Although many of our players said the rev USA and Mexico is different period to the USA and Mexico,I still think this is a kind of waste,just because we have already have the USA and Mexico civs, that is reduplicate,and the rev USA and rev Mexico prevent us get other revs,they should be replaced by the other revs in the future(such as Belgium ,and so on)
My idea is：
rev USA(British):Irish
rev USA(French):Swiss
rev USA(Swedish):Livonian
rev USA(Dutch):Belgian
rev USA(Italian):Greek
rev Mexico:Paraguayans
Someone has noticed I deleted some of the post,lol.I send it again.
Just because this.reduplicate I have to use mods to solve this problem lol.
CSA mod,some of our friends think I am a supporter of CSA, no. I am not a supporter of it,but I just want to avoid this damn reduplicate.
why the hell would anyone want to revolt to our little abortive but culturally basically the same secessionists who used the same equipment (when they could access them), same materials, same language and mostly protestant beliefs, same tactics, same generals from the same schools, same structure of government, same peoples? When you remove all the BS/propaganda that’s been attempted to be interwoven between the 150 years between the outset of this war, almost any contemporary writers considered the other side brothers or Americans at least. it split families, but they didn’t become a culturally distinct group of people in fact more happened after the war arguably. Except maybe a drawl would not be able to tell the mannerisms apart from a southern than from floridian or texan, new england and at the time frontier Illinoisan as an outsider. We considered ourselves american far more than the revolutionary war 100 years earlier that split some groups between royalists and patriots.
The south did not innovate; arguably their failure to enter into the industrial revolution (one that’s complex and beyond the talk of an aoe3 forum) led to the war in the first place. A CSA revolt would be a carbon copy USA age4/5. Because it was part of the USA. I think they came up with the first operable submarine (that sunk first use) and in battle had a few innovations or military tactics but no more than the Union. It would be as pointless as adding the french wars of religion or cromwell’s commonwealth to the game: An interesting but ultimately not reproduceable into a RTS game facet of history. What does the CSA, or commonwealth add but a few reskinned units if anything? a card or 2? certainly nothing thats not already been covered in the current usa civ. the states and current cards bascially cover most of it.
I get that edgy or armchair historians played Vicky2 or some hoi4 mod and think oh boy wouldn’t it be fun to split usa into a 83743289472839 different versions so i can live out my edgy fantasy i mean add flavor. but besides the PR nightmare (whipping slaves for starters) WoL CSA is, the truth is the CSA added what 15 minutes of gameplay? without going into some alt history or fantasy there isnt much. I get people try to handwave all critique as “usa doesnt want to know its history” but truth is most of us know it not from suspect youtubers (of pro or anti) and can see its not as distinct as people want it to be.
Im mostly posting this so i can just link it the next time i see one of these “I want to add the CSA in for some random reason.” cause im pretty sure most of these come from a position of not understanding the actual history of the country and chalking it up to “those scared history deniers” instead of the actual reality that the CSA offers little if anything not already covered in exchange risks a hell of a PR shitshow.
Like Germany splitters or AoE2 Italians and Teuton splitters.
I want to add them because I want to kick some enslaver ############ and #########, so they can ###### themselves
Any other reason is pure revisionism.
However, I’m happy that they don’t add them because they’d have to white wash their history. There’s no chance they add them correctly representing the mass slave use of that pathetic feudal excuse of a country
Obligatory Union Dixie
I don’t understand it. I get that you swaped USA with CSA but not this one
Edit: adding the CSA would be a waste because they were a waste of oxygen
Edit 2: this should be the CSA flag
you mind me how scary the internet is and never to forget that the internet never forgets so careful how you post XD
but hey, if he wants to change it to be more productive to stimulate conversation i thinks thats a good thing and i give him no hard time fwiw
The new point is fair, true. Why have two flavours of USA or Mexico, that are inherently revolution-born civs ?
The “Indigenous” Mexico and USA are already represented in the game FWIW, with Aztec and Haud+Lakota, respectively. (I know there is like a million more nations)
My friend,I am not a supporter of the CSA,I just want to avoid this reduplicate,I think the best idea is to make rev USA become other revs,such as Australia,Belgium,etc.Just because we have already have USA civ.
And if you want,you can use this mod.
Friend,if the rev USA become other revs such as Australia,Belgium,that will be exciting,we have already have the civ USA and Mexico,that is already reduplicate.And I am not a supporter of CSA,lol.
My friend,I am not a supporter of the CSA,I just want to avoid this reduplicate,I think the best idea is to make rev USA become other revs,such as Australia,Belgium,etc.Just because we have already have USA civ.
I think it’s fine to keep Rev USA and Mexico, though I appreciate your ideas there.
Personally for me it seems a little counter-intuitive to remove the only real revolution and civ that splintered off from the British.
They’re probably should have never been a full USA and Mexico civ but that’s where we are anyway. Even a selectable USA where you start off as British and change to US in the Fortress Age would be more realistic, but it is what it is!
I’d like to add that Mexican revolution is “offensive” to say the least. Depicting Mexicans as the typical mustache drunk guy dress in wild west style clothes with a big hat
Ensemble’s revolutions are only distinguished by the initial effect from choosing a revolution leader. All leaders give you the same 4 units: Colonial Militia (Revolutionary), Gatling Gun, Ironclad, Fort Wagon.
The differentiated revolutions are entirely new to DE, and have been continually updated since launch. If the Mexican revolution looks stereotypical, it’s because the main Mexican civ has been designed that way, and their elements have been added back to the Revolution.
It’s funny now that the current US revolution has many cards named after the historical generals & legions of the Continental Army, making it look more formal & organized, while most other revolutions… don’t.
Purely from a historical perspective (irrespective of gameplay considerations), the Spanish really need a Philippines revolution, and the necessity to represent the Philippines, whose early colonization & later independence struggles are such crucial parts of global history, is so urgent that I wouldn’t mind if they replace the current “Mexico Jr.” option.
nah removing existing content is always a silly idea, devs already worked on it and updates should add stuff no remove.
like aztecs as minor civ when the warchiefs dlc was launched.
I’m happy they at least spawn in unknown maps.
IMO, they should change all the European USA revolts to Texas, California or the Thirteen Colonies as a new one depending on which fits best, and the Spanish Mexico revolts to the Mexican Empire specifically to differentiate it from the full civs. They could retain most of the content in the revolts without having double civs that way, so it would mostly be a name change with maybe some graphics changes.
I don’t understand why the Euro> US/Mexico revs need to be changed.
Yes we have the full US/Mexico civs (whether you like it or not…), but to change that, especially when the Rev civs were in there first is unnecessary and unlikely.
I’m all for adding other Rev options but we can’t really remove them. Renaming is a bit hit and miss as the Dutch revolting to Texas wouldn’t make sense but to the US does.
