Lately in seems I am playing against Malta and Mexico the most at my level. Followed by Otts.
Lakota and China were prominent but seemed to have dropped off lately. I think they have been demoralized by the thought of not being able to drink coffee and eat donuts while playing in the new update.
1 - China
2 - Hausa
3 - Spain
4 - Malta
There is mode sometimes when I play these when eco and military just just start sycning and you do everything everywhere
Somehow many Euro civs are not popular at all anymore. French, Dutch, British, all lowâŠ
I love play native french strats and mercs german. I also voted Spain. But I like play with all civs.
How are the US unfitting?
They already appeared in the first campaign and in half of the second campaign you play as the US.
Also the Indian campaign takes part long after the US independence.
So why is the US unfitting?
Mexico is a little later then the US so I can guess why they might be unfitting but the US certainly makes sense in AoE3.
Thatâs what I always statements.
If they hate something, they can always find 1000+ arguments and pretending they never saw the MID-19th Century contents that ALREADY EXISTED IN ORIGENAL GAME.
Origin campaigns, Comanchero, Pistolero, Renegado, train, etc.
Even Gatling Gun and IroncladâŠ
The start of the game is hundreds of years before the US existed. For most of the period they were indistinguishable from the British. Since they basically didnât exist until age 4, they completely skip the progression of bows and pikes in age 2 rifles and artillery in age 3 and 4. Once you do get to the later ages they fit well alongside the other civs, and since TWC the game has had the perfect way of including them; Revolutions. But instead of fleshing out the existing revolution system to make the US and Mexico fit in a natural way, they forced them into being hugely anachronistic full civs.
You say that like TWC didnât basically design the Lakota off a single battle. Thereâs absolutely nothing to indicate any influence from prior to this battle, nor after it. The Battle of Greasy Grass is literally the only place the devs went to for the design of the civ.
How about the contents I just mentioned above EXISTED IN ORIGENAL GAME?
Even Revolution doesnât justify the contents I just mentioned above, so its doesnât make sense that people saw so much MID-19th Century contents EXISTED IN ORIGENAL GAME without seeing US.
Thank you proved my point AGAIN!
Lakota wonât have such progressive weapons without USâs exist.
You canât justify Lakota carrying Rifles without US, because that just doesnât make sense.
The original inclusion was in the campaigns set at a time when the US existed.
Iâm suggesting something that goes way beyond revolutions in their current form. Like becoming USA as early as age 2 or 3 and then continuing to age up with federal states from there. You could get a huge variety of states by having different options based off the starting civ you revolted from. For example, revolting from Sweden could get you access to states like Minnesota and New Jersey while revolting from Britain could give access to states like Massachusetts and Virginia. It could give you just as much, if not more content, but also fix the issue of USA not existing at the gameâs start.
Another guy pretending these
DOESNâT EXISTED in the skirmish.
No one has a problem with these. The problem is the USA didnât exist at all in age 1. As the game progresses, things like trains and outlaws make perfect sense.
The Aztec and Inca empires didnât exist after age 2 or age 3 maybe.
The Aztecs being a terrible choice for a civ is not a good justification to add more terrible civ choices. The Inca at least survived long enough to adopt European technologies so theyâre a decent civ choice, just very poorly executed. Basically the opposite of USA and Mexico which are poor civ choices that were implimented very well.
Yes and?
AoE3 doesnât follow historical logic.
At the point when European armies started to equip their soldiers with muskets that had bayonets no one seriously used halberds on the battlefield anymore. They were just for ceremonial purposes like we use bolt action rifles for that now.
Halberds were replaces by pikes.
But in AoE3 you unlock musketeers with bayonets (how else would they be strong in melee against cavalry?) before halberds.
Both the Aztecs and the Incas didnât exist anymore after 1600. There were later uprisings by their ancestors, yes but they used guns in those. The Aztecs and Inca canât access them (besides that one Inca home city card).
But that was before the Netherland become independent.
And we havenât even talked about the Lakota and India yet.
The Lakota use Henry lever action rifles (Rifle Riders) that were invented during the Civil War (which already had Gatling Guns btw.).
The Indians can train Gurkha in the second Age. They Nepalese soldiers fighting for the British army and they were established in 1815 (long after the US independence) and only become part of the actual Indian army in 1950!
AoE3 was already all over the place. Longbows next to musketeers for the British.
Napoleonic infantry next to medieval Organ Guns for the Portuguese.
Medieval Culverin next to early modern Falconers.
Factories producing Medieval Bombard for the Ottomans.
30 years war Dopplesöldner next to 19th century Uhlans for the Germans and late 19th century Needle Gunners.
Just because you donât recognise all those 19th century things in the game doesnât mean they arenât there.
Iâm personally not completely happy with the US design. I think they have steam powered ships and things like that to early but it doesnât brake the games rules, they were broken long ago.
Ages in AoE never really had a meaning. What are Castle Age Huns?
What are Iron Age Sumerians? What are Industrial Age Aztecs?
Without USâs appear? NO.
You still canât justify
these contents while ignore USâs exist.
Aztec and inca make sense as What if they won vs Spaniards?? but USA or Mex dont as they didnt exist as they were Sp and British
Do you know that terms are spanish words, right??
Dude I didnât say Aztec and inca doesnât make sense.
But apparently the United States and Mexicans arenât for nothing. I also didnât think that the revolutionaries should be complete civilizations before, but this is already a reality. If there are no United States, who are the Lakotas against? If there are no Mexicans, who is at war with the United States? Are you going to answer British and Spanish respectively?