For me it’s difficult to counter so much cannons in the campaigns (especially Pirates) I would like to see an improvement of the maltese faction to counter culverines. The damage to ships is extraordinary.
1 Like
Nice catch
Also multithread CPU must be already in game along with Beta Options to be released live
1 Like
I just checked the scenario where Aztecs are now “represented by the playable Aztecs” and… They really aren’t.
The units and non-Gaia buildings are now assigned to the playable Aztecs, but still are the same ones that have always been in this scenario. There’s even an Aztec chief (in the above screenshot) that they didn’t bother turning into the Aztec Warchief unit.
The fact they did so little here just makes me wonder why they left the Aztecs in the Chinese campaign untouched.
I requested the Incendiary Grenades tech be available to all Euro civilizations by default because they have easiest access to the units that actually utilize the tech. It only affects units tagged with the Grenade Trooper class.
Arsonist
Chakram
Filibuster
Hoop Thrower
Giant Grenadier
Grenadiers
Humbaraci
Miner
Mounted Granadero
Soldado
This was a notable issue when revolting to Prussia/German Confederation. Leib Grenadiers aren’t able to siege as well due to lacking the tech. I think Sweden Giant Grenadiers might be better at sieging actually.
Native civilizations don’t have access to mercenaries, and I don’t believe there are any native units with that grenade trooper tag. Even if they got the tech, they wouldn’t do much with it.
Hausa getting an Arsenal in Imperial Age is due to their British alliance being Age 5 locked. This is irrelevant to whether or not they should get the Incendiary Grenades tech at the Arsenal. Currently they don’t and neither do the Ethiopians that can ally with Portuguese as early as Age 2 to get an Arsenal. If I had my way, the tech would also be unlocked for them to research by default.
The Japanese consulate can ally with the Dutch to get an Arsenal. All basic Arsenal technologies are available to them except for Counter Infantry Rifling, Ranged Cavalry Caracole, and Incendiary Grenades, while their Golden Pavilion wonder has Flint Lock, Paper Cartridge, Pillage, and Professional Gunners. I would just give Japan access to the Incendiary Grenades tech too.
For the rest that don’t have Arsenals, I don’t know. Give them one or add card effects that give the missing bonuses if needed.
Totally agree, in fact if they should add this card maybe must of
the problem of italy shoul be solved
The Alpini should definitely be added to Italy—their absence in the game is really noticeable. A great way to implement them would be as a guard upgrade for the Musketeer, but instead of a raw 10% stat increase, it would be much better if the upgrade granted +0.10 ranged resistance, +0.25 speed, and a +0.25 multiplier against cavalry across all actions.
2 Likes
The Alpini were a light infantry unit.
I’m against just giving them a generic infantry buff. It’s doing just fine as it is.
Point for me, since I knew they weren’t going to do it, I’m already correcting it myself…
Yes, having the Bersaglieri is somewhat redundant… I’d save the Arditi for a unique Italian unit of a Modern Era AoE…
1 Like
Following the same logic, Streltsy should be classified as musketeer units rather than weak skirmishers, but as mentioned earlier, that would create too much redundancy within the civ. Of course, their Musketeers and other rifle units need a stat boost; Italy has one of the weakest late-game armies in the game.
If Streltsy were classed as a musket infantry then the other musket infantry should be removed from Russia.
