This thread seems to have turned into a thread where people criticize other people’s nationalities and identities. It seems better to close this thread.
6 Likes
He literaly is from the country itself, and he is not insulting, but discussing with arguments. Nothing bad. Having origins from Canada, I’m happy to learn a bit about what Canadians think of their culture.
1 Like
Some don’t like to hear why their faction isn’t worthy of being in the game, and when you give them arguments as to why they shouldn’t, then they get offended.
I don’t see the reason to close this forum, in fact these types of conversations should have arisen a long time ago to be clear about what is convenient for the game and what is not.
It is curious that people say revolutions in European territory are not worthy of being complete civilizations, but when you oppose postcolonial civilizations people get upset.
Revolutions in European territory: “It is not worthy of being a complete civilization”.
Revolution in American territory: “It should be a playable civilization”.
5 Likes
Absolutely.
At the end of the day I love Canada, however they are in the game in the capacity as they should be. They didn’t successfully revolt, they didn’t declare independence and in reality, we’d have to add more ages beyond AoE3’s scope (i.e. the 20th century!) to reflect when they actually became independent.
Whilst I also think the Revolt button should be broader in terms to reflect that not all civ ‘splits’ are down to violent revolution (I’d push for self-rule ‘Dominions’ for Brits at least), Canada does at least feature there, which I think is sufficient - especially for a country that was ruled by others for the entire AoE3 time frame.
(I’d love to see an Australia/New South Wales ‘revolt’ civ with the whole ‘Dominion’ / self-governing territory mindset)
2 Likes
For what it’s worth, I’m one of the people saying Greece should at least be a revolt.
2 Likes
I completely disagree. Revolution is the simplest, most accurate term by a long shot.
-
It accurately describes what happens in the game. Revolutions by definition are radical breaks that change the status quo. When you revolt, your entire economy, deck, and civilization changes in an instant which is very much in line with a revolution.
-
All of the revolutions have a historical precedent. Canada had the Upper Canada Rebellion and Northwest Rebellion, Australia had the Eureka Rebellion, South Africa had the Boer War, etc. These were ultimately unsuccessful, but with most revolutions being hypotheticals that’s not really an issue. No one complains about Dutch being able to revolt to USA despite that never happening.
-
It’s the simplest implementation. Having ‘Dominions’ adds an extra button and menu to confuse things without actually giving any additional options. All the British dominions have ample rebellions to justify them as a revolution, and more unique options like the British Raj were not dominions.
I just wanted to pop in and remind everyone that both Malta and the United States have already been in the game since 2005. If you don’t think they should be included then that’s something you should have taken up with Ensemble Studios 19 years ago.
3 Likes
They are campaign civilizations. If you have played other RTS such as Starcraft, you will see that many of the things playable in the campaign do not apply to multiplayer. There are factions within factions such as the Taldarin for the protos and there is nothing about them in the competitive apart from some skins. I’m sorry, but this argument doesn’t apply.
3 Likes
That’s quite the strawman. I don’t recall any complaints before they were added as full civs.
2 Likes
In addition to the fact that in the campaign, although they were fictitious, they represented their respective period. For example, Amelia’s campaign is only set in the 19th century within the Black family chronology.
5 Likes
In most RTS games the campaign civs line up with the skirmish civs. They aren’t like two separate games with two separate visions.
@M00Z1LLA Uh oh next you’re going to start accusing me of fallacies. Any argument against the inclusion of those civs applies equally to the campaign. You can’t tell me something is irrelevant or outside of the game’s timeline if it makes up 1/3 of the campaign. And you’re right, no one complained about the campaign so what’s with this weird purity test for skirmish?
4 Likes
I have absolutely no problem with them being in skirmish mode, nor does anyone else as far as I’m aware. USA and Mexico were in skirmish since War Chiefs and they fit in perfectly. Malta could have been an excellent minor civ to ally with. But all 3 are profoundly stupid as fully playable civilizations. You know exactly what the issues with them are and you’re just being facetious.
I know the reasons, I just don’t agree with them nor do I find them compelling.
1 Like
He? Who are you talking about?
I’m not sure what you mean, but even if one person’s opinion is the same, it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone’s opinion is the same. Can the “He” you’re talking about represent the whole country?
This topic is completely pointless. No one will be able to convince anyone.
1 Like
Talking about Malta, I don’t think it makes sense for them to be able to revolt.
Yeah, because in the campaign when europeans reach The Americas the first natives they talk to in 1492 is USA…
2 Likes
Guys, plis, come back to speak about age of empires 3
Avoid the nationalist stuff
5 Likes
Black Family Estate playable when? 
4 Likes
Right? I had been waiting all this time to play as Malta, USA, and the Black Family Estates. I’m happy we got at least 2 of them, though.
3 Likes
TBH, I’m just hopeful for a DLC that encompasses a Black Family Estates civ and a Conquer the World campaign map. Move away Napoleon or the British Empire - the sun will never set on the Black Family Estates’ empire
4 Likes