I would like Spain to look more Bourbon in the industrial age, Spain looks very 16th century in the game and its units don’t have a visual progression that follows the timeline
THAT THE FLAG BE CHANGED IN THE INDUSTRIAL AGE TO THE ONE USED FROM 1785 TO 1873
THIS IS WHAT MATTERS MOST TO ME, WHEN I PLAY IN TEAM MATCHES I USE THE LANCER A LOT, AND HIS SKIN LOOKS VERY OLD-FASHIONED IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND IMPERIAL AGE
The rodela (shield) was not used in the 18th century, but since the upgrade is called espadachin, the shield could be removed so it doesn’t look like Bourbon Captain America haha.
There’s a reason rods look so archaic. It’s because they are. What you’re showing here isn’t even remotely the same thing.
Flag changes for each age could get confusing very quickly. It would also introduce a lot of inconsistency as there would be Euro civs that constantly switch vs civs like Aztecs where it is hard to even come up with a single flag for them.
I always thought a “Borbonic” revolution could be cool for Spain. New Visuals for units and a nice new deck, some age V upgrades and stuff. Some how like the upcoming German Revolt.
It’s in my “to do” list for Spain mod. Will take some of your ideas as reference good Sr.
I can agree with you about the lancers, but not the rodeleros.
Lancers never wore morion helmets, they are later, and the rodeleros are physically represented in the game as they actually were and did not evolve; they are from the 16th century. They stopped being used in the tercios and eventually ended up in the New World.
Rodeleros weren’t a permanent military unit or regiment. ‘Rodelero’ is a modern/historiographical label for men fighting with a rodela (shield). Rodelas were used by Spanish troops in the Americas from the very beginning of the conquest, well before the development of the Tercios. That’s why saying they ‘stopped being used in the Tercios and eventually ended up in the New World’ is an oversimplification.
I’m not suggesting that historical rodeleros “evolved” into 18th/19th-century soldiers. I’m talking about the game’s unit progression: Rodelero → Veteran Rodelero → Espadachins. Since the Industrial Age upgrade is literally called Espadachins (Swordsman), removing the rodela would make sense a esthetically. Since the unit’s name changes, I don’t see any need for it to keep carrying a rodela.
I understand why civilizations such as the Aztecs or Incas remain visually tied to the 16th century, since that’s essentially the historical period their civilization represents. But Spain has a long military history in the 18th and 19th centuries, so I don’t see why its Industrial Age units should necessarily remain visually stuck in the 16th century.
Ideally, some of the older units should probably have been replaced by more modern units in later ages, but since the game chose to keep them, updating their skins seems like a reasonable compromise.
I would also add that a revolution of the First Republic wouldn’t make much sense, since it lasted less than a year. A conflict that lasted more than 40 years and was a civil war was the Carlist Wars, with their own Basque, Aragonese, and Catalan troops. It would be a good revolution that could be introduced through a card, like the Meiji Restoration.
Honestly, I think the lancer skin is the most important change. You can combine lancers with musketeers, skirmishers, and dragoons, so having a more historically appropriate Spanish skin for them would make the army look much better. The rodeleros are more of a secondary suggestion from me.
Inca also have a long military history in the 18th century. Why the double standard? Spain focuses on their golden age and that is fine. Not everything has to be replaced with the most modern possible unit each age.
The Inca Empire didn’t have an 18th-century military history. The Inca Empire ceased to exist as an independent state in the 16th century. The fact that people of Inca descent were still involved in conflicts centuries later doesn’t mean the Inca Empire continued into the 18th century. By that logic, you could give almost any extinct civilization a military history centuries after its state ceased to exist.
I understand that the civ represents a people rather than literally the Tawantinsuyu state. But ‘Inca’ wasn’t simply the name of a single ethnic nation comparable to a modern people group. The Inca were a ruling dynasty and elite, while the Tawantinsuyu incorporated many different peoples and ethnic groups. By the 18th century, the descendants of the Inca dynasty and the various Andean peoples were living in a completely different colonial society, shaped by centuries of Spanish rule, cultural change and mestizaje. So I’m not sure what you mean by giving the Incas an 18th-century military history. That isn’t the same thing as the Inca Empire or an Inca military continuing into the 18th century.
The way they are currently portrayed fossilizes them into only the Inca state and doesn’t even represent the Neo Inca state. But the Inca were still around long after and rose up in rebellion in the 18th century under Túpac Amaru II.
I think it is a bit hypocritical to want every single Euro unit to update into some 19th century swashbuckling dandy, but say it is fine to leave Inca in the stone age.
Calling this hypocritical makes no sense. Túpac Amaru II’s rebellion was not the Inca Empire continuing its military history into the 18th century. The Inca Empire had ceased to exist as an independent state centuries earlier. Calling an 18th-century colonial rebellion an ‘Inca military history’ simply because its leader claimed descent from the Inca dynasty would be like saying that the modern Peruvian Army represents Inca military history because Peruvians are descended in part from the people of the Inca Empire. Those are not the same thing.
By that logic, the Romans had an 18th-century military history too, because there were still Romans living in Rome.
The same applies to the Inca. The existence of people of Inca descent in the 18th century does not mean the Inca Empire or its military tradition continued into that period. Túpac Amaru II’s rebellion was a colonial-era rebellion, not the Inca Empire suddenly respawning 250 years later.
Their self proclaimed goal was to reestablish the Inca state, so yes, they kind of were Inca. If that doesn’t count then Spain probably shouldn’t be depicted past 1808 because they got conquered then.
