Source
r/aoe3•
m00zilla

Why is everyone convinced there will be a US civ?

The US being a main faction would be incredibly lazy, anachronistic, and unpopular. It seems like everyone thinks this is 100% confirmed, but all I've seen is one little update named "United States Civilization". This could just as easily mean that they're expanding and improving upon the revolution mechanic which would be awesome. The new revolutions were one of the few changes that weren't completely botched when DE was released so I don't see them upending that by adding the US as a starting civilization.

Posted Apr 6, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

1640
Gerrent95•

Thats something I thought of and would like. A rework on certain revolutions. ID feel weird and dislike it if they were straight up civs, since I really like the revolt mechanic.

12
Shadowarcher6•

There’s way too many of these posts..

No way it’s just a new revolution considering it’s gonna be sold as dlc. Not only that but they do have most of the assets already done from the campaign so it’d be super easy to add it in (especially because it’s a European civ, I.e. no new mechanics)

8
m00zillaOP•

Where are you getting the info that it will be sold as dlc?

2
Shadowarcher6•

If it was free it wouldn’t show up as a dlc option

They would just patch it in normally

1
AH-64D-Longbow•

Calling america a european civ

yeah this is big brain time

-6
Zagorath•

It's a technical term about the way that they play in the game.

Ottomans aren't from Europe either, but they're still a European civ.

6
populisk•

what makes you think they would be just another technically European Civ?? All we see is "United States Civilisation" and then a bunch of toxic haters assumes the worst and laziest possible implementation they can imagine

1
TaxOwlbear•

Next you are going to tell us that all civs are native civs because everyone is native to some place.

1
AH-64D-Longbow•

Well native is in that case a shortend version of "north american natives" At least thats what i thought

As a genuine question, is euro civ just a term for the "normal ageup" kind of civs, that so far are all euro civs?

2
happymemories2010•

We are not "convinced". It got straight up leaked on steamdb. They changed the codename back to buffalo after 20 minutes or so. But the community was fast enough to see.

8
KingStarscream91Germans•

Did you even read the original post?

3
m00zillaOP•

There are plenty of other civs from the time period that would be a much better fit than the US who are already quasi in the game. All of the following nations would fit very well in this time period:

Ethiopia

Zulu

Morocco

Mali/Songhai

Maori

Siam

Poland

Italy

Haida

Apache

Maya

Splitting the weird amalgam that is Germany or India

7
KingStarscream91Germans•

The Germans ought to stay together and non-Mughal India wasn't really powerful enough to deserve a full civ.

Mayans were long past their prime by the time the Spanish showed up. There is a reason why they aren't included while Aztecs and Incans are.

Zulu are far too late in the timeline and honestly they weren't that big of a deal.

The rest are good choices.

11
m00zillaOP•

Germany just isn't very German with their Czech and Polish unique units, but they kind of work as the HRE so it could be worse.

Non-Mughal India was decently formidable at the start of the game's timeline and there is definitely potential for a cool civ like the Mysoreans who the British copied their rocket technology from.

I agree that the Mayans were past their prime by the time the Spanish showed up but they are still a much better fit for the timeframe than either the Aztec or Inca who are only included because they are more widely known. The Mayans took much, much longer to be conquered compared to the Aztec and Inca and weren't fully conquered until 1901!

Zulu were later in the timeline, but I wouldn't say far too late, especially not compared to the Lakota. Historically they weren't a huge deal but the Zulu (along with the Sioux and Maori) were one of the few tribal armies to face off against a technologically superior colonial force and win, so I think they'd be a good fit for the game.

3
BjorntheHunter•

Errrr.. what do you mean win? I'd definitely say they lost. Sure they resisted more technologically advanced forces, but I wouldn't say they won..

5
Zagorath•

Guessing they mean they won significant battles, even if not the war?

3
m00zillaOP•

Battle of Isandlwana and Little Bighorn were decisive victories. They ultimately lost those wars but still put up a fight and won major battles. If winning wars was a criteria for a civ being added, Aztec and Inca should not be in the game.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Shunto•

As a kiwi, not sure how maori fit into this any better than USA does

11
BjorntheHunter•

Agreed

6
FrameworkisDigimon•

USA is analogous with suggesting New Zealand be a civ option.

Maori are analogous with any of the other colonised peoples.

2
m00zillaOP•

How so? The musket wars sound like something that would fit perfectly into the game. Their contact with Europeans was a little later in the timeline but they were definitely established in New Zealand and distinct from the other Polynesians by the game's start around 1500

1
populisk•

like 90% of the people who hate a US civ then suggest add some remote and bad timeframe random other civ that fits in just as good/bad as the US and doesnt make any appearance in any campaign LOL

-1
AliAbbott2001•

I think you could add Oman to this list, although they were early 18th century when their empire was greatest.

3
m00zillaOP•

I think Oman would be a solid choice too with all their African colonies and Indian ocean trade

2
AliAbbott2001•

Yeah exactly it would have ample opportunity for flavour

1
Zagorath•

Because, ultimately, by far the most likely answer to "why is there a DLC called 'United States Civilization'?" is "because they're going to make a new United States civilisation". You might not like it. I certainly think it's a very odd choice too, and would rather they didn't. But based on the evidence we have, it's what they are most likely going to do.

3
TheJasonSensationSwedes•

Only unpopular for wokeys on reddit

2†
KingStarscream91Germans•

It is also unpopular on the official AOE forum and on the major AOE Youtube channels. Very few want the US in this game, especially those who know even a little bit of history.

1†
AssertiveWallUnited States•

What are you using as the major AOE youtube channels? Aussie Drongo is hyped, and I haven't seen anything from Samurai Revolution but he has an american flag behind him for every video.

5
KingStarscream91Germans•

I meant the people in the comments of those videos. No idea with Drongo is so hyped. Fitzbro is obviously a patriot (nothing wrong with that).

0
AssertiveWallUnited States•

Well drongo explained why he is hyped, he thinks itll be different from all the other civs, or at least take elements from all the other types.

4
populisk•

you and the 3 other guys who are so toxic about it in every single USA reddit thread are also toxic about it on youtube, official AOE forum and discord? Big surprise.

4
TheJasonSensationSwedes•

History isn't an excuse if people are fine with italians.

2
KingStarscream91Germans•

How so? The Genoans and Venetians were very active in the Age of Sail. And while they physically didn't conquer a lot of territory, their respective trade empires had a global impact.

1
IonutRORussians•

It LITERALLY leaked that it would be.

0
KingStarscream91Germans•

Did you even read the original post? He is fully aware of the modb thing.

1
m00zillaOP•

I don't understand these people, there's even some saying that DLC civs are confirmed. I thought I maybe missed something since it's a lot to infer from one little label.

2
KingStarscream91Germans•

For all of our sakes, I hope you're right. Forgotten Empires hasn't given us much reason to have faith in them.

-4†