New civ please!Brazil will be a good choice.
Oh, okay, but I donât think thatâs really a hint.
it was some pictures of the regular and the carbine cavalry with other units. came out a patch or 2 before the launch.
people went wild with speculation.
similar happened with italy, but it was a bit more obvious there, since it also included ships, buildings and even flags.
1 Like
I keep my expectations low.
Yes, and with the expansion of War Chiefs they added the mechanics of revolutions, in addition the campaign already pointed to the independence of one of the post-colonial civilizations (USA), If your argument is that they would not have been added, I am sorry to tell you that it is not valid, they would have been added eventually.
False, the War Chiefs campaign is set in the times of the revolutions, although it is not the main focus, the American revolution and industrialization is present during a large part of the campaign, characters such as BolĂvar and Washington are also presented, that it left the door open for postcolonial civilizations.
1 Like
Why should anyone care about the âoriginal premiseââŠ
AOE2 was called Age of Kings at release so every civ without a king shouldnât have been added? The original civs were all old world ones so The Conquerors should not have existed?
Does this sound like a really intriguing game? âWe made a game about early modern history but with a good excuse to include only anything related to the Americas (plus the Ottomans)â.
7 Likes
no they wouldnât
the revolutions exist as an option for the colonisers to evolve in the lategame, and from a gameplay design was meant as a âgame enderâ option, something they added a fair bit of with war cheifs such as the trade monopoly.
the premise of the game was old world nations coming to the new world, revolutions are an evolution of these original factions and can be seen as design improvements in the same way that adding horse artillery was. TWC also expanded the period, from around the 1840s to 1876. the fact the revolutions are available in the industrial era should tell you what they viewed the revolutions as: related to the American wars of freedom from 1770-1830.
the intention from the original devs where never to make these revolutions playable on their own, if they did they would have added the USA with war chiefs, because by single country its the most important market for them.
both campaigns are from the native POV, the hauds one being ironic in that the confederation largely sided with the British, American patriotism and perhaps a fear of how the American audience would take it playing from the British side is why the campaign sees you fight along side the USA.
sprinkling in historical figures probably just made sense because they thought it sounded fun or what have you. the original campaign starts in europe, does that mean european maps where originally intended too?
i know you really think your south American nations are super important to the game, but if you went and asked Sandy do you honestly think he would agree with you on that? no Sandy would tell you the factions exist as a revolutions and that was the intended way to show them.
4 Likes
Because the idea is to maintain a coherent game.
I donât see these games as something comparable, what makes you think that AOEII doesnât respect its original premise? What do you think is the premise of the AOEII?
No, in any case it sounds like you donât have a clear premise, a game like that fails and would be forgotten for years to be revived only by the whims of a company. 
You didnât play the original AOE III right?
The original revolutions are useless, if what you are saying was correct they would have been fixed, it was not the case.
If that were the only premise, they would only add the French, Portuguese, Spanish and English, the other civilizations would only be mentioned and would not be playable.
According to you, because the campaign pointed in that direction, also war chiefs could not bring civilizations like the United States due to its premise focused on the tribes of America.
XD, no, because that part deals with the story of the fictional fountain of youth.
Iâm not saying that it was to show them, Iâm saying that they were to point in a direction, also all the civilizations of the American continent, both north, central and south, are more important for this game than the European civilizations.
Also very disrespectful of you to assume that I only care about South American civilizations, obviously Iâm focusing on the ones I want most urgently, but on more than one occasion I mentioned that other continents were very wasted, for example, Oceania is very wasted.
And yes, Oceania does not live up to the old premise of the game either, but nowadays the current developers are using the idea of colonization more widely.
Itâs not like italy has significiant Military weaknesses just of a lack particularly good unit that benefits from many stacked cards. Iâd make Roman Tactics affect Papal Guard as to encourage their use with Halberdiers without needing to mix in some Pikemen (which no longer get guard by default) to get the attack boost.
Fun is far more important than âcoherentâ.
Especially when your coherence does no good other than limiting possible expansions of the game. Especially especially when that âpremiseâ was not by itself more interesting.
Not saying âAmerica conquestâ is not an interesting topic. But it is not MORE interesting than âentire early modern history, including the Americasâ.
Imagine back in 1997 someone looked at AOE1 and made the decision âNo we need to be coherent. Romans are beyond the current scope of the game. We should stop the expansion.â
Or maybe they might have even removed Choson and Yamato in the original AOE1.
Then we do not need to argue about the âpremiseâ of AOE3 at all.
The premise of AOE2 is the early-high medieval old world.
