Since WarChiefs, minor civs became playable, the developers use NEW minor to replace it.
(Aztecs replaced by Zapotecs, Haudenosaunee replaced by Huron, Lakota replaced by Cheyenne)
I don’t understand, WHY NOT follow the minor civ example with Revolution option to prevent mistake and awkward at same time???
eg.
British → Ireland (replace US)
Dutch and French (I want to see the revolt French option, new units and flag) → Belgium (replace US)
Italians (replace US) with Malta, Russia and Ottoman-> Greek
Swedes (replace US) → Finland and Norway
Spanish (replace Mexico) → Cuba and Philippines
Also, I know many people don’t care about summary.
But I really want to see which civ has which unique unit and its revolt option, also want to learn the connection and context between revolt and origin civ.
That’s why we need news category in summary: Unique units and Revolution.
I don’t think they need to scrap them, but they really need to update all the revolutions to include new features. Most only have a handful of cards and reskinned outlaw units that don’t even update the icons.
In terms of alternate revolutions, Australia would be the best option for British and Dutch.
They actually did that with Inca for awhile and it was pretty awkward.
I don’t think it’s quite the same in the case of revolutions. Having a revolution mechanic but omitting one of the earliest and most impactful revolution in history seems like a bad way to go. Having them both as a revolution and full civ is for sure awkward but that’s only because USA and Mexico are a very poor fit for full civs.
If they would have put the effort that went into USA and Mexico into fleshing out the revolutions they would have had a much better and more consistent result. Just allowing Spain and Britain to revolt earlier and then age up with states or revolt again would have been much better. A full range of state age ups could be achieved by having different states available to different starting civs (Dutch having access to New York, Michigan, and New Jersey, Sweden having access to New York and Minnesota, British having access to Virginia, Massachusetts, etc).
Well you already have Indians fighting British with British allies or several copies of the same nation fighting themselves (and possibly also revolting into the same nations), so having an US while someone else revolts into another US is not a huge problem.
But I DO think especially for US and Mexico and potentially Brazil/Peru/Colombia etc in the future, the revolution should have similar units as the playable faction. Like I see no point of having a comanchero cowboy and a true cowboy, or a “revolutionary sharpshooter” and a true sharpshooter, or a comanchero charros and a chinaco charros, at the same time.
The revolution of the United States would have to be the revolution of Texas with Mexico, being the definition of a well done revo. where it allows you to take units out of the United States.
I’d actually like to see Two Sicilies as their revolution. Two Sicilies being the historical counter-power to Sardinia-Piedmont (aka the country that forms Italy). It would give the southern portion of Italy their chance to shine at least.
I think the reason why they don’t remove the revolutions from Mexico and the US is because they would be forcing you to buy the DLC to use those civilizations.
Note: In my opinion, I think that these revolutions should not be eliminated, but they should be improved a little more, for example, Mexico could build haciendas, create Chinacos, soldiers and insurgents.
That was what I always thinking!!!
Thanks for presenting~
But after I saw these idea as I never thought before, since we’re already in the AGE4, nothing wrong to become regular US and Mexico.
We really need a revolution UPDATE~
I admit your comment was funny, but I don’t think anyone wants revolutions to be copies of existing civilizations, just have a little more in common.
For example:
Mexico the revolution, could use the insurgents because they only cost food, the chinaco that gives us the card could be the chinaco of the Mexican civilization, the soldier and the haciendas literally already have it all the revolutions with Spain.
The only thing I proposed was that Mexico could build haciendas, but of course respecting the limit of only 2 at the same time.
Yes, of course, just as it happened in most revolutions (They are revolutions, what did you expect?). And if you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself.
calma calma não precisa de ignorância, apenas no meu pais não tivemos muitas mulheres que lutaram em revoluções, pelo menos não do meu conhecimento, acho existiram mais não temos registros no brasil
I think it would be fun to see certain revolutions become ‘Maya’ level revolutions, in the sense that they’re more expensive (like 2000f/w/g) but have stronger scalability and card options similar to Maya where they can almost compete with going imperial, it would feel like almost a side option to going imperial to trade a little long term power for a short term boost, without throwing literally everything away.
I know the devs really don’t like messing with legacy mechanics too much but I don’t think anyone would be complaining if revolutions got even more of an overhaul, to make them feel more like a militaristic route option rather than just a gimmick that usually feels lame to lose to(lookin at u, mounted granaderos and peruvian guards)
Playing as the US through a revolution plays completely different from playing as the US civ directly. Why remove content and options from the game? I think it’s really cool to revolt and become the United States, but it’s also really cool to have the US as a playable faction. Same goes for Mexico. No need to remove anything. If lots of people really want the option removed, then they should just add a toggle in the skirmish/multiplayer options or something, since many people do quite like it the way it is!
They can remove the revolutions without removing the mechanics. Like the Inca to Quechua change, all you need to do is change the theme of the revolutions.
But in a game with revolutions set in this time period, how can you not include a revolution to become the US? The US is probably half the reason the mechanic was even put in the original game imho. I think someone should make a mod that renames the US and Mexico revolutions so that people who want them renamed can be happy and people who want them to stay the same can also be happy.
