When will Persian civilization be added to the Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition?

Just make the civ yourselves you cowards.

6 Likes

With the imagined Middle East DLC, I definitely want Egyptian Mamluks, Persians (Safavids), colonial Arab Emirate of Oman to be added to the game and I am ready to buy it.

2 Likes

I imagine the Persians as somewhere in between the Ottomans and the Indians… just because Persia is in the middle.

From a historical perspective there could be many unique mechanics, but this would depend on how far we want to “stray” from the design philosophy of aoe3.
The rivalry between the Turkic and Iranian peoples and the meritocraric nature of their society could definitely be translated into unique mechanics.
The issue is to make that appealing and not an useless or annoying gimmick

1 Like

No.

It will be a great news if the so-called self-proclaimed competitive players stop playing asap.
Not talking about real ones.

9 Likes

If you mean me I won’t even be a player anytime soon because I take a break from the game and I don’t know if temporary or permanent, if you mean other players who proclaim themselves competitive well that’s doesn’t interest me, competitive players can be both low and high level but you are still playing for ladders and winning tournaments outside of your skills.

I also looked at the graphs but look at this site AOE III DE Companion App you will realize how few players there are in ranked, make a prediction of how many players they are looking for and on average it is always less than those who are playing because team searches last from 5 minutes to 10 minutes while in 1v1s maximum 2 minutes then it depends on the elo you have, and look how many people there are in non-ranked lobbies, with the mobile application you can see this and you will see that they do not even exceed 1000 players in multiplayer so I really don’t think there are 5000 players in multiplayer or 2000 because on eso when there were 2000 you could find the matches very easily and you could also quickly find 1v1 in quick search.
I would add that in 2020 due to the pandemic we went back to making 5k players on Eso and you could find lots of games at all levels you had so much choice between nilla and tad that you didn’t even know which games to play, a little less at high levels but despite this also returned some old players even higher and medium level.

Of course there are not.
That shows how little the “cOmPeTiTiVe pLaYeRs” contribute to the game. But you equate them with “players”.

2 Likes

I’m talking about normal players that exist in multiplayer if I was talking about competitive then I only said ranked, the famous competitive players obviously there aren’t many because there aren’t big tournaments with high prize pools

Then my conclusion would be ladder players contribute little.

2 Likes

I’m sure the game will continue to reciever updates and small events, but I’d be surprised to see another big expansions, bigger than a 1-civ pack. And even that is dicey IMHO. Hell, even KotM was a big surprise.

3DE, as good as it is, it’s almost in the same weird place AoE3 was many years ago- even with a bunch of new maps, civs and handful of historical missions it’s not a massive singleplayer offering (especially for people not interested in playing skirmish with lacking AI over and over again, even if new modes and additions make the gameplay so much better than it was in the original) like Age Empires II (now- 2DE), and multiplayer never overtook Age of Kings, HD or DE and it’s unlikely it will explode now, with IV around.

It’s a weird spot, but despite that devs showed a lot of dedication and put a lot of work to make the best of it.
I would buy few new civs, but how many 3DE are in the same position?
Achievements for DLC content have tiny number, so sadly- probably not too many. It’s still firmly mired in the game design created a long time ago, that doesn’t really fit the current market realities.
Some players should get in touch with reality and stop spamming unrealistic demands about new content. Especially ones fantasizing about some obscure tribes and countries barely anyone in the West (lion share of the market) heard about- creating such content would be simply a bad business decision and lead to faster abandonment of the game by the publisher (and as a result- obviously a cut to the financial support that makes dev work possible).

Instead of an expansion for 3DE (that wouldn’t introduce any new campaigns or map editor v2.0) I’d be much more enthusiastic about a sequel to 3DE, tightening time period focus to late XVIIIth and early-mid XIXth century. Even just the Napoleonic Era.

A remake of AoE 1 on a beefy engine would be awesome. Maybe AoM remake would benefit more from a flashy engine and graphics (magic effect etc).

But that’s not the point of why they’re counter-arguing you in the first place. Let’s not stray from the topic.

