automate it because no one wants to micro an economy in the last age of the game; you want to micro your army). Maybe you get an extra factory or access to better settlers of some variety, or some other economic tech. Again, be creative and do something that fits individual nation’s history.

Be cognizant of the paths into that revolution and various synergies. We want that kind of complexity! Hungarian grenadiers taking advantage of Ottoman upgrade cards is a good thing. Romania taking advantage of the Russian upgraded blockhouses is a good thing. Ideally, Malta’s +2% hp bonus would cross over into the revolution so you could take advantage of it’s turtle-style civ design and fixed guns.

The USA revolution is so common, it should probably be an archetype: a highly flexible revolution that any civ can take that does a little of everything, so it works with the various civs that feed into it, but not specializing too much. Take advantage of the DLC for inspiration. It’s an infantry civ with forts and cannons and an economy to support the swarm infantry. Right now, it gets a LOT of native alliances by default. That’s good. You make up for lack of Age 5 upgrades by putting more units on the battlefield. Maybe it needs some outlaw love too. Enable the American outlaws, lower the pop cost, and give a strength bonus. Maybe you have an INF card to send French reinforcements (cav) for historical flavor. Embrace the ranching economy, but again, automate it.

Also, it’s critical to avoid economy traps. By this I mean creating a post-revolution economy that’s too weak or vulnerable and which ends up being a huge disincentive. Right now, Finland is an economy trap. You gut your economy, go completely dependent on hunting and foraging long after you’ve cleared all of such resources safely near your base. So, you have to burn your shipment cards to get food, wood, and gold instead of using them for military shipments. You can use the livestock pen, and you need to, but you can’t rebuild it if yours gets sniped. It’s a death trap. Another is going to a wood-heavy military without wood-heavy economic support in the revolution. For example, they open up a lot of alliances with minor tribes, but offer you no renewable source of wood. Clear the map of trees and it’s GG. And the AI using it will ALWAYS commit villie suicide chasing those last trees. These are economic death traps.


I agree that revolutions need a rework that allows them to have their own identity.

PS: I would say something else but you literally stated exactly my opinion on the revolutions, thanks for commenting. :smile:

Quiero pensar que esta comparaciĂłn surge del desconocimiento y no de la malicia. :expressionless:

Absoluto. He pasado muchas noches estudiando la historia de Latinoamérico en universidad. Hace 25 años que gradué, pero recuerdo bien muchos de las ideas y los temas mayores. Conozco bien que estos países están muy distintos. Lo que me concerne es como separarles bastante para que justificar una civilización major para cada uno.

Absolutely. I have spent many nights studying the history of Latin America in college. It has been 25 years since I graduated, pero I remember well the major ideas and themes. I’m very well aware that these countries are distinct. What concerns me is how to separate them enough to justify a major civilization for each.

I’ll continue in English because I’m too lazy to look up all the words I want to say, but haven’t practiced in years. =)

They would end up playing like variants of Spain. So, we should embrace that with the revolutions. Let Colombia have its hero Simón Bolívar leading the army. But let’s add more to this. We’ve got many sea-faring ports along the coast of what’s now Venezuela and Panama. In Panama, we have our connection to the Pacific as well. Gran Colombia itself was fairly short-lived because of the political turmoil, but there’s plenty there to craft a vision of what it might have become.

Peru of course is going to have integration with the local tribes and some reference to the geography. It too has ports to the Pacific, but they weren’t nearly as well known for those as Chile was. I see it potentially as a defensive option for a Spanish player who’s behind or getting raided a lot and needs breathing room to attack. I’d of course want llamas enabled as part of their economy. Coca leaves need to be a buff. I’ve read countless accounts of how popular it was for Europeans unaccustomed to the high altitudes of the Andes. I’m not sure if the Asian waves of immigration had happened by the 1820s, but if so, there could also be a reference to that in the revolution deck.

Argentina ended up being so much like the Western US in many ways. Different waves of immigrants: primarily Italian and Germans, IIRC ended up being part of that story. There’s a framework already for the gauchos that needs to be embraced. A cavalry and economic focus seems natural here.

Honestly, I remember less about Chile and Argentina’s revolutions off the top of my head. I need to go read more before I could offer more.

