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 âhistorical inaccuracyâ everyday.
But choose to blind on multiple mistakes from beginning when the game was release since 2005.
I never saw people complain about âSomething out of place or timelineâ down below before United States release,really triggered me to writing the post.
So stop complain,donât acting like you really care about âhistorical accuracyâ,alright?
Obviously mistakes from beginning with out be complained: Storyline battle âAct 5:Shadowâ,already reached to 1870s especially General George Armstrong Custerâs showed up and Battle of the Little Bighorn.
Without above,Lakota wonât have cavalry with rifles and infantry equip with modern rifles. How about âout lawâ units? Why the hell no one ever complain about revolver and Winchester Model 1894 rifle appears in 1600s-1700s,especially âcowboyâ and âWild Westâ???
Are you gonna tell me âIndustrial Ageâ is not âpost colonial ageâ 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: âwhat the hell Aztec is doing with model 4-4-0?!â You have chance to ârevoltâ 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 shouldnât 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 âout of timeline and placeâ???
But I finally still agree European civilizations should look like more advanced as late of 19th centuries âIndustrial Age standardâ and upgrade the equipment as United States,so they will no longer looks like âWEIRDâ.
With all due respect to Drongo, that whole âhistorical inaccuracyâ 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 âhypocrites that donât want USA for historical accuracy while being fine with Aztecs fighting Japan in Alaskaâ is just showing a total incomprehension on the matter.
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 âCOULDâ because Ottomans exist. If they donât exist in the original game you would come up with another rule without the âCOULDâ, and probably be against the addition of Ottomans.
I understand that the USA do not fit the metric of âCiv that existed at the begining of the game 1500â. 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??
Countries are usually named after their people, not the other way around. Most people of the Holy Roman Empire spoke German and that commonality didnât 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 Lutherâs translation of the bible into German.
Sweden,Germany,India,Japan and most people want civilization which is Italy even not a ânationâ 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 didnât answer over 95% of my questions,looks like I already won the argument.
Because no one can justify the original âadvancedâ 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 âhistorical accuracyâ 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 âhistorical accuracyâ in the game. You: This does not answer my question (therefore I win!)
We didnât care about inaccuracies because it was only a game in 2005. BUT, the devs have decided to go woke in the Definitive Edition. Iâm 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 donât care about USA. I believe they shouldnât have chosen âColonial Eraâ but instead have advertised it as 1500-1900 (while still of course including Colonialism etc. in campaigns).
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.
Its ridiculous when somebody wants to critisize players who oppose US addition he picks the âout of AoE3 timeline argumentâ while he is silent to argument about âinvalidation of revolution mechanics and having de facto two different US civs in the gameâ
The second problem is definitely more serious than the firstâŠ
I do.
As I mentioned âYou have chance to ârevoltâ 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 shouldnât show up AGAIN???â
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 âsnowflakesâ 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 GermanâŠ)
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 Worldâs 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 CannonâŠ
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.
See youâve already broadened that âruleâ to accommodate what is already in the game.
Which means itâs not a âruleâ, itâs a summarization, and there is no need to follow it. You can make a âruleâ like that for any random subset of existing civs and justifiably oppose all the rest.
There are two ways to view âhistorical accuracyâ 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 Iâm making here, Iâm actually happy to see more accuracy somewhere, like not using âstadholderâ to name a musketeer. But I would personally not get raged because there isnât, or isnât universally applied to everyone.
The logic of some peopleâs rant here are the opposite: natives got a more (presumably) âaccurateâ representation â my civ or some civ still hadnât got a more accurate representation â they introduced another civ that looks more advanced than my civ or some civ while the latter still didnât receive a fix on historical accuracy.
The devs made a mistake advocating âhistorical accuracyâ for the sake of the Native changes. They could justifiably say removing some stereotypes or discriminations. Before that complaining about âhistorical accuracyâ in this series was more for fun and memes. Now it becomes an option on the table, and some would start to ask âwhy isnât my civ/some civ more accurately portrayed?â
But Iâd like to see if anyone gets raged because only the Chinese have home city decorations as a non-European civ.
