- Too many European civs already
We have 22 civs atm, 11 of which are European. The game is becoming too eurocentric, and missing out on very interesting civ concepts from across the world. Hell, Asian archetype hasn’t received any new civs still, and options are aplenty. Siam, Korea, Persia, Oman, Burma, splitting India like 2DE did etc. - European designs are becoming hard to make unique
Italy ended up amazing, however with Malta it’s clear that the devs are having it very hard with making the Euro archetypes feel unique without slapping a bunch of gimmicks together and/or causing a balance mishap. By using other archetypes it’s easier to make civs that feel unique and fresh. - What would make Poland stand out?
Winged Hussars? They were never that exceptional beyond being very fast cavalry that wore ornate uniforms. The Ottoman forces at the siege of Vienna were already worn out and ready to retreat, were it not for the defenders at Vienna being in an even worse state. From there, the Winged Hussars were mythologized and now we have too many people, often inspired by Sabaton, making them sound so much more impressive than they actually were. And that’s basically what it comes down to for most people who demand Poland. AND THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED, and little more.
10 Likes
I agree with this point. But that’s easy to fix. Let’s just add those civs before the Poles
That’s a fair point too. But I think with due time and after trying new mechanics with other new civs, it may be solved.
I don’t really agree with this one. First, the winged hussars would just be one of their units. I think they could also have others like the Pancerni and the Lipka Tatars, It wouldn’t just be the Winged Hussars. I also think the Cossacks should be a major part of their unit selection (maybe as outlaws or mercs). This civs would also be much more focused on cavalry that other European civs.
They were one of the major European powers and I would have included them before Maltese and even Italians.
1 Like
I don’t get the whole “too many” Euro civs as it happens in every AoE game, the game originally started with 8 European civs from 2005 and people still bought it before TWC and TAD came out, the game was more America-centric with only having focus on the Americas until TAD happened.
Now, I’m not against non-European civs like Persia, Siam and Burma but to set a ratio on Euro and non-Euro is just silly.
-
You’re contradicting yourself here: Italy isn’t that unique and it’s a European civ, so what’s the problem with other better contenders like Denmark or Poland? Because they’re too much like Swedes and Russians while Italians are like Spanish and Portuguese?
Nonsense. Almost any uncreative concept for them was thrown on making them a boring archaic civ with mounted crossbowmen and nothing unique while Malta is a fanservice civ for the Act 1 campaign fans, it’s called Knights of the Meditterenean and not Knights of Europe for a reason. Oh, and most of the Moroccan requests come from being an “unfinished civ from the historical battles” so using that logic justifies Canadians (which ofc won’t make any sense) -
I can half agree on this that people over-obsess over Poland for having winged hussars while ignoring any other options with their pop culture history-narrowed vision. I’d personally rather have Danes before Poles since they keep getting overshadowed with nonsense all the time.
15 Likes
The same, there would be only two European civs to put (three if we count the Swiss)…it would be a Baltic dlc with Poland and Denmark; as you know Denmark had and has colonies in America (Greenland and the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean) and several enclaves in India…Poland (believe it or not) had colonies also in America (the island of Tobago) and a fort on the Gambia River in Africa…then both countries fought against Sweden and Russia (civs that are already in the game)…and you also have the historical map of the Polish Deluge…
i know this is going to be shocking to a lot of people, but this is the period where europe took over, there simply are way more competitive european civs than anywhere else in the world.
also no one asked for malta, yet here we are.
also i gotta be honest, i dont see what people see in oman, beyond regional representation.
in fact i generally hate the argument “regional representation”, im sorry but if you cant come up with something better the suggestion is garbage.
also despite how many say siam etc. i have actually never seen someone bother even making a basic outline of what they would do, not saying im super against Siam (i am not, its somwhere around my nr 5 pick) but maybe people aren’t actually that serious about what the want, cause i see nothing other than name dropping.
probably because they were an afterthought.
a cav civ to a game with almost no cav civs.
nonsense, you should go read up on the winged hussars, their history is far beyond the siege of vienna, and they regularly impressed.
the winged hussars are simply the posterboy for the faction.
when it comes down to it Poland is a large multiethnic state that allows a faction design we rarely see in AOE3, it had nearly 2% of the worlds population at some points during the games time period, its main weakness was internal not militarily, and they played a key part in breaking the ottomans, also beyond vienna, they nearly destroyed Russia, and they influenced politics in Europe.
14 Likes
Just a quick reminder: The initial scope of the game back in 2005 was the colonization of the New World by european powers (7 out of 8 civ were european). Ottoman were just added for the campaign.
We have now : 10 Europe, 2 colonial successor state, 4 native american, 3 asian, 2 african (less than 1 out of 2 is european).
12 Likes
By this logic you could rule out 90% of the unique units and unique unit buffs.