That is, someone here is excited, hoping at some point for the Persian civilization, and suddenly someone says:

  • This game does not have as many sales and players as AOE-2.
  • This game has few players online.
  • This game is dying.
  • This game is not self-sustaining and it is not profitable.

Do not turn off the illusions of the players. A graph or stat is not a conclusive indication that the game was abandoned.

It’s like going to the AOE-1 forum, “Hey, don’t ask for anything, this game is dead.” It sure won’t be very courteous.

1 Like

Yes, I’m calm about that… if they are not working on AoE 3 DE now, it is because they are busy with AoM Retold and the port of AoE 4 to Xbox…

Nor should we be so negative…

Difficult, you can not focus an AoE in a single epoch … Moreover, the Napoleonic era only lasted 26 years… an AoE to be interesting must span decades or even centuries of history…

Well dead, what is said dead is no longer because it will be ported to AoE 2 …

No, length doesn’t matter. In the most popular AoE, Age of Kings, is not really substantial. What’s the difference and meaning of castle->imperial ages? Besides gating and distribution of a few techs, and some visual changes? ‘Age’ in ‘Age of Empires’ was always an important thing, but for the identity of the IP, not really gameplay in a way that would dictate game design possibilities.

Attractiveness and potential are everything.
You can make numerous campaigns based on that period, with a potential for s-tonne of battle scenarios.
A lot of well-defined and varied states and/or nations, very dynamic landscapes and situations on most of the fronts.
The length of the period means nothing on its own. Doesn’t come into gameplay in a direct way- we can say ancient ages took thousands of years, but in practice what does it mean?
You have changing nametags from Stone to Bronze Age and weapons from clubs to swords?
Furthermore, in a complex game overextension and focusing on too much is a big potential burden. There are only so many mechanics and technological advancements you can match together before gameplay falls apart.

Empire Earth I is awesome, but on most levels very shallow when it comes to taking advantage of the passing ages. Epecially earlier ones. Just a set dressing. That can backfire and make game look goofy and gimmicky.
You can still take 200 years of warfare and divide them even to 10 ‘ages’.

Vast, VAST portion of strategies (from RT through turn-based to 4X-ish) is focused on WW2. 6 years in human history.
It started with the German army that heavily relied on horses and ‘tanks’ with armor as thick as the shell of your hard drive. It ended with nuclear bombs, jet engines etc.

1700s and 1800s are absolutely crazy when it comes to social, cultural, military, political etc. changes, not only in Europe- ‘Napoleonic’ doesn’t imply restiction just to the mainland Europe, it’s a leading theme and core of the design.
Just like the discovery of the New World and coloni[REDACTED] in AoE3.

2 Likes

I didn’t start the subtopic so refer to whoever started it I just answered things that aren’t really true.

It’s not me who turns off the illusions but the same graphs and statistics that exist if mathematics is not a fact then we are in reality and not in an imaginary world or a dream.

It’s not courteous but it’s pure reality, it also doesn’t seem rude because I didn’t include any personal offense in this regard I simply said the reality whether you accept it or not it’s not of my interest

Good point… although in part what you ask for is already in the mod of “The Napoleonic Era”…

“Full history games” always end up being generic and uniform, not in a bad way, because there is a need for unit progression (real ones. Not light spearman to heavy spearman to golden saint spearman) and synchronization of civs (you cannot have Aztecs jumping from jaguar warrior to machine guns).
I guess civ games and Rise of Nations have proved maybe 6~8 ages is the optimal splitting of ages for the sake of both breadth and depth. Empire Earth has too many. But those games still have really generic and uniform designs.
The civ design in AOE games on the contrary are centered on much narrower settings than they proclaim.

