This might little help for Aussie_Drongo and his fans

Hi,Drongo :wave:
You can call me Calvin,I have advise for you after I saw your latest video. Aussie Drongo Visits The OFFICIAL Age Of Empires FORUMS! - YouTube

Please forgive my English skills.
The United States issue has explode since leaks of the beta.
Especially in official website forum,everyone suddenly acting like historians and went to crazy.
Talking about timeline or “historical inaccuracy” everyday.
But choose to blind on multiple mistakes from beginning when the game was release since 2005.
I never saw people complain about “Something out of place or timeline” down below before United States release,really triggered me to writing the post. :face_with_monocle:

So stop complain,don’t acting like you really care about “historical accuracy”,alright? :wink:
Obviously mistakes from beginning with out be complained: Storyline battle “Act 5:Shadow”,already reached to 1870s especially General George Armstrong Custer’s showed up and Battle of the Little Bighorn.
Without above,Lakota won’t have cavalry with rifles and infantry equip with modern rifles. How about “out law” units? Why the hell no one ever complain about revolver and Winchester Model 1894 rifle appears in 1600s-1700s,especially “cowboy” and “Wild West”???

Are you gonna tell me “Industrial Age” is not “post colonial age” which is 19th centuries?
The model of 4-4-0 locomotive is super advanced enough! Is this looks like production of 18th centuries???
Why the hell no one complain with anger and said: “what the hell Aztec is doing with model 4-4-0?!” You have chance to “revolt” to Latin America nations,theses nations include United States were revolt to their motherland during 1770s and before 1850s,why the hell no one question Gatling gun and Ironclad shouldn’t show up AGAIN???

Last absurd as I remember from beginning is Ottoman Empire.
No one ever question a civilization that never colonial America New World as playable civilization is the most ridiculous situation.
I bet Ensemble Studios never consider a villain for Saint Knight scenario will force them expansion Africa maps and civilizations,otherwise no one can explain and justify the reason they showed up.
You have multiple situations like modern California map after Mexican War in the game ,weapons and units etc in 19th centuries,are you still want to tell me United States is “out of timeline and place”???

But I finally still agree European civilizations should look like more advanced as late of 19th centuries “Industrial Age standard” and upgrade the equipment as United States,so they will no longer looks like “WEIRD”. :smile:

1 Like

With all due respect to Drongo, that whole “historical inaccuracy” argument is not as you and him describe/understand:
no one asked for the game to be 100% accurate and to only have things that happened for real.

The whole USA civ was mostly about 2 points:

1- Every civ in the game before were:
A) One from the Old World that COULD have explored and colonized at the beginning of the 1500s.
OR
B) One that inhabited America/Asia (and now Africa) at the start of the 1500s.

2- USA was already in the game, thanks to the Revolution mechanic, what many players saw as an already PERFECT way to incorporate them.

Even though I do not necessarily share the same point of view of some users in this forum about USA inclusion (I am not a huge fan, but respect the decision), reducing their argument to “hypocrites that don’t want USA for historical accuracy while being fine with Aztecs fighting Japan in Alaska” is just showing a total incomprehension on the matter.

14 Likes

Every civ in the game before TWC were:
A) One from the Old World that COULD have explored and colonized at the beginning of the 1500s.

Every civ in the game before TAD were:
A) One from the Old World that COULD have explored and colonized at the beginning of the 1500s.
OR
B) One that inhabited America at the start of the 1500s.

Not to mention the first rule did not hold from the very beginning because of the Ottomans. You intentionally added “COULD” because Ottomans exist. If they don’t exist in the original game you would come up with another rule without the “COULD”, and probably be against the addition of Ottomans.

1 Like

I understand that the USA do not fit the metric of “Civ that existed at the begining of the game 1500”. I totally do, and i am there with you guys, but-----

But for gawd sakes… it has been 18 days. The civ is kinda balanced already and complaining is not getting us anywhere. They are not going to eliminate a CIV

The devs did not expect this to go like this… probably but they have so much more on the oven, lets focus on the future and not on the past.

Btw the USA introduced a really nice mechanic which can be adapted to any future civs - the State age up. Imagine Italy or Prussia (the real prussia not the HRE/austrians with a HC in Berlin -.-) and that is a good thing. So, perhaps lets move on??

1 Like

germans as a concept is ancient tho, dates back to the romans at least.

2 Likes

Countries are usually named after their people, not the other way around. Most people of the Holy Roman Empire spoke German and that commonality didn’t go unnoticed by those people. They were referred to collectively as Germans (or language equivalent) by foreigners just as people referred to English-speaking people as Englishmen (or language equivalent). A greater sense of shared common identity began to grow at least as early as Martin Luther’s translation of the bible into German.

1 Like

Did some research looks like you’re right.

1 Like

Sweden,Germany,India,Japan and most people want civilization which is Italy even not a “nation” or participate too much colonial operation in America,with out US Lakota is the most advanced units in the game.
Even forget about the weapons and transportation,Native nations are able to riding horse before European arrive?
Native nations more advanced than European???
Are you kidding me?

You still didn’t answer over 95% of my questions,looks like I already won the argument.
Because no one can justify the original “advanced” part.
The only kind of answer I get is CIRCLE BACK.

