To be fair, the last couple big updates have actually gone a long way towards addressing this. All the new Ottoman units, French Revolution, giving access to new natives, mercs, and outlaws, etc have really brought them up to speed.
5 Likes
No I was talking about what happened just recently. People were complaining “European civs are made too complicated and unique” when they have not really reached TAD’s level.
I kind of get what you mean. You think adding even more European civs is not interesting, not “Europe in the game is boring so do not add European civs”. Well then that’s a personal priority thing so agree to disagree.
Yes and I think they are nice.
I’d still expect most civs to be more “uniform” in the contents and quality.
British, Portuguese and Russians still feel a little lackluster to me.
2 Likes
In my opinion, the incorporation of a university into European civilizations would be the cherry on the cake. There could be a lot of cool stuff in there, as I showed on this forum: University and fourth European resource (Probabilities and possibilities)
It could make any European civilization a little more unique and also tell a little more about its history. It will be the equivalent of the US and Mexican federal cards.
4 Likes
There aren’t many but there’s at least one example of each. It requires a ton of knowledge and research to come up with a good civ suggestion. Generally, European history is much more widely known and accessible so it’s simply easier to come up with a suggestion for that. If the average person were as knowledgeable about Siam or Kazakhstan as they were about Poland, there would be just as many suggestions for them.
Even one with both Poles and Tatars (with Tatars being heavily based on Kazakhstan).
Ironically if European civilizations had the same Age Up system as Africans/Americans they would be much more unique civilizations.
For example, Spain could age up with viceroyalties and England with colonies, thus getting new units and unique buildings to replace the old ones.
Note: I leave it to the imagination of the Europeans what would happen to the Germans in this case. XD
But this idea can wait. developers finish completing the other continents. 
1 Like
the central asian one isn’t really a design, its just “it exist”. the Siam one also leaves a lot to be desired, just my personal pet peeve, i really like reading well made faction suggestions but most of the time they seem more interested in name dropping than designing a faction.
1 Like
i still think launch sweden is one the best designed factions, a clear design with a lot of unique takes on cards and eco.
as you mention the forced unique units for mexico and USA are really boring. like did we really need sharpshooters and regulars for the USA? and why does mexico get the strongest musketeer in the game? it makes no sense.
1 Like
I wish there was a dislike or downvote button for this topic 
9 Likes
Let’s see, I respect the opinions of everyone here, but god, I have to ask you to moderate your comments a bit. Please read the code of conduct.
If you continue in this line, I close the post and that’s it.
1 Like
This would make them a lot more interesting though there would be uproar from all the old players were this to happen. Even now euro civs remain the most popular by far despite being quite basic. The only exception is sweden which is very popular despite being new but it is also a euro civ with similar age ups and mechanics other than torps. The africans are incredibly unique civs, the inca too yet they remain some of the civs with the lowest pick rate of all.
2 Likes
People are acting like they’ve been anointed by the AoE gods to be some great arbitrator of what civs deserve and don’t deserve to be in the game. Stop taking things so seriously and just enjoy the game. Games are meant to be fun. Stop the gatekeeping.
AoE3 campaigns are fictional yet some folk act like this is a historical simulator.
Devs have done a great job so far adding new content via updates and DLC given the limited budget.
The very nature of this thread was intended to cause a stir and it succeeded.
2 Likes
Yeah, I thought the one who made this is just some silly guy who wants some attention so I thought the thread would die out, but here we are…
This is the problem with trying to force in civs that only existed for a fraction of the game’s timeframe. USA and Mexico just didn’t exist in the age of pikes and crossbows so it becomes necessary to replace that with made up modern units and ruin the progression of the game.
3 Likes
As a Pole, I will say that in my opinion Poland should definitely not be included in the group of the most powerful and most needed civs in this game. While the time frame of AoE 2 presents Poles in the times from the emergence of Polish statehood through the period of the Piast kingdoms (before and after the division of Poland into districts) to the Polish-Lithuanian Union under the rule of the Jagiellons, during whose reign the last two kings of this dynasty (Sigismund the Old and Zygmunt August) reigned the golden age of Poland and at the same time the end of the Jagiellonian dynasty. Sigismund August died on July 7, 1571 - The historical Battle of Lepanto with AoE 2 took place on October 7 of the same year. Until the end of the 16th century, three elective rulers ruled. The most recent Historical Battle in AoE 2 is Noryang Point, which took place on December 16, 1598.
So AoE 2 really represents the best times in Polish history. The presence of civ Poles in AoE 2 is nothing shocking, but it is fully justified.
