You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.63 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » What this Expack *should* have been
Bottom
Topic Subject:What this Expack *should* have been
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 00:12 AM EDT (US)         
Now, some of you would tell me to "shut up and take it" but what I am doing here is being a little more in-depth with how this expack could have been a great great game.

What the expack should have done was expand upon the colonization aspect of the game. To do this, advance the time period of the game an additional 25 years up to around the year 1875 (give or take). What the expansion would have covered was the colonization of Africa, India, and Asia by the Western powers.

"Wow!" you say, "Way too much territory to cover in one expack!" But not really if you take it in a broad context of global colonization. Although these were seperate areas, having their own significant events, they were all tied together under the banner of European expansion and colonialism.

The campaign would take a group of intrepid explorers across the continent of Africa, founding settlements and making contact with the native tribes and kingdoms. You are then taken about an East India Company ship to India where you have many adventures. Lastly, the player goes to Asia, where European powers are struggling with the United States to open up the vast East Asian realm to commercial exploitation.

The number of Random Map opportunities astounds, as does the variety of possible "native" civs the player could align themselves with. Not only that, but with such a globetrotting colonial theme the possibility would exist to bring in any number of new playable civs that would not have normally been probable with an "American Continent"-only expack.

List of new Playable Civs:
Belgium
Italy
Sweden
The United States (yes, this is now possible)

(Incomplete) List of new "Native" Civs:
Maasai
Tutsi
Mali
Zulu
Pushtan
Hindus
Chinese
Japanese
Koreans
etc.

New custom scenario opportunites would explode, as well as the possibility of very cool new units available only in the last age, like gatlin guns and ironclads. Not to mention new native units like Samurai, Zulu warriors, elephants, ninja, etc.

In closing, it is inconceivable to me with such a huge success on their hands that is Age of Empires III, that ES wouldn't have put it's best foot forward on expanding their top selling game in a manner similar to(not necessarily exactly like) what I have outlined. It is my hope they will reconsider their "1 expack only" policy and expand upon and supporting with greater gusto their award winning (and extremely profitable) game and its stellar theme.

AuthorReplies:
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 00:15 AM EDT (US)     1 / 63       
Meh, no thanks. I'm excited about seeing playable natives now, so you can't convince me.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

[This message has been edited by Cy Marlayne (edited 03-16-2006 @ 00:15 AM).]

Novoa20
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 00:23 AM EDT (US)     2 / 63       
Aaaah...My eyes my eyes...dare I see the US as a civ. in my dream second X-pack...dare I see Belgium as a civ. in my dream second X-pack.

Gee, thanks Mythos, now I'll have nightmares.


I suggest you remake your "playable civs." to:

Italy
Sweden
Japan(Variety purposes)
China(Same as above)
Austria-Hungary.

Belgium as a last resort. If there is still space left, I think even the US could do better as a civ. than Belgium.

For your list of New Native Civs. I suggest you go back to the Future ES games forums and get some info. from my X-pack idea in Sky's thread and look at Yamato Takes' natives too(Which I think is probably the best option).


As a final statement, I also think this X-pack could have done much better, but I hope that if ES decides to make 2 X-packs this be the second.

P.S. I'd be extremely content with ES if they did do this second X-pack. AoE3 would become into my official favorite game.

[This message has been edited by Novoa20 (edited 03-16-2006 @ 00:24 AM).]

Mythos_Ruler
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 00:30 AM EDT (US)     3 / 63       
I mention Belgium as a playable civ because they had a huge colonial impact on Africa. See? That's why more playable civs would be available, because the colonization area of the game has been expanded.

As far as Chinese and Japanese, I'd reserve them as "Native" civs because they were the ones being colonized, not doing the colonization (in the instance of Japan, they resisted colonization successfully). That's one of the reasons the current expack disappoints me; it's the way colonized peoples suddenly are playable civs now. That's not how the expack I have outlined above works. It sticks with the theme of the original concept of the game: that being colonial powers competing against each other vying for control of "new worlds and new civilizations."

Novoa20
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 00:34 AM EDT (US)     4 / 63       
Belgium only colonized Africa, and their armies were nothing compared to the rest of Europe and even China and Japan.

The US was never a colonial power.


