depending on how we count the game depicts a period of 350 to 400 years of history. optimistically the US exist for exactly 100 of those years (1776-1876).
1 Like
The best 100 years LOL
3 Likes
They existed, but they didnât have cavalry, and didnât live in the Great Plains yet. However, the game just focuses on a pretty narrow point of Lakota history, which is their war with USA
2 Likes
Theyâre kinda like Inca where they existed throughout the whole time period and could be accurately represented, but theyâre just all around poorly done and restricted to only a small snapshot in time.
4 Likes
If we donât have to take into account the actual tech tree and gameplay, then you could argue the USA and Mexico also represent the Thirteen Colonies and New Spain, and the British and Spanish are still representing the mainland and all the other colonies. That would technically make Mexico older than the Dutch independance.
2 Likes
So youâre saying the existence of the Dutch civ is predicated upon a revolt from Spain, but Mexicans were totally unique and independent for hundreds of years before they revolted from Spain? Very consistent.
2 Likes
Removing Civ that is already implemented is the worst thing to do. Itâs not even worth discussing.
7 Likes
I donât think thatâs what he said?
1 Like
I understand why some people donât like the post-Colonial civs, but I like them and it isnât the first time the timeline is stretched (either for AoE3 or for AoE games in general).
I love how the âitâs not supposed to be a history simulatorâ flies out the window whenever something legacy players donât like enters the game.
1 Like
Yeah, if we can have Sumerians vs Palmyrenians or Huns vs Aztecs, I donât see why Aztecs vs Americans is a problem.
2 Likes
What is the significance of bringing up the Dutch revolt if thatâs not what youâre implying? If your position is it doesnât matter when a country got political independence then Dutch independence is completely irrelevant.
The early colonies in Mexico and USA are exactly what the original European civs represent. There is nothing that distinguishes them until the late 18th century.
All of these are a problem. Might as well have Byzantines versus the Soviet Union in this game.
Fun facts.
It is. Happy?
I kind of disagree, at least I donât think it should be the case. The mainland regular armies in Europe were not the same as the troops employed in the colonies.
Okay, whatever.
1 Like
Technically that happens in the Civ series, though obviously thatâs a different game and they donât use the latter name.
If itâs worth it because people donât have a clear vision of which civilizations are worth adding to the game. We can now coexist with Mexico and the United States, but adding more civilizations of the same style would be a mistake that should not be made again.
Many people let themselves be carried away by patriotism to demand a new civilization, without caring how forced a new civilization feels that sometimes does not even cover a quarter of the time period in which AOE-3 is set.
In Civ their bonuses and unique units are generally era special. But you also have a leader that lives for millennia so itâs kinda weird. I much prefer the approach taken in Humankind where you get to transition through different civs as you advance through the eras.
There is no point in discussing removing any civs already present in the game. How can you possibly think about removing something that the developers worked on and released as paid optional content?
You just have to come to terms with it, although it is unfair to add civs such as USA and Mexicans to the game and at the same time say that there is no point in creating a cluster of umbrella civs such as Germans and Indians civs⊠this is just disgusting.
If you want to be fair, donât immediately rule out something that may be cool and more immersive than terrible and unfair umbrellas - like one frankenstein German civ and one British Raj for all India. Post-colonial solo civs DLC can be good as additional DLC between the release of bigger and more interesting DLC. The USA civ is in some way a division of the British civ and the same is true for the Mexicans civ to the Spanish civ - so its hypocrisy.
3 Likes
No one in this forum except the developers has the right to say what we can or cannot ask for, anyone who thinks differently from this is deluding themselves.
Any criteria you believe exists is at best a suggestion, not an unmovable fact.
Grow up, let everyone ask for what they want and let the developers decide if itâs worth adding it or not, you are no one to decide what deserves to be added or not, especially since none of you are a developer or a Publisher.
Rant: 
It worries me how every day there are more toxic people in this forum, every day there are more people trying to impose what they want instead of suggesting it. Who the hell put you in charge of what we can ask for, you are no one to decide what we can ask for and no matter how argued this is, your opinion is still the opinion of a nobody whose opinion is worthless. if you want that civilization so much that you canât respect what others want, go to another game that already has it.
5 Likes
If there were clear rules about what type of content can be added to the game we wouldnât be talking about this.
People complained a lot when the United States was added and then Mexico because the trend of the original game did not imply that one day they would be added.
Iâm sorry, but there should always be clear criteria for adding factions to the game for many different reasons, such as a set of units that fulfill all the necessary roles in the counterattack system.
If everything depends on Microsoft and not on the players, then these forums would have no reason to exist, we are all wasting our time. Whatâs next now? Variant civilizations? A version of Russia with Ivan the Terrible or something like that?
Russia? Led by Ivan the Terrible?
Could you imagine how crazy that sounds?
2 Likes