In AoE 3, the matter is more difficult due to the fact that already in the 18th century Poland had no geopolitical significance, as it was under the strong influence of Russia. At the end of this century there were three partitions that marked the end of the Polish state… but it is not so obvious. Talking about 123 years of partitions and lack of independence is loved by Poles (national oddity xD), but a few such raisins are omitted:
- Duchy of Warsaw (1807-1815) - French influence
- Kingdom of Poland (congress) [ Personal union (1815 – 1831), Real union with the Russian Empire (1831 – 1915) ]
So it would be possible to find some reference to the Imperial Age for potential Poles civ.
But keep in mind that in the time frame of AoE 3 it was the history of Poland that was quite interesting - a bit of a drama series xDDD. The heirless Zygmunt August, knowing what threatens the Polish-Lithuanian union, concluded a union on July 1, 1569 in Lublin, which finally united the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania into one state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, with a common king, parliament, money and foreign policy. Laws, army, treasury and offices remained separate. Podlasie, Wołyń, Kiev region found themselves in Poland. After the death of the last Jagiellonian ruler, Zygmunt August, bad times came for Poland - ##̶#̶#̶#̶#̶#̶#̶#̶ ̶f̶r̶e̶e̶ Free Election.
One could write for a long time about the free election, but the only elective rulers worth mentioning in Poland were the Vasas, who were the only outstanding rulers of the PLC - but they waged devastating wars. Ultimately, the Polish state had to fall apart for both external and internal reasons.
The victory of the winged hussars under the command of Jan Sobieski, although it brought fame and glory, contrary to appearances, did not bring anything beneficial for Poland. In fact, it was the last bark of a dog in agony. Anyway, Jan Sobieski was a dull and average ruler - he became one only because of the prestige after this battle. In addition, Poles showed off their victory and gained the most from it … the Vatican. Because the Poles organized a victory parade there and gave the loot to the Pope - the Poles have not changed since those times xDDD.
In contemporary Poland, the last king, Stanisław August Poniatowski, who was a great reformer and patron of the arts, is demonized. And so the PLC had to die, but he let it die in a coffin (which is cultural childhood). His obvious affair with Tsarina Catherine II is probably the cause of additional hatred for him by contemporary Poles.
BTW. Poles look at their history very emotionally and not objectively - that’s why they can’t learn from their mistakes, contrary to the Polish saying ###### mądry po szkodzie" (Pole wise after the damage). Plus glorifying bad characters and hating people in bad times… but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Summarizing
Poland should not be on the list of most essential civs. Even among European civs Austria, Denmark and Prussia were undoubtedly more historically significant and interesting. But this does not mean that Poles should be omitted from this game, because they really have a lot to offer.
So, civ Poles should be in this game, but they shouldn’t be the priority. Prussians, Danes, Persians, Moroccans, Siamese, Congolese, etc - these are more of a primorette civs. But this does not mean that there is no place for civ Poles.
I think adding Polish civs in tandem with other East European/Central Asian civs would be a good solution - appropriate from many geopolitical-historical-cultural factors. Poles civ, Ukrainians civ and Tatars civ along with a big update for Russians (I once wrote my suggestion of these changes) - that would be something concrete.
3 Likes
The devs have said Austria and Prussia are part of the German civs, whether we like it or not. Denmark wasn’t really much more important than Poland during these centuries. Anyway, both Poles and Denes definitely should have been civs before Italians and Maltese.
I think a DLC with Poles and Danes would be the best way to do it.
I am not really convinced about Ukranians and Tatars as civs, both of them were overshadowed by pretty much any country of that region, even by Poland. I’d rather have Central Asian civs like Uzbeks, Afghans and Kazakhs. Ukranians and Tatars would work better as a revolution and a native settlement, respectively.
1 Like
Why this post is hidden? what is wrong about it? Do we have political correct censorship in the forum or what?
I agree with almost everything except this:
Denmark-Norway had quite the navy during the era of AoE3 and were a menace to Swedes so they were pretty important + having colonies around the world so there’s no reason to rule them out.
1 Like
Don’t get me wrong. I am not downplaying their role. It’s just that I don’t see them much more important than the Poles, just on a similar level I’d say. I would like see them too. Poland and Denmark should probably be part of the same DLC anyway.
1 Like
Crazy world we live in.
You recall a known historical fact - you are called racist.
You say that women and men are different because of obvious biological differences - you are called sexist etc.
People get offended by everything. You don’t like some fact? Just say it is racism. Or sexism. Or homophobia.
1 Like