Redcoat - British land army were never that exceptional. Waterloo was won because Napoleon made several mistakes and the Prussian army arrived in time.
Longbow - their most famous victory was due to disorganization of the enemies and favored terrain, helped by a lot of heavy infantry.
Bersagliere - yes they were iconic but what are some of their famous victories in this period?
Janissary - the entire AOE3 timeframe is the gradual sometimes rapid corrpution of them.
Samurai - I don’t remember if this is the 1083792nd time someone told me samurai was more of a modern entertainment trope.
Elephants - you hear far more stories of elephants getting defeated than them actually being useful.
The entire Aztecs and Incas - they were destroyed by the Spanish with a small expedition. Maybe the entire civs should not exist.
BTW winged hussars were heavy cavalry.
8 Likes
also i gotta be honest, i dont see what people see in oman, beyond regional representation.
Regional representation?!
Bro the Omani were everywhere in Africa, they controlled the Swahili Coast in the East. They were fighting the Belgians in the Congo, they were helping the british against the Mahdists in Sudan. Oman’s presence in the colonization of Africa was equal if not larger than all the Europeans who went there, and they had been involved from way in the beginning.
12 Likes
When comparing Africa DLC and Mediterranean DLC, AoE players favor eurocentric more than non-eurocentric…
For me, one who lives in the Far East, I would love to see Korea, Siam, and Persia civs for launch. But that does not mean rejecting Poland from the DLC list.
5 Likes
are you talking about the belgo-arab war in 1892-94?
i feel its a bit long to call that an oman war.
3 Likes
No, I mean Tippu Tip establishing a base in the Congo Basin in the 1870s and having low intensity conflicts with the Belgian Congo all the way until the 1890s when it became open warfare.
PLEASE do better than just go off knee-jerk reactions of the first result you find in google. Even the wikipedia article mentions that in the precedents.
6 Likes
pleas actually mention what you mean rather than pulling off fun little anecdotes in the future.
2 Likes
That is not an argument in my opinion.
You can say you like one more then the other but you can’t expect only to get what you want.
Also you could argue that there aren’t enough Eastern European civilisations. Only 1.
Even Eastern+Central Europe only got 2.
I think there is a lot of unused potential.
Why shouldn’t Europeans be allowed to have cool unique features.
The US and Mexico show how a mostly European type civilisation can be very unique.
Poland Lithuania was a pretty unique state in Europe and it ruled over many very different people. They went from the Black Sea to the Baltic.
They were a elective monarchy with a unique religious tolerance for their time.
Like in AoE2 the Fulwark could be their unique economic building, just that it severs a different purpose in AoE3.
11 Likes
Why we need Poland: because Poland is awesome.
8 Likes
Yeah people here like to ignore the fact that this is a buisness and no matter your personal feelings on “who deserves” to be next, KotM outsold mexico, usa, and AR. AR already 2x. Europeans and south americans make a very substantial part of the player base, so id suspect more civs from europe or latin america. Not saying their wont be others, but from a buisness standpoint the market is best out there for another kotm style release
3 Likes
I can think of at least one person
3 Likes
I always find it weird how the people in the forum always argue about what’s “profitable” and “marketable” and “demographics”. It’s like the entire fanbase of this game is composed of middle-managers who get excited at quarterly reviews.
At any rate, if you ask me, business-wise the smartest move would be to make Vietnam.
- The fanbase is extremely loyal (Age of Empires 1 is almost exclusively maintained thanks to the vietnamese competitive scene).
- It’s a large country with a lot of population (80+ million, sure, not a high income country, but numbers alone make up for that.)
- It’s a place everybody has heard of. Vietnam is both a very famous country that still exists to this day and that it was reasonably powerful and relevant during the period of the game.
5 Likes
I don’t know if you want to make yourself sound sarcastic or not. Because I see no problem of adding Vietnam.
4 Likes
Literally kotm sold 2x of AR but a forum which doesn’t make a represenarive sample of player wants (compare the rampart reports of “soldado nerf means spain dead” vs avg players views) stating we need more asian civs when the only objective data we have, sales ,suggests that the best sellers were European then usa which also largerly maps onto known demographics meaning instead of gambling Vietnam which loves aoe1 mainly due to reasons not correlated to aoe3 at all (because aoe1 was given away so often and still runs on most machines there, they still dont even play aoe1 de that much) as a “hotter market” than another european civ doesnt make sense to me.
Im just mostly pointing out that forums are.often echo chambers detached from reality, and that the truth is no matter how much a few individuals here agree on their own views, from a monetary standpoint there is no reason not to focus on a similar dlc civ area that was already popular, or maybe on an existing demograhic (korea and latin america often popular for a reason. Dlc are time and money to make and as a business there is notbing wrong with making some safer bets
The funny thing about that thread is the 2nd post is me saying I’d rather have Italy.
1 Like