Yeah, I know. That’s why I’m telling we need at least patches if DLC’s are over…
We don’t know if DLCs are done. Keep yer chin up! continue to fight!
3 Likes
More will probably come eventually, there were some traces of Polish and Danish content at one point, so that might get developed further.
3 Likes
Yes. I think it’s probably half an Easter Egg-like stuff, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea, personally.
The fall of Constantinople and the existence of Ottoman Civ. are both now nothing.
This is because, for better or worse, the developers have left a precedent for Aztecs and Mexicans to coexist in the game. If other similar cases exist, people have no choice but to ask, “Why not?”
Of course, I’m fully aware that Byzantines don’t fit the background or purpose of this game. The Civilizations that should be more important in the early modern history should be added first.
On the contrary, there is actually no problem even if they are not implemented.
However, as it stands now, the criteria for selecting Civs in this game are very lenient.
In other words, what I’m trying to say is that, a Civ should not be rejected for a reason like "only existed for a short time’’ or "were technologically behind others’’ or "didn’t have an entity worthy of being called a nation’'. The only reason for rejection could be that other Civilizations have higher priority.
1 Like
I can kind of respect what OP is saying in terms of trying to clarify what might make an ideal civ in a logical world and trying to work out some sort of objective criteria, but the game is just a game made by flawed people and speculating on interesting new ideas for it in the forums is fun 
@M00Z1LLA re what you were saying about how the Aztecs remain in their 1500s state until the imperial age, I would love if AoE3 had gone the other way and done alt history post-colonial versions of the native civs for the later ages. I know it’s not what AoE is about and would damage the idea of the games being purely history based but I think it would be so cool to have Aztec units upgrade with gunpowder and steel to match the euro civs as they advance, kind of like in Rise of Nations. Though now on second thought I guess it would reduce a lot of the uniqueness of the native civs…
I know it’s wrong, but I want it.
4 Likes
A Greek revolution with some Byzantine elements like Cheirosiphons would be cool. But as a standalone civ it’s way too anachronistic. Cheirosiphons are less anachronistic than the Chinese Flamethrowers anyways.
1 Like
Gatekeeping: an Age of Empires classic
7 Likes
Meanwhile, Aztecs & Mexicans sharing the same exact Home City location…
1 Like
Hong Cong civ when? XD
Trying that with Aztecs is going to quickly become pure fantasy. It might be doable with rebranding as a broader Nahua civ, but even that might be a stretch.
Maya actually lasted much longer so they really should have been the representative civ in the region. Inca could also get a rework with elements from their later rebellions. But in both those cases there is ample real life examples that could be represented, so counterfactuals aren’t needed.
The one area where I think there could be some native alt-hist is a revolution for the North American Natives based on if Tecumseh’s Confederacy and/or the Northwestern Confederacy was more successful. That could be an avenue for giving them some more modern units like artillery for the late game. Maybe something similar could be done for an Aztec Mexico revolt or an Inca Peru revolt.
1 Like
Sure, sounds fun:
Hong Kong
Leader: Henry Pottinger
Flag: this
.svg){kind=link}
Units:
Coolie: Unique villager-sapper good against walls and buildings in general.
Native Police: Ranged infantry good against outlaws.
(Censored Poppy Powder) Smuggler: Outlaw that trickles coin while attaking and can stun enemies.
Features:
Houses build other buildings
Saloons decrease enemy gather rates
Can reset exchange rates with an infinite tech at the market
1 Like
The Durrani empire is not out of frame. It actually peaked in the 18th Century, before the Napoleonic Wars.
1 Like
It doesn’t mean players should be lenient.
"didn’t have an entity worthy of being called a nation’’ => I argue that in fact a civilization is not a nation.
“The only reason for rejection could be that other Civilizations have higher priority.” => Exactly. That’s why I mention Persia.
True thing. I’m definitely not against exploring new possibilities, and creativity of ideas.
Fun comes also from being relevant with the game standards and coherence. I would probably enjoy playing Polynesian, but at the cost of guilt knowing that it completly goes against the very essence of the game.
References are not the whole thing. As I mentionned, references in form of card, rare units or technologies that go beyond the time frame doesn’t necessarily constitute a justification for thinking that the game is as much late 19th century as it is 17th century. Wrong: it’s borderline, and you can’t rely on these borderline elements to justify the existence of a late 19th to early 20th century civilization.
Wrong, there is. The fact of being allowed to play Aztec against industrializing civilizations is already a form of fictional historical continuity. And remember than in the game you don’t exactly play the civilization per se, but an extension of that civilization in the form a “new and (generally remote) settlement”.
I’m not going to go case by case for each civ. The native north american are there because there would be nothing else to represent the north american people who were fighting against the core roster of original Vanilla civs.