It had civs only from the old world. All civs existed at the beginning of the timeframe. It had campaigns exclusively set in the old world.
The Conquerors added (1) civs that do not exist at the beginning of the timeframe.(2) civs from the Americas.
And âThe Conquerorsâ were called âThe Conquerorsâ. More than half of the new civs were âconqueredâ.
And that was exactly the âcoherentâ original AOE3.
2 Likes
Conversely, AOE3 fell for being inconsistent.
Yes, but chaos isnât fun, the game has to have some basic coherence to ensure itâs playable.
Also, Iâm not against adding civilizations that arenât part of the premise of the game, just saying they shouldnât be a priority.
In my opinion, the premise of the AOEII is about great ancient empires, I donât see that it contradicts itself at all.
Donât take it the wrong way, but I think youâre taking the idea of fun first and then coherence to the extreme, also with this current of thought we would end up with tanks and planes, for that itâs better to make a new game.
In my opinion, the premise of AOE2 is about great medieval (not ancient) empires in the old world.
Of course I donât think so. But I can easily make such an argument.
And we havenât.
Extending from early modern Americas to early modern whole world is a much smaller, and more natural, step than adding tanks and planes.
And let me tell you one game that did it: AOE1, again.
They made a game about bronze age and at most early classical world, centering on Babylon and Mycenean Greeks, etc. and ending at Alexander the Greatâs timeline, then they decided to throw in the Roman Empire and included all the way to its very late period which was 800 years later, far larger gap than from AOE3 to planes and tanks.
3 Likes
i have 1000s of hours in TAD and probably a few 100 in vanilla. AOE3 is likely my second most played game ever.
they really werenât, they just didnt make sense for the meta. 10 min treaty was spain into revolution as its meta.
the netherlands and russia had colonies in the new world. only Germans and Ottomans didnât. denmark, sweden, malta and poland all also had colonies in the new world 2 of which still arent in the game.
also this doesnt really support your claim.
Ottomans were added cause the devs thought they where cool and they where for a while one of the largest powers in the world.
Germans is simple, Germany is the 2nd largest community by country for AOE, it was a marketing aspect, Sandy has said this.
ensemble never hinted that the campaign civs where going to get added. they were meant to play somewhat similar to existing factions: malta=spain, john=germans, USA=british.
the factions that FE have added have been made from the ground up, at least design wise, there was no hidden files or documents to go off.
thing is we know what ensemble viewed as a potential extra expansion before TAD, it was africa.
and your saying Amelia helping bolivar is more historically accurate?
it was a fun mission meant to put you in south America in an otherwise quiet north American centric campaign.
i want you to think about what period AOE3 covers and what that period is known for.
and why are new world nations more important exactly? i know you want them but you need to come up with an argument for why faction getting in in the 1800s is more important than all the other factions that existed from 1492-1876.
did they make large contributions to the world? no.
where they important to the international community? no.
where they great powers? no.
are they unique cultures we havenât seen before? no.
are they unrepresented atm? no.
so what exactly makes them so important and special that they need to be added over Persia or Poland? or Siam or Denmark? or Korea and Maori? everyone has their own biases, i have my own biases, you have your biases and the devs both past and present have their own biases. but why are new world nations so important, factions that already ARE represented by spain and portugal and the revolution system more important than nations we have never seen before. again the game goes from 1492 to 1876, give or take, why should there be so much focus on frankly quiet irrelevant factions that only existed for like 10% of that period?
if you want Argentina or Brazil or something else, good, but then argue why they should exist rather than forcing some story to exist about how the original devs clearly intended for this to happen, well knowing the original designers would say no if you went and asked.
you make it extremely obvious. also its your point that the game shouldnât âforget its rootsâ while conveniently getting civs involved the devs wouldnât have ever added in.
my argument for why faction should exist bases itself on many factors, from longevity, to importance in different areas, to colonial reach to military performance and how unique a given culture is compared to what we see.
3 Likes
I am surprised that the mediocre shipment of 4 ww (+4 uhlans) at age 4 can be transformed into a beautiful send of 12 prince chevaulegers
So I ask you to explain a little more, how far you want to go, because I donât understand where you put the limit, if everything is just for fun the game would end up being chaos, thatâs why I say that it is important to maintain consistency.
Yes, but the AOE I ended up in oblivion.
So you agree with me, they were useless, except for extremely specific situations.
Makes sense. they sacrificed the logic of the game to generate more income, it does not contradict what I am saying.
You confuse, they point with suggest.
