They werent missing for 17 years as the original game wasnt about Europe but the New World.
So more like 1-2 years when DE came out.
2 Likes
I do agree on Maltese as almost nobody asked for them, but Italians were a long time fan-requested civ all thanks to ES devs who planned it back in the original release of AoE3 before it got cut off (yeah they didn’t form until 1861, but they were like the Germans civ in a mixed bag presenting the renaissance).
But don’t worry, we’ll get Persians since they’re a highly requested civ 
I mean TAD already kinda broke the whole New World theme and there were mentions of planned European maps before 2005 with Italians before they got cut off for the New World theme in the original release…Anyways again I’m happy to see European maps as I’m hoping to see Middle East and Oceania coverage in the future.
7 Likes
I want Persia too but you have to consider the effort these two new civs required compared to a civ like Persia
Italy and Malta both:
-
Reuse an architecture style for their buildings (The same one as Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Ottomans)
-
Reuse many basic european units like musketeer, pikeman, hussar, etc.
-
Reuse age up politicians, revolutions and general mechanics
Persia on the other hand would need an entirely new architecture style to design and then create for the game. It would have most likely an entirely unique unit roster like the Asian and African civs that would all need to be designed and added along with all their upgrade variations. Age up mechanics would need be decided like would it be an Asian style civ with wonders and export or something else?
Persia is my most wanted civ but I don’t feel like these civs have stolen Persias place or anything like that because they are not comparable. Malta feels like a bonus civ its unique buildings the commandary and gunpowder store were already in the game and its unique barracks is just a field hospital with reskinned tents. Not a complaint I just think it shows adding Malta probably did not take a lot of time compared to other civs like the African ones.
18 Likes
you know Safavid is literally Persia, right?
2 Likes
Yeah maybe but Safavid Empire is PERSIA itself.
1 Like
Thinking about trends again, the release orders for the dlc has been iirc
2 civs - swedes & inca
1 civ - US
2 civs - Hausa & Ethiopia
1 civ - Mexico
2 civs - Italy & Malta
So depending on whether there is a clear theme or not ( i think they are trying to have a theme if its 2 civs) then persia could work
6 Likes
Yes i mean the persian would be named safavid…
3 Likes
I thin they are following themes
US, Mexico - North America
Italy , Malta - Mediterrarian
Ethiopia, Hausa - Africa
Future themes can be -
Polish-Lithuania, Romania - East Europe
Safavids, Indonesians- Asia 1
Korea, Siam - Asia 2
Brazil, Gran Colombia - South America
Paraguay, Argentina - South America 2
Zulu, Kongo - Africa 2
8 Likes
No like actual product themes
the african DLC was called “The African Royals”
While the current 2 civ one is " Knights of the Mediterranean"
while the US and Mexico dlc was just the civ name dlc
So if Persia is to be a theme, we need a comparable name and two civs that goes along with persia for that name
Like “Silk Road kingdoms” if its like a central asian theme
1 Like
I’d replace Romania with Danes but everything else is good 
The fact that they opted to go asset re-use for one civ does not bode well for future unique civs. If they didn’t have the time and resources this time to make a non asset-dump civ, then they certainly won’t in the future.
So I’m thinking if we get anymore 2-packs, then one civ will be something unique, relevant and high in demand, and the second civ will be whatever asset dump they can get away with, regardless of how poorly fitting the second civ is.
For example:
Persians and Afghanis
6 Likes
Malta is a bonus. Italy is a clear focus of the DLC.
I don’t see where’s the problem. The game in it’s original release featured some unutilized civs and cultures.
Just because for narrative reasons Malta had some presence in the past, doesn’t mean it can’t be expanded or making it a full playable civ is a lazy asset flip. How is Malta an ‘asset dump’?!
How much are you expecting for the asked price? This DLC is offering more than it already should’ve considering how these things are priced in the genre. it wouldn’t be outrageous to see a game sell skin packs for 5$ or something or new maps or even home city customization. Here it’s all free.