As for other civilizations, let’s take the case of the Portugal and Spain. Yes, they are very similar culturally, yes they were sometimes politically joined. But, the game theme being colonization, it’s impossible to omit one of the most important actor of that. That’s why choosing a suitable civilization is a difficult process and one must look at all aspects and consider the core fundations of the game too.
Out of the time frame, too small, minor interaction with the world (especially existing civilization) before the late 18th century, in other word, the end side of the timeline. As I wrote, a civilization must be relevant for the whole timeline or at least for the beginning of the timeline (in that later case to permit fictional historical continuity).
Of his age, maybe. Of the Early Modern Period, absolutely not. I mean, French’s key characteristic is Coureurs des Bois. By the time of Napoleon, it was not a thing anymore at all. Louis XIV is the best fit, full stop, no one in his senses can argue against that.
OIrats are too East Asian to well represent Central Asian. I have already detailed my thoughts against Uzbek, I think it’s very clear. I would extremly happy to have Uzbek as a civ in the game, but sentiments must not alterate our understanding of the game’s essence.
I didn’t consider this point, and you make a point. However, resources and time are limited, so we must make choices based on priority as well. And since Persia is a priority, the question of redundance comes in. If you have Persians + Uzbeks, you have a good civ couple, undeniably, but what of the core of Central Asia itself? You are left with a civ that represents Persians, and a civ that is half Persian, half Central Asian. Not so good I think.
Hausa, Germans, Maltese, USA, Mexico, Italy, Indians, and probably others, can be considered as not being nations. I’m not going to argue more here, as the definition of nation is vague and varies too much.
Maybe are those who suggest thing like Canada, Australia, Gran Columbia or other similar non-sense.
Yes, I’m opposed to the Zulu idea. If one wants a new african civ, they should maybe suggest Kongos instead.
A period of time is not bound to precise dates. It’s fluid, that’s why I gave round numbers. The extremities of that period should not be enough to justify the addition of a civilization.
I have, by using Uzbeks as an example. The same reasoning applies for these “civilizations”.
Durrani Empire is too late to reasonable find a place in the time frame. Also, an Empire is not a civilization, as I have explained, and a civilization must be relevant to the whole period or to a good part of the beginning of the time frame.
The Afghan are basically Indians mixed with Persians. I have argued that it should be redundant to have something like that.
100+ years is a considerable amount of time. Besides, why relevant at the beggining but not at the end? You said that it’s some case of alt-history scenario where the civilization survived to the Industrial Age. Ok, why not the opposite, an alt-history scenario where the civ rose before when they did in real life?
I’m not going to comment on how simplistic (and maybe even offensive) this comment is.
2 Likes
I’m talking as if they were a civilization in the game.
Ok, what about this then?
1 Like
Yeah, I do support that notion, I must admit.
Zulus make a wonderful Minor Civ, Campaign civ or as part of a Scenario however they appear extremely late (establishing a kingdom at 1816), get defeated in 1879 and their homeland of Zululand gets finally absorbed into colonial British governance in 1897. Their unit roster would also seem rather basic and stale to span the AOE3 time frame plus whilst their is lots of awesome media pushing them as pop culture (1960’s Zulu film for example) due to some genuinely exciting battles and tactics.
Like a broken record, I’d always push the Rovzi Empire or even their ‘umbrella group’ Shona States offer a really great basis for an African civ that covers the things that people probably want from Zulu spear (proper term is censored) and wooden shield warriors, yep. Bullhorn formation, yep (Shona State militaries were doing this before Zulu), plus walled cities, metal mining/trade and conflicts/alliances with Euros/Arabs/Africans.
4 Likes
The exact same thing can be said of your 1450 start. But that’s even weaker because it would be impossible for the games setting to be pre-1492. There’s no subjective reason for the dates you picked, and the references to later times put the end date at 1876 at the absolute earliest.
Fictional historical continuity would be Aztecs with cavalry. What we have now is 1520s Aztecs fighting 1870s Mexicans.
The same argument applies to Polynesians. But they’re a better fit because they had much bigger populations and made better use of European technology.
Again, you could just as easily be talking about Lakota instead of Hawaii.
The French’s key characteristics are also Cuirassiers and the Gribeauval system, among many other Napoleonic references. I think you’re on your own trying to say Napoleon doesn’t fit. The Napoleonic era has always been the scope of the game. It doesn’t need to perfectly like up with a convenient label invented by historians like “early modern period”.
If the literal Mongols don’t represent Central Asia, I don’t know what does. Central Asia is a mix of Eurasian influences. There’s no such thing as pure Central Asia.
Then also add Kazakhs and/or Oirats? Uzbeks and Kazakhs/Oirates are not mutually exclusive. They’re actually self reinforcing since their interactions can provide campaigns and they can share units/features which makes development easier.