The original developers could have planned whatever it was, that is irrelevant to this topic, the logic of the game as it was originally presented, allowed it to expand on the American continent, by adding the Asian civilizations they went against the tide and the game ended up being forgotten, until that Microsoft was interested in the saga and decided to revive the game.
Literally the campaign of Asian dynasties tries to maintain some coherence when telling a story about how a group of Chinese came to America and how England had colonies in India, all to try to maintain the original idea, colonization.
No, but I could understand that it was a way of telling the audience that there is more history on the continent and not just North America.
It is known as the time of revolutions, especially because the greatest empire of its time fell, perhaps the entire world would not be as it is today if it were not for the independence movements in all of Latin America.
For the simple fact that it makes sense with the idea of colonization that the game has always presented, because even the humblest of these countries fought for their independence during the period of time and against an extremely powerful empire, also because they offer something that European civilizations cannot, a story that is not usually told unlike the already widely seen European civilizations.
Sure, because an American developer would never put her nation in a game, come on at this point you just want to contradict me.
Fantastic, I kept living in your fantasy, the reality is that the game has a premise, when that premise is not respected the game falls, the premise is colonization, mainly that of the American continent, if you want them to add any other civilization for my perfect , but it is not a priority for this game, for that it is better to play another title and I say that with all due respect.
I end this convocation, have a nice day.
I donât think âearly modern Americaâ to âearly modern worldâ can even be called an step. There is no need to talk about the limit if youâre miles away from it.
Itâs like making a WW2 game starting with the Western front then adding an expansion about the Eastern front or the Pacific.
Youâre sounding like itâs something drastic. No. Itâs what everyone will naturally come up with at day 1.
And yes we all know itâs because of they made the horrendous mistake of the ROR expansion.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
4 Likes
the period is when the largest human empire ever came to be, and it didnât fall before after the game ended.
what the game is about is when Europe became the dominating force in the world, something still true today. the revolutions first happened over half way into the period the game portrays.
the story the game tells is the Europeans coming to the new world and settling it and fighting over resources. its NOT an 1800s game, its a early modern game first and foremost, with only a bit of the modern (meaning the age of revolution) tagged on at the end. the dev view was to portray the period of musket-men standing in line, they have said this.
they straight up say âwe are going the 1500 to 1850s during the discovery of the new worldâ. they donât view this is a game of post colonialism, they view this as the discovery and settlement of the new world.
âthis was an amazing time. the europeans and the natives both discovered whole new continents existed in the world that where totally unknownâ.
âit allows you to conquer the new worldâ.
its a game that portrays about 350-400 years of history and of those about a 100 are within what one might consider the age of revolutions from the American revolution in 1775 to the end, if that is 1850 or 1876 doesnât change much. but they dont sell it on revolting, they sell it on conquering and discovering.
colonization yes, not post colonial.
also, i think we should perhaps remember that the Spanish empire had been on its way to the grave since the mid 1600s, its really fantastic it managed to hold on for as long as it did considering how relatively stagnant it was. Spain had a population of around 15 million in 1800 and was devastated by the Napoleonic wars, it was unlikely they could hold on and everyone knew it.
there is also plenty of European history not generally told, im also not really sure what you really want to show with these revolutions, we have 2, but do we need 10? how much can you cram into 50 years? how much different stuff can you actually show?
i also come from a country that isnât often that depicted in popular culture, i know it sucks, and iâm not against necessarily showing more from south America but pleas argue why they should be in rather than simply making an argument of fairness, what do they add? what makes them fun? what is some important stuff from this country etc. etc. its boring to see either flat suggestions or blatant power creep as suggestions.
but they didnât and what they say suggest that it wasnât what they intended to do. yes obviously they have American biases in the maps and the campaigns but they didnât actually add them or even suggest they would. which points towards the vision being the discovery and colonisation of the americas.
my âfantasyâ is built on what the devs themselves have said. 2 of the 3 factions i want had colonise in the new world.
you cant just say âits a priorityâ as if you get to dictate that, for YOU its a priority, to everyone else it clearly isnât. just like my faction wishes are my priority, and i know there are people who donât agree with them.
3 Likes
Demos fin a esta charla, ya se saliĂł de tema. Este espacio era para informarnos y opinar de la Ășltima updateđ
3 Likes
What I meant is that in the past they have hinted the DLCs with screenshots on the patch notes. Obviously we hadnât had hints for a long time, and I doubt that we will have any DLC soon or ever.
2 Likes
Iâm hoping the revolutionary US gets the treatment revolutionary Mexico got. I honestly think revolting to Mexico or the US should give you their basic units, or the US should at least get access to a State Capitol.
7 Likes