Spain visual changes

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
21

Wanting to reestablish the Inca state doesn’t mean the Inca state or its military continued to exist. A restoration movement is not the same thing as institutional continuity. By that logic, any movement trying to restore an extinct state could be used to extend that civilization’s military history centuries into the future.

And the comparison with Spain in 1808 doesn’t really work. Spain was not abolished as a state in 1808; it was occupied by Napoleon, fought a war of independence, and continued as the Spanish state afterward. That’s very different from the Inca Empire ceasing to exist as an independent state in the 16th century.

None of this is even necessary for my original suggestion, though. I’m talking about giving an existing Spanish unit a more period-appropriate Industrial Age skin. You can disagree with the skin without turning it into a double-standard argument.

1 Like
22

I never said it did. The Inca people did though and their later history should be represented.

For Lancers sure, I think that skin looks better. But for Rodeleros it is not at all appropriate because they didn’t exist at that time. Espadachines is just a synonym for them so it is a very poor justification for turning them into a completely different unit. Each civ is a composite of the different eras in which the game takes place. Rodeleros are a snapshot of an earlier point and that is totally fine. The trend of having every civ modernize their entire roster into the exact same set of Napoleonic era units is really dumb and wholly inconsistent with how the game was designed.

23

Fair enough. I think we agree on the important part: the lancer would benefit from a more period-appropriate Spanish skin.

I understand your point about the rodeleros, although I still think the “Espadachins” upgrade gives some room for an aesthetic change. But that’s ultimately a matter of design preference rather than something worth arguing over.

As for the Inca, I think we’re simply using different definitions of historical continuity. I don’t think an 18th-century movement seeking to restore the Inca state is the same thing as the Inca state or its military institutions continuing into the 18th century, but I understand why you consider it part of the broader history represented by the civ.

Anyway, I’m glad we agree on the lancer. That’s the change I’d like to see most.

24

Most of the game is like that. I know that devs have tried to give modern option to certain civs, but the game design is full of inconsistencies, TWC and TAD the worse contenders.

To be fair, Age abandoned the weapon evolutionism to abstract ranks. Originally xbows and pikes only had one upgrade for most civs, it should had stay like this. Pikeman should be the evolution of haldberdier. Hvy gunpowder unit line should be something like hand cannoner>arquebusier>musketeer>napoleonic musketeer. And so on.

We even get medieval crusaders…

25

Yes, as in AoE 2…but in AoE 3 and AoE 4 it’s improved by military rank instead of by unit…

26

Add this unit too :grin:

IMG_6543
IMG_65431920×1080 1.21 MB

2 Likes
27

Pikes were not the evolution of Halberds. Pikes were an evolution of spears to deal with cavalry and maintain distance, and halberds were multi-use tools for melee (along with Bills, and other polearms).

2 Likes
28

Yes, I know, but IRC haldberds were abandoned and replaced by pikeman until the end of pike and shoot era.

29

When I become an Age of Empires 8 developer :joy: , I’ll make it work like this:

1. Heavy Infantry

1.a

- Short Swords: 20 base damage, ×0.5 vs. heavy cavalry, speed 5.5

- Long Swords, Katanas, Clubs, Maces: 12 base damage with 2 area damage, speed 5

1.b Hybrid between Pikeman and Swordsman

- Halberds, 2-meter Spears: 15 base damage, ×2 vs. cavalry, speed 4.5

1.c Cavalry Specialists

- Pikes, 5-meter Spears: 10 base damage, ×5 vs. cavalry, speed 4

1.d

- Musketeers: 25 damage at 12 range, 20 melee damage ×0.5 vs. heavy cavalry, speed 4.

- In Age IV, they get the Bayonet upgrade, which gives them +1 to their multiplier against heavy cavalry: 20 ×1.5 vs. heavy cavalry.

- Flintlock reduces their attack cooldown from 3 seconds to 2.5 seconds.

2. Light Infantry

2.a

- Archers and Crossbowmen: 16 range, 20 damage, ×0.5 vs. heavy cavalry, speed 5. Melee damage 5.

2.b

- Skirmishers: 20 range, 15 damage, ×2 vs. heavy infantry. Melee damage 5, speed 4.

- In Age IV, they get the Anti-Infantry Rifles upgrade: 15 ×3 vs. heavy infantry.

3. Cavalry stays the same.

30

The Conquistador with Spain has a new look.

1 Like
31

Even if those who were part of Tupac Amaru’s revolt were descendants of the Inca, they already were a very different people by the time Tupac Amarú II made his rebellion in 1780. Sure, they still were Quechuan speaking peoples, but they were completely different in terms of culture and religion to the Incas of the precolonial empire.

Also, the Spanish descended colonists (both criollos and mestizos) wanted to “revive” the Inca empire as well during the Spanish American Wars of Independence, even though they were culturally Hispanic, they just wanted to adopt Native American symbolism to legitimise their independentist claims, while the actual descendants of the Incas and other Native Americans actually opposed the idea of independence that was being pushed by the Hispanic colonists during the early 19th century. In summary, claiming that you’re “reviving” and old empire isn’t always a sign that those trying to revive it are actually the same cultural group of people.

1 Like
32

Yes but in the case of Tupac’s rebellion they were the exact same native groups that made up the Inca empire. And the civ represents those people groups, not one specific empire. So it should incorporate elements of Manco’s and Tupac’s rebellions, and not just have them limited to a stone age civ.

1 Like