Two ideas of revolution

1.Every civ can have maximum 5 revs,but many civs doesn’t have 5 revs yet,such as British and German.So we can completion them in the future,such as Irish(British),Belgian(French/Dutch).

2.Balkan and Caucasus is very important in the timeline of the AOE3 too(such as the uprising of Chechnya-Dagestan and uprising in Bosnia),they can’t be just minor native civs.May be we can use for reference of Barbary States(in fact they are not one civ in history,but combine into one rev in this game),take Balkan States and Caucasus States in the game.After that,we can use for reference of Yucatan-Maya revolution,make them have Second Revolution.Balkan States can be Greece,Bulgaria,Croatia,Serbia and Bosnia,Caucasus States can be Chechnya,Dagestan,Circassia,Georgia and Armenia.

We just want to play more new countries,no matter civs or revs,represent different countries make us very exciting.


Revolution options should be assigned to Continents, but so that the Revolution is historically correct (at least a little) for a specific civ. For example:


  • Europe: Ireland, Scotland, Glorious Revolution
  • America: USA, Canada
  • Africa: South Africa, Egypt
  • Asia & Oceania: British Raj, Australia

This wouldn’t make much of a revolution unfortunately. Not really glorious and a pretty bloodless revolution at that. Really just deposing one king and replacing with another.

British ones are interesting as the only successful revolution leading to a new nation was the US. The rest were at peace or rebelled but ultimately stayed under the British until after the AoE3 timeline, though I guess if the South African rev portrays the Transvaal Republic rather than the Dominion then that makes sense. I’d love the Devs to use a more broader term or even context-based nameS for the ‘Revolution’ - i.e ‘Self-Governing’ (in the case of Canada for example) or ‘Uprising’ (Jacobite Scots).

A Scottish Jacobite Uprising could work as a Revolution (Highlanders and reskinned Rodeleros as Targeteers), though I’d love a Mexico-style early Rev or something to become a separate Scotland. Think 1600s Covenanter Scots & Darien colony (within Costa Rica) eventually leading to a British civ with Scottish focus.

Ireland would probably have to be based on the Irish Confederacy from the 17th century when Ireland was self-governed for around a decade - later movements are a bit ‘messy’ as revolution choices shall we say.

Australia is a fine for a ‘Revolution’ choice as @TheSquidEmpire had once did a civ concept for which worked well. Australia whilst still within the Empire, was self-govening (and we’re talking individual states here, like NSW), so pretty much the same as Canada in that format.

British Raj follows that format as well and I think would be a great addition (though I’d love that to coincide with a Mughal India rather than the broad India/East India Company rule version we have now).

I’d also replace the Haiti choice with Pirate Republic of Nassau / Flying Gang. Not quite a revolution (which applies to all of the above!), however Anglo-Americab ex-privateers and out of work soldiers using Nassau as the base of their operations as they raid the Spanish treasure fleet wrecks followed up by masses of pirate raids makes a fun Rev civ option.

Egypt - not sure about this one. Brits (and French) occupied Egypt late in the 19th century after the Anglo-Egyptian war but it’s not really a self-governing civ and I can see why the Devs removed it.


That’s a great idea but I don’t think Mircosoft will do it.

1 Like

If you’re going to make a revolution it needs to have:

  1. historically valid connect between host civ and the revolt nation
  2. a strategically different and viable way to play the game that differs from the host civ (ie, you’re giving up your host civ’s game play style and Age 5 upgrades to try and all-in and new strategic focus).

Just because every Euro civ can have 5 revolutions does not mean that they should. If you don’t have historical precedent, it makes no sense. Sweden does not need 5. If you don’t have 5 strategic variants that justify revolutions, then you don’t need 5. You need fewer. Malta has 2. Could you justify Malta revolting to more than Hungary and Barbary States? Historically, I struggle to justify even one of those options. Malta was Christian and would never have revolted to the Islamic Barbary States. That really only make sense from the Ottomans. And I have no idea how they justified Hungary other than that it was a natural match of defensive, siege-based play styles.

