I mean I am surprised of (supposed) US inclusion but it does not ruin the rules of game any more than every other expansion already has perceived to do.
After thinking about it. I welcome our new US overlords. May they start out strong and get nerfed into oblivion.
The inclusion of major native factions didnt ruin the minor native settlements, so why would including a major revolution faction ruin revolutions?
Because the native civs existed in america when the europeans arrived, the united states started existing in 1776, they canāt exist in the exploration age, when the europeans are just arriving, because it predates the very event that constitute the sole reason for their existence.
Lakota and Hauds should not be allowed to train cavalry before any European civ builds a stable.
Aztecs, Incas, Chinese, Japanese and Indians should start with walled cities and huge armies on their home lands.
Not the same situation as those involve balance of the game, not adding a civ that already exist in the game in itās proper mechanic when there are others that fit better, as they are not a result of a revolt of european descents against their former european power.
If that is all about balancing, not because the devs think these units are interesting and iconic, they can re-skin them to something like coyote runners before they have access to horses.
No, they still add units that appear after contacts with Europeans at the start of the game when Europeans just arrived, and some of them are even super-advanced (repeating rifles).
There have been infinite instances in this series where they add civs or units that are even more out of place. Some are anachronistic and some are even overlapping, and the devs didnāt even bother saying āoh because they are coolā.
That is the only part I agree.
However, who is that almighty that draws the line here? Throughout the argument with different people there seem to be an invisible hand that dictates what is fine and what is not fine.
E.g.
Non-colonial civs bad. Non-colonial units okay.
Anachronistic civs bad. Anachronistic units okay.
And when I try to shift that line a little bit, e.g. to American/non-American (the continent) people get irritated.
So who is the one that decides that?
The devs canāt please everyoneā¦ Adding a civ different than what you want isnāt discrimination. So far there are no African civs either or civs from Oceania. In the end weāre getting new content, isnāt that the most important part?
Forgotten Empires is not developing AoE3 DE, or any of itā DLCs. This is Tantalusā work.
Aztecs werent really a people but in AoE III they represent the Mexica, the Mexica didnt go extinct or anything lol.
Its a people group not a nation, that has always been the case. It are the Spanish, not Spain, it is the Dutch not the Netherlands.
A lot of mexican people still have ancestory of natives and when the Spanish arived the culture and resistence didnt end that day.
And it is well known that they still hold Tenochititlan and continued to use stone weapons into the industrial age.
If this game is to become a game about the times from the 15th century to the end of the 19th century, then I would prefer Queen Victoria over Elizabeth I and Peter the Great over Ivan the Terrible. There should also be more new generic units for all civs. The Imperial Age should completely change the appearance of buildings, e.g. add decorative lamps.
For example, at the last age, Pikinier, Crossbowman and Halberdier will be updated to Skirmishers, and will not be able to be trained.
No tiene mucho sentido, Si este juego se creo en el contexto historico del imperialismo con la conquista de America, EEUU tampoco no tiene mucho sentido que digamos.
Ademas la independencia se considera en casi en toda america cuando se firmo el acta de la independencia, osea 1822 en el caso de Brasil, este juego se basa mas o menos del aƱo 1600-1870, Porque tendria que haber una civilizacion BrasileƱa? Se saldria del margen,
You are really not that bright are you. All your comments make no sense and are always tinted with ā ā ā ā ā ā remarks. It never holds any value in the discussion going on.
Its a game and is therefor limited to mechanics, also the Aztecs didnt just use European weapons all of the sudden.
Imaging someone talking censored calling others saying āā ā ā ā ā ā remarksā.
All other European civs did not just use rifles all of a sudden, so skirmishers should be removed from the game.
Jezus christ man can you just answer something of value.
Imagine someone getting irritated because his very same logic is applied to another legitimately existing content.
Havenāt you learnt about US pikemen defending their fortresses against British knights? 
Your analogies or whatever you are calling it isnt the same logic I am using.
Aztecs should remain the same technology level all the way round, even though it is representing āthe whole Mexica peopleā.
Similarly, Europeans should only have the same technology at the start of the game, which certainly does not include rifles.
Age 2 Skirmishers are teh funniest stuff.
Rifles in the 1600sā¦