I could have also said Civilisations that existed in the 1500s. That would have been probably simpler and still true.

Nevertheless, arguing for or against the inclusion of USA on “historical accuracy” was not at all the point of my message.

My whole point was that I disagreed with your whole premise, making answering to all those questions totally irrelevant in the first place.

You: How do you explain Aztecs railroads if the game is historically accurate?
Me: No one ever asked for a perfect “historical accuracy” in the game.
You: This does not answer my question (therefore I win!)

Who is running in circle here?

3 Likes

I will discount you hear.

We didn’t care about inaccuracies because it was only a game in 2005. BUT, the devs have decided to go woke in the Definitive Edition. I’m talking about the apologizing for inaccuracies of only natives.

The cause for concern is the apologizing to snowflakes AND still leaving blatant inaccuracies in American civs and those from Europe and Asia (and trying to censor Colonialism).

Honestly i really don’t care about USA. I believe they shouldn’t have chosen ‘Colonial Era’ but instead have advertised it as 1500-1900 (while still of course including Colonialism etc. in campaigns).

AoE3 is one big crap show either way

2 Likes

At the time period given in the game, the Lakota cavalry were the most advanced military in the world. They had the most advanced weaponry while mounted during the same time period that Europeans were still riding in full plate male with cavalry sabres.

1 Like

Its ridiculous when somebody wants to critisize players who oppose US addition he picks the “out of AoE3 timeline argument” while he is silent to argument about “invalidation of revolution mechanics and having de facto two different US civs in the game”

The second problem is definitely more serious than the first…

4 Likes

Lol, no.
Is this a joke?

3 Likes

I do.
As I mentioned “You have chance to “revolt” to Latin America nations,theses nations include United States were revolt to their motherland during 1770s and before 1850s,why the hell no one question Gatling gun and Ironclad shouldn’t show up AGAIN???”
You still circle back and find more excuses.

I think she means mid 1800 century, since the Lakota used repetition carabines and had more mobility tactics than most of cavalry armies at the time. (that still had large contingents of light cavalry with sabers - vide the charge of the light brigade at the crimean war).

The USA did not used repetition rifles until very late in the 1800 century (after the battle of little big horn where they understood the time that it took to load a standard rifle, you could shoot 7 rounds with a repetition rifle.

The woke part that ou mention refers to a depiction of natives that are some of the bases of the discrimination towards them. Perhaps if you were a minority in a country you would understand that. Its not about “snowflakes” or "historical accuracy, its about discrimination. Perhaps a little more empathy in regards to it would go a long way.

And yes i think the game should strive to be more accurate regarding some issues (from units to bonus, to cards, etc.) but you are not discriminating no one because you put the Landsknecht as a merc and not the doppelsoldner (it should be the other way around).
However you are creating a basis to discriminate - perpetuating the myths of the spirit connected mystical savages when the only way you can win is by dancing in a fire pit or convering wild bears, or giving them names that do not reflect the name of their culture (imagine calling a Portuguese person Spanish, or a French person German…)

USA army was lower tech than Europe, in this timeframe, and Europeans no longer used Full Plate while the Lakota were mounting with Repeater Rifles.

Until the very end of WW2, the most advanced armies in the world were still European ones.
The USA only achieved and maintained technological supremacy (as in having everything better than everyone else) after WW2, when it became the World’s Police.

The Franco-Prussian War saw armies in 1870, that would make anything in the Americas look positively backwards, for example.

From Needle Rifles, Chassepot Rifles, Reffye Mitrailleuse Cannons, Gunboats, Krupp Guns, Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon…
It was basically almost WW1 levels of technology.

This is not to say that the Lakota were primitive, but warfare in the Americas was definitely still not at the level of technology it was in Europe.
Warfare in Europe was already fully industrial with machine-like battlefield casualties and new tactics to compensate for the killing power of the weapons deployed.

2 Likes

Perhaps a litttle more comprehension could help you. I never said removing these were bad

See you’ve already broadened that “rule” to accommodate what is already in the game.
Which means it’s not a “rule”, it’s a summarization, and there is no need to follow it. You can make a “rule” like that for any random subset of existing civs and justifiably oppose all the rest.

2 Likes

There are two ways to view “historical accuracy” in a game like AOE.
- The game should be historically accurate and should move towards more accuracy.
- The game has been inaccurate as hell and any change towards historical accuracy is the icing on the cake.
Despite all the arguments I’m making here, I’m actually happy to see more accuracy somewhere, like not using “stadholder” to name a musketeer. But I would personally not get raged because there isn’t, or isn’t universally applied to everyone.

The logic of some people’s rant here are the opposite: natives got a more (presumably) “accurate” representation → my civ or some civ still hadn’t got a more accurate representation → they introduced another civ that looks more advanced than my civ or some civ while the latter still didn’t receive a fix on historical accuracy.

The devs made a mistake advocating “historical accuracy” for the sake of the Native changes. They could justifiably say removing some stereotypes or discriminations. Before that complaining about “historical accuracy” in this series was more for fun and memes. Now it becomes an option on the table, and some would start to ask “why isn’t my civ/some civ more accurately portrayed?”

But I’d like to see if anyone gets raged because only the Chinese have home city decorations as a non-European civ.

3 Likes