The Balkans are going to run into this problem. These are Slavic countries that have Ottoman influence as a result of the Ottoman conquests, Russian influence from common ethnicity, culture, and language, and German influence via their own interactions with the Holy Roman Empire. But how do you differentiate them and make them interesting and different from all the other revolution options these 3 civs already get? You mention Georgia and Armenia. These really only get 2 options: Russians and Ottomans. Then if you give them both Georgia and Armenia, you now have to come up with game play for Georgia and Armenia that is unique and interesting, and different from Russian, Ottoman, and Romanian (shared revolution) game play as well as from each other. Greece is even worse. There is no precursor civ for the Greeks. The Greeks are their own root civ. No one revolts to become the Greeks.

As for the Irish, I’m certain there’s plenty of cultural material there, but good luck trying to come up with unique game play that differs from Britain, the US (revolution), Canada, Haiti (which I consider Jamaica), and S. Africa. Good luck! The same issue with the Belgian concept. I think the devs have looked at it and the best they could come up with was the Belgian revolt card the Dutch get. I think that’s fine, but if you don’t, I’d be happy to read your suggestion for a Belgium that plays differently from the French and Dutch and all of their various revolutions (Haiti, US (rev), Canada, Indonesia, Brazil, etc).

It’s one thing to get out a map and start listing nations that aren’t in the game. It’s another thing entirely to figure out what the devs will have to figure out which is how to make that new addition to the game not suck.

Edit: for clarity and some truly asinine word filter craziness.


At the very least, revolting to Egypt is a relatively sound potential choice for the Maltese. Some Maltese had followed the french army to Egypt to establish communities, and their communities came into conflict with the locals.

National Congress Battalions can be used to some extent as a potential revolutionary option, or at least a revolutionary card, using the bicolour flag that is with white in the hoist and red in the fly. Allows Settlers to be turned into revolutionaries, and allows access to more units, cards and effects with British, Italian, Portuguese and Russian backgrounds, such as allowing shipping of Redcoats, accessing to Italian Grenadiers, and having Portuguese Military improvement cards and more.

Greece apparently has got independent from the Ottomans. Their deck could have some cards with British and French backgrounds, representing these Western countries’ aid to their revolution.

According to some accounts, Greece as an option could also serve the Italians.

Random ideas.
Each shipment comes with 3 Irish Brigadiers.
The deck has cards with Spanish and French backgrounds.
Ships two Covered Wagons, and have each TC automatically spawn 1 Revolutionary every minute.
Their economy may have been the worst among the revolutions, but they would never have shortage of people to resist the British.

I updated my Australian revolutionary deck for you after you reminded me with this :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

It is not necessary to add revolutions if no one is going to use them, then the revolutions that are already in the game need improvement. Until now I have seen that in high elo games, revs are rarely used since the top players prefer to stay in fourth or advance to imperial, in my opinion the revolutions are an alternative to the imperial age when the opponent has an advantage over you, revolutions can help you overcome games but not all of them work, the only rev that I have been using until now is the Chilean, when the other player beat me in score by about 2 or 3 thousand points and I was already affected by previous confrontations, I revolutionized with chile and won the game, I have tried other reverses and they are not as strong although I don’t know how they are now with the recent update

I want to see more revs just because I want to play with more countries.

Oh, believe me, I love the revolution mechanic. I play it all the time. But the two key criteria are mentioned are key for a reason. It doesn’t do any good to give me options that I’d never want to use as a player, nor does it do any good to develop a fantasy in a game that should be historically-based.

When I play Mexico, I actually have decks that are built to support a Baja rev outlaw build, to go Yucatan->Maya, and for the Age 5 Cali and Texas revolutions. I have similar ones for Portugal to support their Brazil revolution and for Britain and France going to Haiti. But that’s what I want for all of the revolutions. I want to be excited about wanting to play them. I want to have a play style that’s interesting, fun, and strong enough to actually want to use it.

