The Teutonic Order was a historically an existing state just like the todays Bohemians or Poles. There was also a difference in the Religion to the Teutons, who ruled primarily West Germany and not Prussia. The Teutonic order was largely Protestant, while western Germany was predominantly Catholic.
Nonethelesse the Teutonic order does not have to come into the game as a separate civ, because the Teutons have already focused their campaign to the Crusades.
Bohemians and Poles are people game does not add states.TO is just german crusaders controlling land belonging to prussians and other pagan peoples in that area.
Bohemians and Poles are civs but also states. The Teutonic Order was a state, at least you should accept that.
That is true yes.
Bohemia and Poland are states bohemians and poles are people there is difference.TO is a state yes but not a people group.
That is also true. I see there no issues…
Serbia has more reasons why it should be in game, but im not against Croatia being added, that’s all im saying.
Then again, im the type of person who enjoys variety and i would like a lot of new civs added in the game from all over the world, i would not stop at 50.
I am excited to see, how many more civs will be added to the game or whether it will in some time coming to an end… We will see it.
That’s true… Same thing, now there’s a zoom enlarged to make the maps look bigger…
More because of the cards and that there are no trash units because there are infinite resources… But it’s just a matter of getting used to it…
Ah yes, the cards were literal trash.
They made them more bearable in AoE 3 DE, but the best thing for AoE 3 old is if they didn’t exist altogether.
Sure, without the cards AoE 3 still wouldn’t be as good as AoE 2 due to other reasons, but it would be a much better game.
And the infinite resources… yes, there’s something very beautiful about running low on resources and getting into trash fights in AoE2. You have the out of gold moment, and then the out of wood moment that is the real deal.
You never have such things in AoE 3. They should have put AoE 3 in Europe and made the battles feel like big battles rather than skirmishes at the end of the world.
My impression of AoE3 after playing DE for free is that it’s way too complicated and confusing with its card mechanic, and the rest of the gameplay without cards is not fun enough to actually justify trying to figure out which decks are best.
Exactly what I think: one civ for Serbs and Croats.
Yes, the thing is that during the development of AoE 3, Ensemble Studios played Might and Magic 3 and they liked the whole theme of the cards (I don’t dislike it, because in fact the cards give you more flexibility to civilizations and you can put references to different facts and units of early modernity) and also because as I started with AoE 3 from the beginning I got used to it, it feels natural to me…what they did in the 3 DE is unlock the cards from the beginning, which is a wise move to the new players, because in the 3 legacy they had a disadvantage compared to veteran players who already had all the cards unlocked once they reached level 40…
Clear, clear, exact…
Yes, originally AoE 3 had European maps and scenarios, but in 2004 they cut it along with Italy and Sweden and focused exclusively on America (Luckily with KotM, Europe was finally introduced in AoE 3 DE)…
AoE3 tried to be too many things at once. You happen to like both strategy game & the cards mechanic. Some people like the cards but not strategy games. Others, like me like strategy games but not the cards. I don’t want to build a deck playing AoE2 or AoE3.
If you try to appeal to an audience too broad, you end up satisfying neither, I think that was AoE3’s mistake.
It should have stayed what it was, a strategy game, not a deck building game. And yes I know there is strategy in building your deck but you get my point.
Personally, I liked the New World setting, but I feel they should have executed it to make it feel like grand scale battles & not small skirmishes. Taking longer to build your base and having larger maps, as well as removing cards, would have made AoE3 insanely better in my eyes. I want 2 civilizations to clash, not 2 towns.
Oh god you’re back. Hey we got a ban evader!
Ok, so even though I didn’t break any rules, you want me banned because you are upset with me.
Boy, you just don’t learn, do you? How many times are we going to do this song-and-dance?
Of course, of course, I understand…
Yes, originally AoE 3 was going to have large-scale RoN campaigns with a map of the New World and you selected a civ and each turn you were given new cards… the other option that could be, would be an “archaic” game mode (because we already have classic mode) where you play with archaic units (such as Crossbowmen and Pikemen like in AoE 2) and it is not allowed to have decks or advance to industrial age…
This reminds me of Star Wars Batttlefront 2’s Galactic Battlegrounds mode. Samurai Warriors’ empire mode. Dawn of War’s Dark Crusade and Soulstorm’s campaign. Or any game’s conquest mode.
It would have actually been cool to have the factions rush to colonize the new world and fight each other whenever they would claim the same land and so on. Not as a main dish, but as a gameplay option beside skirmish and campaign. Would be especially cool to play with friends.
But if what you’re showing doesn’t show AoE3 tried to be too different from AoE2, nothing does.
Well, each AoE tries to be different from each other, while maintaining a certain essence… The fact that AoE 3 has cards doesn’t change too much the formula of the saga of advancing in age and collecting resources…
It kind of breaks the pace, you spawn 5 units out of nowhere which completely change the game’s dynamics.
But yes, I agree that it doesn’t change most of the game, the core is still AoE.
