I hate to rag on the patch because I really like some of the changes, but I am disappointed that these skins made it to release. The Definitive Edition’s marketing campaign emphasized its commitment to critical historiography that more faithfully represents the peoples it depicts. It would be nice to see that commitment carried through to the event skins, especially since those skins are only trickling into the game.
I wish the selection had considered the Stephen Decatur skin and the Andrew Jackson skin. Also, as a jumping off point for further discussion, I’ll mention that the Uncle Sam character evolved out of an American national persona called Brother Jonathan (sometimes simply “Jonathan”), who is probably a more acute personification of the emerging United States.
5 Likes
There’s also a half dozen characters from the campaign that could get moved straight over.
Yeah the astronaught would have been a better cheat unit. Would have loved a civil war era general like Ulysses
3 Likes
You guys are too stuck up. Nobody forces you to use the astronaut skin or even unlock it. But it is a pretty cool skin, lets see how it looks in game. Maybe has even special animations
Where does this ‘needs to be 100% historical’, came from, i don’t know. Even Sandy Peterson, ensemble studio Unit designer said that, yeah they based the game on history but gameplay was more important and if the two were in conflict, they would favour gameplay rather than history.
And the skin is kinda historical given it is referencing the moon landing, even though outside Aoe3 Timeline. Also Aoe4 should have had this skin but given Mircrosoft decided to play it safe with Aoe4 timeline, we can get some in Aoe3.
4 Likes
it is a pretty far line from “based in history” to an astronaut with a laser gun.
like the uncle sam one is also goofy but IMO more acceptable as it is based on propaganda from the time.
6 Likes
I just want a Ulysses S. Grant skin.
2 Likes
You mean rather this:
Regards to OP, I think those skins are fine. Actually excited to unlock the Astronaut one. Wouldn’t mind to see some more realistic ones too for the USA though.The only issue I see is the controversy surrounding each figure you might add. Uncle Sam and an Astronaut are safe picks on that regard.
1 Like
I dont mind the silly stuff especially for cheat units but I feel bad for USA players because these are probably the only bonus skins they will get.
I think one fantasy skin and one more grounded one is a good mix like the Aztecs got.
Would a Union general be controversial? I’m not informed on the general perception Americans have on these people. What I do know is the civil war commanders had some of the best damn facial hair in the business.
4 Likes
Again referencing the moon landing, in fact, the USA got it, not any of the other civs that are there. The thing i am complaining is that they all unlock at the last mission. WTF thought this was a good idea.
For the Aztecs we got a dude with flying flames around him, didn’t saw any complain.
Cause at least is not a XX century thing. Well, we can add tanks now that the game go to 1969.
See the aztec one as a ritual dress with torches
2 Likes
Now that there is even another “marine officer” in the campaign that can directly be copy-pasted here…
1 Like
Civil War is arguably just outside the scope of AoE III’s time period.
What’s more important- it has nothing to do with (fuzzy, but still leading) theme of exploration, the discovery of the New World, colonialism and a few other themes.
It’s an interesting topic, but doesn’t fit the game. When it comes to US- much more fitting would be Founding Fathers, the first colonial rebel leaders…
Hell, even some industrial tycoons since that revolution almost in its entirety takes place in that period.
Civil War is not an especially noble event and certainly is far out of the scope of the topic of the creation of colonies and their unification, wars for independence and expansion.
1 Like
It’s no more outside the scope of the game than the entirety of the Mexican civ. The reason it’s not in the game is the same reason they don’t use the word “plantation”
3 Likes
It’s no more outside the scope of the game than the entirety of the Mexican civ.
Independence of Mexico is what, around 1820, 21? Civil War is 1861-65.
40 years is a lot when we’re talking about around 300-year period.
The reason it’s not in the game is the same reason they don’t use the word “plantation”
The reason civil war is not in the game is because it was never designed to be about that and has nothing to do with discovery of the new world, creation of colonies and their route to independence.
I go through concept art for III quite often and nothing comes even close to hinting civil war was in the scope of even a single game designer. Or artist for that matter.
I’m all for complaining about PC changes in 3DE, but let’s not make stuff up.
3 Likes
Just like the entire Mexico and USA civs. Now that they’re in the game, what’s preventing the Confederate States being a US revolution is PC nonsense. It’s the same reason Haiti will never get added.
4 Likes
There is no USA civ, there’s US civ.
Are you saying creation of US or Mexico is outside of the scope of AoE III?!
US and Mexico were revolution options in OG AoE III, lol. Game literally takes place on lands that were incorporated into US and Mexico. OG game is in vast majority about the New World and is focused highly on North America.
Revolution | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom
I’m not going to even list original maps.
You can’t be serious.
It’s much closer than the Asian Dynasties expansion as a whole.
1 Like
You’re just trolling at this point.
USA and Mexico were a great fit for revolutions and perfectly within the scope. However you can’t claim the theme is still the exploration and colonization of the Americas when they are added as full civs that were founded long after the continent was settled by Europeans. Sadly, they’ve even purged the word “colony” from the game.
3 Likes
You are mistakenly justifying this pov. That was Empire Mexico. The republic came only after 1823 The DLC part of Mexico civ goes well beyond 1823 ( because it clearly reaches the Republic which ended around 1861) almost to up to 1880 considering there is a “Porvirato” card IIRC. Check Mexico political timeline: First Mexican Empire - Wikipedia
USA’s timeline (1776) is much closer than Mexico’s (1823) to AOE3 considering the game points out wars with USA and the civil war happened just around Mexico’s Second Empire.
The moment they chose USA as a playable civ the game’s chronological ceiling went up. You are supposed to start the game around 1450-1599, since it’s “Exploration Age” + uncharted territory and then gradually advance years as you get to Imperial Age. It used to be like that in Vanilla for all Europeans.
Then Aztecs and then Asians came, shaking the boundary. Ok. But how can we justify USA and Mexico (born around 18th & 19th century) in this timeline? …
That’s the issue of continuously going a tad too far on an established timeline of a game bout history. It’s difficult justifying or negating a POV for both you and Mozilla. I mean Aztecs can play on Indochina using Shaolin monks, hire African Amazon’s and fight Mexico. 
But Mozilla is right on this one - about the Confederacy: it has nothing to do with timeline (anymore) because references to (even what led to) that could’ve been made by cards and techs.
3 Likes
This part I disagree.
There is a huge discrepancy of unit and tech progression within and among civs. So the time line is pretty chaotic. And many of the map regions are not “explored” in 1450~1599.
The “Exploration Age” is closer to “Tier 1 base” than to the actual exploration age.
And the civs are something like “best of 1500~1850” rather than really following the time progression.
2 Likes
That’s why I said “around”.
Not all countries navigated to the new world around the same time (laughs in Sweden), same place and same range.
2 Likes