So, my first goal is to support reworking the current revolutions so they meet that standard. If I look at Hungary and Romania, for example, they work, but they’re boring. Egypt is boring. Nothing about it makes me feel like I’m in 18th or 19th century Egypt. Chile is boring. All it gets in the Hussar. Finland is strong, but takes a ton of preparation to set up and it’s much more micro intensive than it needs to be. Barbary States is unbelievably weak. So is Canada and to a lesser extent S. Africa with the Wanderlust nerf and loss of INF forts. All of these need reworks. Honestly, Indonesia could use a little attention as well. Don’t get me wrong, I love the elephant spam, but it’s a bit of a one-trick pony. After they fix the current ones so they’re all interesting and equally viable to play, then I’d be more open to new ones.

1 Like

Of course. Refinement before new revs is sensible.

Not trying to go raining on everyone’s parade, but I don’t think all the civs need anything like 5 revolution options. 2-3 would have been more than enough for most civs (obviously excluding Mexico).

Every civ could have an eco revolt (shared with other civs (obviously not across all civs)), and an all in military revolt (again, not across all civs). If history calls for it one of the options could be replaced with something completely unique, or a third could be added.

Ideally I’d have like ~10 revolts (excluding Mexico) for the 11 Euro civs. You could have like 3 military Revs, 3 eco revs, and the other 4 could be more unique.

The revolts are way more complex than they were on TAD, but even TAD only had like 2 per civ I think.

I only have a vague idea of what most of the revolts do at this point. Most revolts don’t get used (we’ve got like 17 not counting the Mexican ones). And trying to make them all useful probably won’t be fruitful, imo with so many rarely used choices it’s not just a balance issue, it’s a design issue because players will have trouble dealing with the amount of options. in my opinion adding more revs, is using dev resources I’d rather see put into a new civ.

Of course, you are right that it has no right to be called the “Glorious Revolution”, but unfortunately that is how this event was named.

For the British civ, it’s a very simple matter - call it Dominion.

For the Maltese civ, Greece is probably the only sensible option for revolution. The Sicilian option of revolution for them might be more controversial, but it would certainly make more sense than Hungary.

Absolutely, though my qualm with Glorious Revolution is that there is not much substance to use for an in-game Rev - the army and navy didn’t turn Dutch nor did anyone declare themselves anything other than British (or rather its states). It’s mentioned via the Church shipment, which is fine enough (although like all Chuch techs is normally unrelated to what it bestows :smiley: )

I think the Scottish would work well as a ‘Uprising’ Revolution in lieu of that, covering the Scottish Covenanter movements and the Jacobites and their uprisings during the 17th and 18th century (which ironically the Glorious Revolution upset them greatly).

The Scottish could get:

  • Crofts instead of Manors (spawning Sheep instead of Settlers).
  • Highland Cows instead of standard cows (more food? IDK - I just want them)
  • Covenanter Pikemen
  • Highlander muskets (obviously :slight_smile: )
  • Targeteers (Claymore broadsword and shield users). Has charged Highland Charge ability to close in quickly. Melee Light Infantry. Replaces Longbowmen/Rangers
  • Explorer changes to a ####### ######## (his nickname is censored!) Prince Charlie general
  • Organ Guns (renamed to Frame Guns) to replace Falcs
  • Bagot’s Hussars replace Hussar

Mons Meg - Sends a Lil’ Bombard

Yep - I agree, that works well.


Yeah I agree with many things of here. Revs definitely should have historical accuracy, be fun.

My favorite revolution is France, though I don’t like it changing whole deck and capital scenes.

I think many civs could have altered “states” as France that shifts from monarchy to rep to empire.

Others could too as you said Scottish, maybe for Germans a way to represent better their shift from hre to
A prince electors.

I think Maltese should just lose access to revs. Maybe there’s historical logic in them, but for me they really don’t make sense for Malta. lol


Maybe replace revolution with a new mechanic for Maltese, making Malta a protectorate and choosing suzerainty. Similar to revolutions, will replace the deck and home city, but the options would be Britain, France, Naples (Italy), Portugal and Russia. The new deck would provide shipments and cards of the suzerainty civ.

1 Like

There is a totally historic split for the Maltese: The Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) is the German Protestant branch of the Knights Hospitaller, which gradually separated from the main order after the Protestant Reformation.

I explain more about this in this post:

1 Like