There are some weird and conflicting design decisions from the very beginning of AOE3. That’s what always confuses me.
For example, on one hand you have designs like native settlements, diverse fauna, really well curated map aesthetics, that are great for casual gameplay and could open up huge potentials in map designs. On the other hand you have the most symmetric, competitive and compact maps in the entire series.
AOE2 could generate really asymmetric maps and funny spawning. It also had “real world maps” with literally no balancing on mind. Some of the best sp experiences I had with AOE2 are exploring the map with the scout and suddenly running into an enemy spawned next to you. The core design of AOE3 could enable FAR better representations — imagine, huge real world maps with relevant fauna, landscape, and native settlements, played with much better represented civs. These would be so enjoyable to those who like reenacting history in single player games. It would be much better than the original AOE2 with the same few types of trees and animals and the same European-skinned civs with only one or two unit differences.
But no they made all maps round and symmetric. You locate your enemy even before the match. You don’t even need the spyglass. All the “fun” part were bundled into an “unknown” map which one may barely notice (and still pretty poor in diversity).
And there were not many map size options either. “Large” is only added to all maps in a DE update, and that’s still fewer options than other AOEs. I know auto-adjusting for player numbers is a convenience for pvp, but there can always be a “recommended setting” instead of releasing only the pvp-optimized setting.
Then campaigns. People have talked so much about the campaigns. Not saying they are bad but they don’t fit so well to the series. Would be great if they function as the tutorial. But that’s all the sp contents we’ve got. The deck progression could be better utilized for far more creative, grand and diverse campaigns than its predecessors, and no we got the most linear campaigns with the narrowest scope and fewest contents (which only got superseded by AOE4 campaigns recently).

There were traces of making the most diverse and entertaining casual RTS ever, plus a very esport-focused perspective. Ended up being not so successful on both.

Recently they are experimenting with the unknown map a lot and that is a great idea. I think it could make its own mode instead of bundling so many contents into one map option. Make some of the fun stuff togglable instead of hiding most of them to most players behind random numbers.

There is only one real substantial “graphs and statistics” presented by yours truly on this topic, and you immediately denied it.

1 Like

I’d be shocked if we get a successor to 3DE. The time period just doesn’t appeal to as many people as the periods it is sandwiched between. AoE3 has its flaws of course but I’m dubious those flaws would be corrected with another game set in the time period. I also just don’t have much faith in World’s Edge.

AoE3 is too quirky to appeal to a majority of RTS players, essentially it is a niche game in a niche genre. The HC for example is a wonderful mechanic but also really divisive. An updated AoE3 is going to need to be highly innovative in all the good ways for it to be successful. World’s Edge knows what an AoE game needs to do well so I don’t expect to see many diversions from that formula…which is basically AoE2 with a various assortment of new bells and whistles.

Perhaps it all hinges on how well AoMRE is received because if it does well I could see WE being a bit more courageous.

Honestly, I’d rather just stick with at least a few more years of support for 3DE before laying it to rest. The game still has a ton of potential with FE at the helm and the only thing getting in the way of that is budget constraints. The 3DE team took a car with 1/4 of a tank of gas and have driven as far as they could. A true labor of love. And that is something that isn’t easy to reciprocate. I’ve become so jaded with games these days and disillusioned with the gaming industry as a whole that I’d rather just stick with what works while keeping my expectations low for games that may catch my eye.

1 Like

Compared to the general ‘antiquity’ or ‘medieval’ of course it doesn’t carry as much appeal, but if there was a poll aimed at strategy players on PC I would say it would score well in attractiveness (making an ‘approachable’/multiplat game instead of a focused one is another topic). And it’s a shame because there are fantastic centuries. And there’s not a lot besides them.
AoE3 already includes them by default, especially now with formed US or Italy, but is stretched too thin (scope from crossbowmen and pikemen to ironclads and industrial revolution) and these elements don’t shine.

Personally, I’d pay good money just for a Victorian Era AoE, even bigger than for a Napoleonic one (I love Anno 1800), but the thing is- after them, there’s not a lot I want to see in an AoE game. Considering the core gameplay (settlement building, basic resource gathering) World War I doesn’t fit, let alone II. Unless they want to make a competitor to Company of Heroes series with barebones base building and some abstract currencies-resources.

Imagine the possibilities of artillery with a great physics engine, dynamic fire, proper gore, weather impacting galleons traversing the sea… it would be a blast. Moving forward is not an option IMHO, and since we just got AoE II-2 (AoEIV) full remake of I, not made by Relic or at least not on that engine, would be my bet.

1 Like

I continue the discussion privately, I don’t know how to do it, if you want to continue discussing write to me there