Settlers, courer-de-bois, and native scouts, on European maps

That is going to look pretty weird I have to say. I thought they should be reskinned and renamed back in TAD, but now with more regions included that becomes weirder.

Just like how different regions have different trade posts (and now native embassies as well), is it possible to give say French a villager unit with the same stats as cdb, just renamed and reskinned to something more relevant (like sans-culoettes in the NE mod), on European maps? The native (American) scout as well.


You don’t think a Cree can help the French explore the new “France” map? So Napoleon can ally with the House of Bourbon.


If you talk about game mechanics, a lot of things are weirder, from resources floating in the air or units popping out from the buildings.
I’m talking about the theme. Having courer de boi or native scouts on non-American maps is super weird to look at. If you reskin it to something else, the gameplay would still be awkward when compared to reality, but at least the theme is more consistent…


I’ve had the exact same thoughts.
I’m generally excited about the new dlc, but I had expected a reskin/rename of certain European units on European maps.

I also think the Exploration Age architecture should be different for European civs in Europe, instead of the log cabins. Preferrably 3 regional Late medieval/Renaissance architecture sets, but an easier solution would be to simply reuse the colonial/fortress age architecture sets.

Rename ideas:

Maybe the Native Scout could become a “Local Scout” , with his nationality and language depending on the map (e.g. called Irish Scout and speaking Irish Gaelic on the Ireland map)

The Explorer could be called Aristocrat or Nobleman - but that may be less important since each explorer goes by an individual name.

Settlers could simply be called Villagers, or Commoners, Peasants, Laborers, Workers…

Settler Wagons and Coureurs would need a rename too. I just don’t think “Sans-culottes” is perfect for Coureurs since the term was mostly used around the French Revolution and not before that, as far as I’m aware.


I mean natives and other peoples did come to europe, think of it as reverse invasion, they were called back across the sea to help with the numerous wars they were having

1 Like

I’m talking about French setting up a colony with courer de boi and a native American scout in Europe.

1 Like

yeah so some colonials have been given right to setup a town with stuff they brought back from the new world to help with the war, nothing too weird from the scope of this game.

1 Like

But Malta and Italy are very European. I see no reason why other Europeans remain an (American) colony. And where are the continental people for British and French then?

I don’t understand your first point, they are european so what? not like europeans never resettle within europe and fight over it?

on the second point well they can be the other units you train, the soldiers and the siege units, nothing says that everything is back from the colonies, they could be just bring back the cheap “labourers” from their colonies, be creative with it

I mean there is no need to make up a very convoluted story to justify a settler or a native American scout or a courer-de-bois on an European map.
Courer-de-bois and native scout are the worst. Settlers you can reconcile that because St Petersburg for example was built by “settlers”. But courer-de-bois and native scouts are too region-specific and do not even fit in the Asian maps back in TAD’s time.
When I see a native American scout on a European map, it does not make sense. Simple as it is. It’s about the “theme”, not how possible it could really happen. Same reason why trade posts and trade units look different on different regions. They can well make that very colonial American trade post (“what if the architect were just mimicking the American style”) or travois (“what if they hired a native American to carry their goods”) on every map. They are surely possible, but they do not fit the theme. That’s what I mean.
A simple rename/reskin would be easier than making up a whole story about how native American scouts and courer-de-bois travelled to France.

Another thing is, if the game is still about colonization of the Americas, then it is all fine. But now as so many culture groups have been added, the theme of each civ now fits that region. Asians are Asian. Africans are African. Only Europeans are colonial American. That is the problem.