bueno a rusia podrian reestructurarla asi:
Streletsy: Se convierte en un monsquetero
El Rekrut: Se convierte en una milicia unica que puede ser afectadas por varias cartas (Como una nueva llamada “Opalchinie”)
Se le agrega el Poleaxeman en los blocaos, quienes se entrenan en bloques de 8 y ya… o sea tan dificil no es
a cierto! faltaria un escaramuador podrian poner a los Pekhota o a jeager rusos (estos podrian ser escaramuzadores con menos alcance y daño pero capaces de defenserce bien cuerpo a cuerpo)
I’ve played a few matches with both the Prussian and Hungarian revolutions, and there is simply no comparison; the Hungarian revolution needs a restructuring. An idea that came to me while playing both was to give Hungary a new uprising—similar to the German Confederation revolution—that could advance us to the Imperial Age as the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867–1916). This new uprising could grant a Factory card, a Capitol card, and a card enabling Imperial-level military upgrades, as well as access to Line Infantry at the Barracks (to compensate for the lack of German Musketeers). Naturally, other cards could be added to boost the economy or naval capabilities, but for this new revolution to fit perfectly, the current Hungarian revolution deck needs to be properly restructured. This could be done by removing “junk” or redundant cards—such as the Magyar Grenadier and Hussar cards—and reworking them for better efficiency; for instance, both units could be combined into a single “Austro-Hungarian Empire” card. This card would be part of the new Austro-Hungarian uprising and would enable the training of those units at Forts, to name just one example. Finally, a new card could be added to boost Grenzer attack and health by 15% and update their appearance to the more modern uniforms typical of mid-19th-century units.
As you can see, these ideas are just a few examples of how to update the Hungarian Revolution, which still fails to reflect the true potential this empire possessed in the 19th century. It is disheartening to see revolutions like the Cossack Hetmanate or the Yucatan Revolution better represented than the Hungarian one; what is even sadder is that those are Age III revolutions, whereas the Hungarian Revolution—an Age IV option—is poorly represented, with a deck lineup that leaves much to be desired.
(new appearance for the Grenzers).
Bueno, así era originalmente en la versión beta del juego allá por 2004…
I don’t know if it’s just me, but I feel like some ancient civilizations need a bit of a rework. For instance, the Self-Strengthening Movement (1861–1895) to modernize the Chinese army; a unique skirmisher for the Dutch, along with a Guard upgrade for Pikemen; the addition of the Belgian Revolution; unique Grenadiers for the British, plus the Irish Revolution; granting Spain more modern Guard units for Lancers and Rodeleros; improving certain Meiji Restoration units for Japan; adding the Greek Revolution for the Ottomans; and finally, reworking some mechanics and units for the Native American civilizations. I feel like all this content is still missing to make the game feel truly complete, as it currently feels unfinished—or rather, like there are still things that need to be added.
You mean adding Culverins to the Knights of St. John faction to counter the enemy’s usage of them?
Come to think of it, I don’t believe the St. John campaign faction ever gets access to them, not even thru shipments. I’m positive that I saw the Circle of Ossus use them in the Fountain of Youth mission. I didn’t have a way to counter enemy artillery other than rushing my cavalry units to the enemies back lines where the artillery was firing. I also had to use Mortars as my anti-ship artillery.
The campaign faction really should have a way to get Culverins, either by adding them to the Artillery Foundry or at least thru home city shipments. Arsenals and Taverns should also be buildable. I saw the Circle use them too, so those buildings wouldn’t look out of place in that campaign.
Alpini would make a better Pavisier replacement, since they are more like light infantry soldiers. Italy would prefer a RG upgrade for their Musketeer. I did make a Garibaldino RG musketeer concept if anyone is interested. We already got an HCC referencing the Garibaldini.
I still want the Alpini in the game, they are directly referenced by the HCC of the same name yet nowhere to be found in AoE3.
Yes, the Knights of St. John only have hoop throwers and mortars, nothing else…it’s kind of meh…in my Maltese Blood campaign, things change a lot and you have many more options (basically all of Malta’s ones)…
I still don’t understand how they supposedly made various changes to the campaigns yet still haven’t added the actual Maltese civilization, nor the United States civilization from the Battle of New Orleans—that US civilization would be a perfect fit for the Amelia Black campaign.
And they added Aztecs in name only, makes me wonder why they didn’t do the same to the Chinese campaign as well
Why would you put naval infantry out of all things as skirmishers?
Sure, in fact I’m doing that as a mod… Maltese in Blood, Brits and Hauds in Ice and US Civ (the multiplayer one, obviously) in Steel, Fire and Shadow…
Yes, if they’re going to do it, they should do it properly…
1 Like