I think the next DLC has been a solo civ - Brasilians, Gran Colombians or Argentinians.
3 Likes
Possibly it is only Brazil and later ArgentinaâŠ
4 Likes
@Konahrik1140, thank you for reviving the topic!
Argentinians and Mapuches are excellent choices, especially the latter, and your leader ideas are on point!
My guess for the next immediate newcomers would be:
-Moroccans, as we didnât get a 3rd African faction yet
-Koreans, as the Asians didnât receive a new addition yet
-Brazilians, to achieve a 3rd American faction
On a medium term, Iâd expect:
-Iranians, a major missing civ from a neglected area (Caucasus, Iranian Plateau, Black SeaâŠ)
-Thais, another major Asian civ
-Mapuches, a major Native civ from the neglected South American continent
-Danes, the next, most logical remaining main European civ
As potential packs, I donât see many that make sense but if I have to choose, I could see (I apologize for the kitschy titles):
Moroccans & Persians: [Muslim] Imperial Conquerors
Moroccans & Kongo/Akan/Yoruba/Zulus: Empires of Africa
Brazilians & Argentinians: South American Duality
Koreans & Thais: Tiger & Elephant
Persians & Afghans: Iranian Empires
Mapuche & Cherokee: Forgotten Societies
Danes & Poles-Lithuanians: Lords of the Baltic (c. @MatM1996)
Thais & Burmese: South Eastern Unsubduables
Persians & Omani: Traders of the Indian Ocean
We have to keep in mind however, our rhetorical discussions can be swept away at any moment with a trick from FE, just as they did with Malta !
Several updates have to be made to that guide with the new LDC: Italians have been unlocked, and now that Europe has been tackled, I see no obstacle to have the Poles-Lithuanians included later on
For those interested, Iâm trying to keep that guideupdated through the Steam page that is much more user-friendly:
I promised Iâll develop the Argentina description I had put, Iâll keep my word and am working on it!
5 Likes
Fully agreeing with you @constantine8775, that is why I didnât state it was a vassal state but indeed a tributary
On the contrary, I insisted on their autonomy, their development and their feats of repulsing external interference:
Their importance is further illustrated by how high I rate Koreans on this guide
The Afghans, while quite significant, only had empires for short durations. When it comes to central Asian nations, I think the inclusion of the Uzbeks should come before the Afghans.
If youâre going to pair another tribe with Mapuche, the Apache would be the most logical choice. Both were fierce cavalry warrior societies controlling large territories that hemmed in the Latin American empires.
Instead of Cherokee, the Muskogee could be a better representative of the Mississippian peoples. They could have the Creek as the core of the civ, but could age up with alliance options from the rest of the âfive civilized tribesâ and beyond. That would make it so the existing minor civs like Cherokee and Seminole could be incorporated into the civ rather than needing to be replaced.
1 Like
China rework Ming and Qing so thereâs more consistency with units and not the current mess
1 Like
The Durrani Empire (1747-1823) lasted 76 years, the Emirate of Afghanistan (1823-1926) lasted 103 years: thatâs a 179 years continuum that cannot be qualified as a short duration
But letâs look at the feats: the Afghans created the Durrani Empire by breaking away from the Afhsarids (1747), invaded North West India defeating both the Mughals and the Maratha Confederacy (3rd Battle of Panipat, 1837) and repulsed the Qajar (Siege of Herat, 1837-1838).
Their power and size made them the 2nd greatest Muslim empire, after the Ottomans, of the second half of the 18th c. (Dupree, 1980)
Its successor, the Emirate of Afghanistan famously secured its dependence from no less than the British during the Anglo-Afghan Wars.
In comparison, the Uzbeks did have several entities ruling Central Asia for 367 years: not only Bukhara (1506-1785) (later Emirate, 1785-1873) but also Khiva (1511-1873), Sibir and Kokand (1709-1876) Khanates.
But except devastating raids against the Timurids and the Safavids in the 16th c. (later against the Afsharids to a lesser degree), they did not had the same impact the Afghans had through their expeditions.
For their illustrious feats, Afghans deserve to be second-only to Persians among the missing powers in that region. Even before the Omani, whose extent of their trade empire is impressive, but had to pay tributes to secure their routes.
As I said, Iâm not a fan of creating packs, I put Mapuche and Cherokee for their incredible resilience and their ability to at the same time maintain and adapt their sophisticated society.
But following your logic, Iâll rate the Comanche higher than the Apache, as they were overall more powerful, ruled bigger lands (Comancheria) and launched greater raids (up to North Mexico) than the Apache they neighbored.
Among the Mississippian civs, Iâd still give a decisive advantage to the Cherokee as they were able to keep their society up until today, and maintained their influence over an extended time.
However, I did think of that â5 civilized tribesâ idea too, especially given that several of their confederations shook the US (Tecumsehâs War, Red Stick War, Seminole Wars). A meta-group uniting them could be interesting, but the Cherokee are too singular and preeminent to be dissolved into them.