1 Like

I mean I feel like you are needing that story to justify it more then me tbh cause just it just being “doesn’t fit” can arguably apply to like a tonne of things in this game.

would mexican soldados beind brought into the map argubly less fitting?

if its ok then why are soldiers more ok then the vil units

like you say there are things that fit the theme to you and some dont , but like thats more or less your personal preference and whether or not its in the game is up to the devs.

to me it doesn’t matter, the french brought their weird ■■■ stuff across the world nothing stopping them from bringing back to their own country

and also just to put a point on it, what is so weird about a native American scout in europe? if it was a scout treasure I can understand but the scout starting unit is like eh, they brought it from somewhere.

we have home cities in europe sending cdbs to the colonies before (even though cdbs are supposed to be in the americas already) so its not like the theme was that well done to begin with

If it is the Mexico civ it makes sense because it is a Mexican unit. Spanish sending Mexican “soldadoes” to all over the world is indeed weird.
But the real problem as I said is:

All civs, except Europeans, are bringing their local units to other parts of the world in the game. Only Europeans are bringing their American colonial units. If you look at their home city everything is either generic, or colonial American. The military units can be applied to everywhere because most of their names are generic. Some techs are generic. Others are all about Americas. There were only American native allies.
The most problematic part is “ONLY”, so that when you look at the roster, your only impression is colonial American, because it is “generic” + “colonial American”, and nothing else.
I’d buy the “bringing their colonial units to Europe” view if they also had cards that send African or Asian allies, or French start with cdbs (American) and a North African hero and a “native Asian scout”. But no. Anything that is not generic about the European civs is American.

This is of course because the game started as a game about American colonization and gradually evolved into the current state. But you may ask anyone whether they will model the Europeans based on their American colonies if they were to make a game about early modern history from scratch. That just does not make sense. A game like that will model Europeans based on European assets, just like how Asians got Asian assets or Africans got African assets. And AOE3 at the current stage is already that kind of a game.

That is a problem introduced by TAD because it broke away from the American colonial theme. It is still not fixed even with more and more regions introduced.

Okay let’s just revert all trade posts to the old American one because like eh, the architect was just accidentally fanatic about that style.
Let’s be more creative and give the Chinese an African hero because like eh, that still might happen.
French hiring native American scouts is a very regional-specific thing. The design was explained as “French had friendly relations with the locals in North America”. And I am more curious about what is really preventing that unit to get a simple reskin depending on the map just like trading posts.

French immigrants from France to the New World can became cdbs. Not that all cdbs have to be born into the New World.

Let me summarize. There are two designs that I prefer:
(1) European civs are exclusively European. All units are European. They only have European allies. Just like how the rest of the world is depicted.
(2) European civs are a combination of their European home country + their colonies. In that case some may have African native allies as well, some Asian, alongside the already-existing native American allies.
What I found odd:
European civs are a combination of their European home country + their American colonies, in a game that is now about the entire early modern world. ← the current state

again, so what? are not the colonials part of the civilisation that they belong to?

I feel like your view of the current state is just incorrect tbh, there are a lot of references to non american colonies and territories, some of them always been there, it may not be in the units but there are also cards in the game that makes loads of references. Its not like the references needs to be built into everything in the game, that is costly, exhausting and tbh way too much content to me.

the Dutch for example had references to their asian colonies and ventures, with cards like Dutch East India Company and also recently with the Java revolution

Port have always had their Passage to Nippon card

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head

Then there are arguably more global examples like the spice trade card , which was a trade that was centred in asia

Now, could there be more references? Sure and the devs have been adding more, this dlc being a prime example and with earlier examples such as the dutch revolts so I expect we will get more in the future

But to argue that the euro civs are exclusively euro and american colonials is just wrong imo


ONLY. I have capitalized it. ONLY. Or more accurately, vast majority. Don’t confuse “part of” with “vast majority of”.
American (don’t ignore it) colonies are part of them. But by no means the biggest part. There are other colonies as well. And their European holdings which should be the real majority.
I’ve mentioned it. If someone were to make a game about the entire early modern history, no one will model the Europeans mostly based on their American colonies.