They went beyond what was expected, not to mention not every civ can or should have allocated resources on par with major, most important civs. It’s great they made it a civ, I don’t know how throwing more money to make every single asset from scratch (and in contrast to what’s already here, that wouldn’t even make sense) would improve the situation.
“does not bode well for future unique civs”
So far all civs have been well defined, with high-quality new assets, a lot of new units, technologies, cards, mechanics etc.
I do not see any reasons to be worried about the future. And let’s not forget we’re talking about new content for a re-release of a 17yo game.
Also the author is talking about ‘missed opportunities’, like game development is free and making a civ equals to ordering coffee. A lot of things are, have to be and should be taken into consideration when funding new content.
We’re talking about a lot of real money in the harsh reality of the modern game industry. People shouldn’t mix some concepts like ‘historical justice’ with decision making behind support of consumer products.
It’s not a race to prove what countries, civilizations, ethnic groups etc. are more worthy than others.
It’s not a bingo game, nor an open-source fan project. If something has a lower chance to push sales- it will be pushed aside or far in the line to make it to the game. Simple as.
It’s hard to list too many civs with importance on par with everything on the Italian Peninsula.
19 Likes
Malta was a village, a Moroccan civ for the Mediterranean would have been more appropriate.
7 Likes
And time-consuming and costly.
Running a company is not fan fiction on forums, existing in a void. I don’t recall a poll where people were begging for more expensive DLCs or arguing ‘cheaper additional content like that doesn’t look like worthy of my time’.
Italy is a star of this expansion and it would be hard to prove how Morocco is something that is gathering more interest among people from the most important markets for AoE 3DE.
Next expansion- sure. But ‘how not including it instead of Italy is a bad biz decision’ is not really a point that can stand on its own. And at the end of the day making games is business. Not a public service.
3 Likes
I must agree with your post: The Islam influenced lands are underrepresented in the game. Oman, Persia and Morocco were major powers and they are still not in the game.
6 Likes
Other civs should be Burmese, Siamese, and Vietnamese.
1 Like
I don’t care about the price of the content when judging the content in and of itself. Whether I’m judging a $10 Indie game, or an $80 AAA game. Price is secondary and has zero bearing on whether the game itself is “good” or “bad”. Only once I’ve judged a game does price come into play because obviously I’m a human with limited funds.
I certainly don’t care about the inner struggles of the dev team. I’m a customer, not a Microsoft investor. We can be respectful and thankful to a reasonable extent, but they aren’t our friends. They’re selling us a product.
I’ve noticed long ago that the AOE community in particular are far too complacent and forgiving. If a crappy character was added to Smash Bros or Mortal Kombat, their respective fanbases wouldn’t hesitate to criticize. If another game had a terrible release with tons of bugs and little flaws, like with the new Grand Theft Auto remasters, the fanbase wouldn’t hesitate to reee, and they would proudly do so with community support.
AOE is the ONLY franchise I know of, where if the devs did something 200% stupid, most of the fanbase would say “I love it. I’m so grateful to even get anything. Take more of my money, daddy”.
6 Likes
what are you even talking about?!
Ale DEs had problems at release and were criticized a lot for a long time. People were review bombing 3DE for changes to minor wording elements and it still shows in scores.
IV was being blasted for the entire period of closed, open betas and it is to some point now.
What are you talking about. Drink some cold water to cool down.
You’re talking a lot about you and what you feel and think, but that’s not the subject of the topic nor these things are any real arguments or counterarguments.
Topic is about civ choices and not your feelings.
I’ve listed reasons why Italy and not Persia is a reasonable choice, and how including smaller civ like Malta alongside it is not a crime or lazy hack job, if anything- a smart dev choice. If you want to ramble about some imaginary picture of AoE playerbase- I’m out.
7 Likes
Whenever new content is announced you can rest assured DramaQueen Starscream will be here to make countless rants about why it’ll be the worst thing ever for the game.
9 Likes
He is right, any reasonable community would hate Sicilians, Burgundians, Malta, USA and Mexico.
7 Likes