No problem. 
I find the Mapuche an interesting civilization and I would like them to end up being represented as a civilization that adapts to the enemy, but I have already made a suggestion.
With respect to Argentina, I would say that if they added the US despite everything, no civilization, no matter how tumultuous its past, would necessarily be left out.
From an economic perspective I would say that any civ that saves developers time and money has a chance of becoming an AOE3 civ.
For example.
The US has the same structures as the English and Mexico has the same structures as the Spanish, obviously not all of them, there are some differences, but I think the point is understood.
Brazil and Argentina could be a joint project, because they could have the same basic structures, but with specific differences, for example, Argentina could have âestanciasâ instead of pens similar to WOL.
What really differentiates civilizations are the mechanics of their buildings and units, for example, estancias could have similar mechanics to Mexican haciendas but focusing only on cattle.
Estancias can automatically produce cattle (cows) while settlers work.
Animals can get fat faster the more villagers work on the Estancias. (maximum 10)
When the cattle fatten up to the maximum in a Estancias with villagers, the cattle are slaughtered automatically.
A lot of that time of Afghan independence extends beyond when the game occurs so the relevant duration is only ~150 years. Theyâd still be a good choice, I just think Uzbeks would be a bit more distinctive and less overlapping with other civs in the region.
A Comanche/Shoshone civ would also be a very good counterpart to Mapuche. Apache does have the bonus of having a famous leader of Geronimo but otherwise Comanche might be better.
I wouldnât dissolve them, theyâd still be represented as a distinct minor settlement as well as being further represented in a Muscogee civ. Something like the Sudanese allies of the Ethiopians.
Burma and Thai:Rajas of South Asia; Koreans and Vietnamese,Warriors of East Asia,Colombians and Haitians; Jewels of the CaribbeanâŠ
2 Likes
Yes or more dynasties cards:Ming cards (Fire lancers,Koxinga Grenadiers and Treasure Fleet) and Qinq cards (Manchu Keshiks,Opium wars, Tongzhi Restoration,Wuxu Reform)âŠ
2 Likes
Sure, but let them only be called Afghans (1747-1926) and Uzbeks (1506-1920)âŠ
The Tupi could also work since theyâre also South American, or maybe the Muisca.
Then pair the Cherokee with the Apache.
1 Like
I disagree, the Tupi were extremely disunited and not technologically advanced. Theyâre not even close to the power of the Mapuche. Muisca are also too early to really fit.
The only realistic playable native civs for South America are Mapuche and maybe a Guarani-Jesuit civ. There is a more urgent need for minor civs in South America and civs like Muisca, Jivaro, and CharrĂșa could fit in there.
1 Like
Maybe Tupi-Guarani? I donât know the history between Guaranis and Jesuits, but I knew Tupis and Guaranis are related.
Tupi-Guarani is a broad language group, not really a cohesive nation.
The Jesuits set up Reductions where the GuaranĂ were educated and shielded from a lot of the worst aspects of colonialism. They armed the GuaranĂ with European weapons and tactics to repel the invasions of the Brazilian Bandeirantes. GuaranĂ even had their own artillery so theyâd actually have a solid unit roster unlike most native factions.
Sepé was overall commander of the indigenous army, which numbered nearly 1,700 men and fielded eight indigenous artillery pieces made of bound tacuaruzu cane that could be fired only a few times.
1 Like
I think if we want to guess what the next civilization is going to be, we should agree on how civilizations seem to be selected.
I think the criteria are usually the following.
- Civilizations tend to have a certain level of recycling, USA, Mexico, Italy and Malta.
- There are people interested in civilization which guarantees sales.
- Respect a somewhat flexible time frame 1492 and 1876?.
- The civilization was important and has enough history to take out own units and buildings.
Bonus: The developers seem to be looking for civilization to be unexpected.
This is not to say that it is impossible to add more elaborate civilizations like the African and Asian civilizations, but it is less likely that they will be added.
With these criteria in mind, I can only come up with European and American civilizations.
Since the previous DLC is from European civilizations, my bet is for civilizations from South America or America in general, I think that Brazil and Argentina have many possibilities, but it is possible that the developers end up surprising us and adding something unexpected, perhaps an Asian civilization or an Oceanian civilization.
Based on these criteria, what do you think the next civilization will be?
Correction: Thank you for the wake up call.
I made a mistake, I thought that the independence of New Zealand had started before, I had not realized that the Maori were the ones who gained their independence.
On October 28, 1835, the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand was signed by the United Tribes of New Zealand, a loose confederation of MÄori tribes from the far north of New Zealand organized by British resident James Busby.
3 Likes
Now Iâm interested.
(20)
1 Like
New Zealand the country? Or do you mean Maoris?
1 Like
GuaranĂ could also have a Paraguay revolution option so people could finally do the War of the Triple Alliance. Paraguay was basically founded by the Jesuits and GuaranĂ.