As everyone here already knows, the native civilizations of North America suffered changes due to having a stereotypical vision according to their critics, but it seems that now the developers have forgotten what is politically correct and this time with an evident stereotypical approach they give new Inca cards to the Peruvian revolution, have the developers forgotten that Peru became independent from Spain? Otherwise I didn’t know that there were inca units in the post-independence Peruvian wars
What does this even have to do with being politically correct? Also the huaracas are the only incan thing that’s literally been there since launch. So it’s literally always been anachronistic in this way. There’s just more of it now.
The concept with a revolution is that it gives you an option for a different play style. The Peruvian revolution gives you an opportunity to transition from Port or Spanish play to a more infantry focused Inca style. You get turtle techs to shore up your buildings and villagers and extra strongholds. It’s a nice transition frankly and it works really well. The revolution is supplemented by some Mexican (revolutionary) flair in that you get Cathedrals and some insurgentes as well. It’s quite strong and gives you a really different play style which is exactly what you want in a revolution. It’s very well done, honestly.
If you want a history simulator, look elsewhere. AoE3 is a historically-inspired strategy game. Game play comes first. This is an excellent and welcome change. There’s no reason to be offended about it. It has nothing to do with “political correctness,” either in support of or opposition to it.
I’m not offended , it’s just ironic and funny that the developers have taken the time to correct the historical errors of the natives of North America but at the same time they forget to correct other civilizations
I know perfectly well that AOE is not a history simulator, it’s just a game, but sometimes you can see the partiality with which they treat civilizations.
Dude, the peruvian rev as of right now is very lazy. Look at the Mexican, Argentine or Brazilian revs: they have shipments according to their history and not some weird mix of native cards that have little to do with its history. You can have balance and accurate representation, and many people, myself included, want a better representation. Many times people here write long posts about how some european unit from a little country can or can’t be applied to an immediate neighbouring country or rev, so if people rightfully want proper representation for the rev, they should be able to do it and not have someone told them to “look elsewhere” when we want to play THIS game.
There are many parts of peruvian history that can serve as inspiration for the cards and have the same tendency to infantry, although it would be weird to don’t have the Junin Hussars, the regiment that literally drove the spanish main forces from the continent and secured south american independence.
And Manco Inca card should be an Inca shipment, not peruvian, as the guy literally died fighting so the concept of Peru wouldnt even exist in the first place.
Feel free to suggest an improvement. You’re going to find that since the Incan empire was wiped out in the mid-16th century, the entire Incan civ is an ahistorical anachronism built to accommodate a new and interesting game play that contrasts with the Aztecs. The Aztecs aren’t a museum piece either. In fact, if you want to go down the list, I can list prominent complaints about most of the civs in the game on that account. It’s not a history simulator. If you want that, go to another source. This isn’t it. It’s a historically-inspired strategy game. I wrote that in my original post. I’m repeating it here because you still aren’t understanding that. The RTS has to come first.
It’s a damn good fusion of play styles. It is powerful, effective, and fun to play. If you think you can do better, make your suggestions instead of just complaining. Put up or shut up.
Edit: I was frustrated and I apologize for the tone of this post. It was rude and he has the right to speak. Original text preserved in full.
But the problem is the treatment given to civilizations, either you are that historical correct with everyone or simply not, it is not about worrying about historical accuracy of a few civilizations and forgetting about others.
If you care so much about the mechanics or that the essence of the RTS is not affected adding new units to the Peruvian revolution does not affect the gameplay
Lol, you are no one to tell anyone to shut up. Nobody is attacking you so relax.
I was frustrated at the argument. I am sorry about the tone I took in that post. It’s a forum and you’re entitled to have and voice your opinion. I will edit the apology into the original post as well. This is simply an argument I hear from people all the time and one that frustrates because people complain and never offer a suggestion as to how to fix it. Ultimately, they felt like this was a good choice and put a lot of development time and effort into doing it this way. If you want something different, I think a person has the obligation to respect the amount of time and effort needed to put forward a better solution. It doesn’t do any good to simply say ‘no.’ You only move the conversation forward if you suggest something you think is better and give reasons why.
Ultimately, I think you’re wrong for asking for a high degree of historical accuracy when the Inca and Aztec are concerned. Their empires were destroyed. We play them in this game as if they weren’t destroyed and as if they have parity with the European empires. Historically, they were reduced to servitude and poverty in the Encomienda system. When it comes to revolutions, again, the goal is to create a set of viable and interesting choices for the player. One can choose to go to Imperial or to revolt, try an all-in and play the rest of the game with a different play style. Spain has 5 revolutions, which is a huge challenge for the devs. How do you make five distinct and interesting play style alternatives for Spain? Converting to an Inca play style was a natural choice for Peru. Their deck is a fusion of Incan and Mexican influences which synergize well and offer a good alternative to Portugal or Spain. I personally like the effort because it’s fun to play.
If you don’t, what would you change? (specifically)
No worries. I will make a post with what I think can be improved. Im not against the focus they gave and I think with a few simple changes you can get to the same degree of care they gave Argentina, Brazil and Canada now that I’ve seen it, which is another rev that adds native merican value cards but retain its own identity.
I love how people costantly request changes to Euro civs to make them more historically accurate, but the moment it’s about a non-Euro civ it’s asking too much.
The game spans from late 1400s (early 1400s if you include the weird Chinese campaign) to late 1800s (early 1900s if you include some Rev stuff). Incas fit well enough in that time period.
Either way, I’ve been requesting flavor changes to the Brazil rev for ages, and they only finally happened in this PUP, so I’m definitely sympathetic to other people wishing better rep for their countries.
Edit: also I still want the Tupi Animal Lore tech to be replaced by something else. It doesn’t belong in the same game that removed the war chiefs’ ability to convert animal treasure guardians.
Peru revolutions represents a possible independence/revolt since the conquest of Spain to the final Peru.
Yeah, it mixes things, but it could have that sense, hence the Inca cards
Maybe its also refference to the tupac rebellion…
So the inca civ gets european units
And euro civs get incan units
…like two sides of the same coin, resulting in a “modern” peru with strong european and native influences?
My thoughts about the peruvian revolt here: About the new Peruvian Revolt - Age of Empires III: DE / III - Discussion - Age of Empires Forum
I think the changes I propose are not so out there, give me your opinion please.