Let me give you a specific example of what is a civ with “colonials as part of the civilization they belong to”:
French: French units + native American allies + African allies + Asian allies…

The current stare:
French: French units + native American allies + period

And those two cards are almost all you can find that are not generic European or colonial American. They were there since the very beginning, when the civs were really literally their American colonies. The ronin card along with the strange “Manchu” mercenary was just a way to put some Asians into the game, which they may not even planned to implement as full civs back then.

Not to mention Dutch East India Company had their headquarters in Netherlands so that only counts as half.

You cannot deny the old European civs had not shifted from that “colonial American” theme since vanilla because vanilla was literally about colonizing Americas and neither TAD nor TAR gave ANY update to their cultural reference. And I wonder it will ever happen with the new expansion.

And my entire point is exactly they should add more references to other parts of the world in the future, especially, and ironically, Europe (now most Europeans still send whole bunches of native Americans to everywhere in the world and literally no access to any European native unit). And this includes giving French a region-specific scout.

And I’m not talking about massive amount of work. The new ally cards are already there for the new civs. Copy paste them. Done.
Get some model of a European or Asian or African unit. Remove the weapon. Copy paste the native scout stats. Done.

The Native Americans also have Renegade European units like French, Dutch and Spanish.
It kinda makes sense in North America but in Asia that’s already kinda stupid.

Generally the Native Americans are designed around being “at home” on the map. Like the ability to see all Trade Posts at the beginning of the game or the fact that they collect natural resources faster.
Also half of them have a council and not home city.
Lakota in Africa or Asia is kinda stupid.
Obviously having European colonial units in Europe is stupid too but not like that’s something new in the game.

Also a lot of European units aren’t colonial at all. Units like Cuirassiers or War Wagons were never used in America at all. Generally the European armies look very much like armies that would be used in Europe not North America.


It would be nice if the French could have access to a certain number of settlers, after all the French have voice data of both male and female settlers. Perhaps a card or unit shipments.

Like I said the problem is not “a civ/unit that appears in a place it didn’t”. That’s basically the core of any RTS. I never compared it to whether it happened in history.
The thing is, most civs use their “local” roster wherever the map is. This of course do not make sense (in real life) either, but Europeans using a colonial American roster did not fit into this design either. Let me be a little more specific:
Americans: American units + American allies
Asians: Asian units + Asian allies
Africans: African units + African allies
Now Europeans: European units + American allies
For a game that is now about the entire world the last part just looks very out of place.

Now “renegade” units appear but they are still within the American theme as they are “renegades” from the American colonies of the nations that really colonized America. Not that they are getting an Asian renegade or an Ottoman renegade or sth. And they are from cards so very occasional with limited numbers. But cdbs and and the native scout occur every game. Cdbs can even be mass produced.

I’m not saying Europeans cannot have colonial units. But with that the roster needs to be updated accordingly. Now with so many new regions added but Europeans still almost only have American colonial units besides their typical European units. That is the problem.

Africans also have Asian (India) and European allies.

At least they cover most of the allies they once contacted. And still they are occasional and not in large numbers.

Now let’s look at the Europeans: they ONLY have native American allies. That’s my main point. If French can get a few cdbs from techs or shipments, that’s no problem for me. But having only cdbs that take up all the villager population in every single game, combined with ONLY native American allies still give me a strong impression that “this is an American colony”.

One thing that is undeniable is that Europeans contacted extensively with all other parts of the world in this period. Same cannot be said for others. So either they should get mostly European units (let me make it more accurate: units that make sense in their home country in Europe, just like the alliances of African civs make sense in Africa. For example, Indian units for British) like all other civs, or cover colonial units from most of their colonies. In either case, only having American colonial themed units besides regular European units look out of place for me.

Just say if someone wants to make a game about the entire early modern history from scratch (not expanding from a game that was first only about American colonies), I do not think anyone would use cdbs or native scouts over a lot of other things as a unique French feature. But Africans and Asians still would get some foreign allies in such a game, just like Europeans would have some allies or auxiliaries from other parts of the world (not exclusive to America). That’s why I found the current state weird.