But, no, I’m not saying this to disrespect South American countries at all! I actually opposed the addition of the USA and Mexico civs because I felt they fit better as revolutions as well. With the addition of the Mexico civ, the devs proved they could create really great, fully developed revolutions that offered unique game play choices. I think that idea needs to be embraced by reworking and filling out the revolutions. Spain, in particular stands to benefit because of its impact in the New World. It may get 5 unique alternatives to its Age 5 imperial upgrade. I see this as a way to respect 5 Latin American countries and highlight their uniqueness. (That goes the same for the other revolutions as well: Brazil, Indonesia, the Balkan countries, etc)


:laughing: ok, don’t worry i can use the translator.

To be fair, we do not have much decision-making power on this issue. :sweat:

From my perspective the developers make civs fun to use, but the people who make the decision which civ they should add are the ones who put up the capital.

I would like the Argentine revolution to have Juana Azurduy and San MartĂ­n as generals. :smile:

Don’t worry, it’s clear that you didn’t mean it with bad intentions. :smile:

Hello again I hope you have a good day and thank you very much for supporting me in my ideas

This publication will be long in which I will give some ideas for the revolutions of South America starting with Argentina starting with its flag, an aesthetic option would be to change the color of the flag from sky blue to navy blue because Argentina in its early stages as a country It was known as “the united provinces of the Rio de la Plata” commanded by Jose de San Martin

For military or economic cards

they could be based on the flags of their most important provinces because later “the Argentine confederation” would be created, which gave a lot of autonomy to these provinces, it could be said that they were almost miniature countries

Economically, a large percentage was due to a port economy, since the capital of Buenos Aires was the only customs office at the time. The guinea pig cattle were very numerous, in addition to being edible, and let’s not forget the yerba mate plant, which is very symbolic.

In case of covering the natives, Argentina had to expand through the rest of southern Patagonia, which was in dispute with the Chileans.

for the moment that’s all if I’m missing things or details of the story I would like you to correct me a cordial greeting to all from Mexico and have a good time

1 Like

This is completely against what revolution is supposed to be, why even go Imperial age if you can get the same stuff with revolution?

There should be a choice made, wether you choose to go revolution with the bonusses or go Imperial age to get those bonusses.

Revolutions have never be meant to be long term option, its usually when you are either already about to win or if you really need the extra military. If you know the game will go on for a long time just don revolt.

I agree that revolutions need some kind of buff as now they are still a bit trash, but giving them basically the same as Imperial age is just a big no.


No, what my problem is with it, is that the revolution literally gets the same bonusses as the Imperial age does, like wtf is even still the difference between going reovlution or Imperial age except for the revolution being better? It would just create a vicious cycle in which one time Imperial age is worthless and gets buffed and the other time revolutions.

Every mechanic has its own purposes, stop trying to make everything the same or have the same things, revolutions are just not for long term, simple as that.

1 Like

That is your opinion and I respect it, but I don’t agree, for me revolutions should be an equally valid alternative to the imperial age.

1 Like

Equally valid ≠ having the same bonusses as Imperial age. It would mean giving revolutions their own unique stuff which would make them more valid.

1 Like

Revolutions have better cards than Imperial age which just refreshes some of the one time shipments.

Correct me if i’m wrong but they also refresh the amount of XP needed for cards back to the starting default.

I fully agree.

Is right that revolutions could have more clear focus: I’m thinking about Baja California that revolves around outlaws, gold and TPs. But I highly doubt that they will make a general rework of them, if they have budget probably will make new content for new civs, DLCs or expansions.

Revolutions can compete with imperial age, for 2 things:

  • Unique units NORMALLY, costs only one resource, making easy to produce and mass… trust me, making a strong unit with only one resource like the “bandido” and “Charro” from Revolutionary Mexico from Spain for example, makes a real challenge to deal when get going - With it’s owns weakness of course.
  • Only revolutions can ship infinite forts

Why revolutions looks worse? ONLY, because you lose your villagers, if wasn’t for that, Imperial age wound’t be all that apealling. I would even say to make it cheaper. Look South Africa how strong can became only keeping the villagers.

hmm… Should make a new guide over that ideas.