Basically, if this becomes a secon X-pack, I think China and Japan deserve to be civs. considering that the Incas and Iroquois are going to be fighting in Asia and Africa(Which would be very fun).

[This message has been edited by Novoa20 (edited 03-16-2006 @ 00:35 AM).]

Lawfire
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 00:46 AM EDT (US)     5 / 63       
Sandy pretty much squashed the idea of a second X-Pack, with needing 4 servers for ESO. However, if they did make one it would almost HAVE to take place in the New World. If not, can you imagine the Iroquois (and other natives) invading/colonizing Africa or Asia...

Interesting ideas though.


Step inside this nightmare where I live, The madman roams inside my head.---Black Label Society
barley_n_oats
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 01:20 AM EDT (US)     6 / 63       
I no longer think Sweden/Italy even should be in the xpac as playable civs. If anything, playable African nation or Asiatic empires offer more variety in a playable civ.

Quote:

Belgium only colonized Africa, and their armies were nothing compared to the rest of Europe and even China and Japan.
The US was never a colonial power.


Basically, if this becomes a secon X-pack, I think China and Japan deserve to be civs. considering that the Incas and Iroquois are going to be fighting in Asia and Africa(Which would be very fun).

I would also like to see China and Japan as civs. US would be totally plausible as well. The Rise of US, Russia, and Japan is well evident, reaching great power status.

Anyone who says US was not a colonial power should take another look. US had claims in the Phillipines, Florida, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska...

I also agree that Belgium is not a good choice. Read up a bit on the history of Congo or Zaire; it is not a happy story. Because of the Belgian meddling in that area (or any European colony in Africa), the direct effect is evident the turmoil we read in the news on Africa. Why do you think African nations are so fractured? Tiny portions cut up on the map.


ESO: oats
ESO2: dirtyoatmeal
Natus
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 02:34 AM EDT (US)     7 / 63       

Quote:

Meh, no thanks. I'm excited about seeing playable natives now, so you can't convince me.

Then stop reading. We don't want to stretch your imagination.

Quote:

The US was never a colonial power.

This is just about the funniest thing anyone's said on these forums, considering we just added a new colony...

Bravo, Mythos_Ruler. You and I happen to entirely agree where this x-pac could have gone, and it's a damn shame. Maybe someone with uber modding powers could get something going. It's just amazing how colorful your proposed civs and natives are up against the Indians we know so well.

Dieneces
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 02:37 AM EDT (US)     8 / 63       
Unfortunately Mythos, you didn't really bring up anything that hadn't been mentioned earlier, though I do respect your ideas and opinion. I personally like the idea of colonizing America only - it actually gives somewhat of a chance of there being another game in between this age and the 20th century world wars.

I guess it helps more if you're interested in the Native Americans, but I think we've already seen too many African and Asian units in past games and those of other developers. Nobody's really bothered with the Americans as of yet, with the exception of the Rise of Nations xpack (which didn't do much for me, anyway).

Lawfire
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 02:42 AM EDT (US)     9 / 63       
The US isn't/wasn't a colonizing country in the same ways as the others. The original 13 colonies formed the nation and from there on, the lands were bought (Louisiana Purchase, Alaskan Purchase, US Virgin Islands) and then expanded to the Pacific Ocean. I can't remember the whole Hawaii story, many of the other Pacific Territories came under US control after WWII. In the Spanish American War, Spain handed over Guam and Puerto Rico.

So, my point is virtually all the land held by the US was claimed by someone else first, and therefore never set up a colony.

Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 03:06 AM EDT (US)     10 / 63       

Quote:

Then stop reading. We don't want to stretch your imagination.

Why not? I love to expand my imagination!


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
chaosbeing
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 06:50 AM EDT (US)     11 / 63       
Mythos, lol your xpack idea isn't too great.

1. US - soo the US colonized itslef a few hundred years before it was even though of ??

2. Asia - well the ottomans held asia minor already, and upon sea trade, do that and then the ottoman empire looses all of its power ....

3. Africa - Should i even start here, it wasn't much colonization like the new world, hell how hard is it to take a boat arcoss about 20km then walk through the great rift valley ??

4. Natives make perfect sense, remember these people had to modonize VERY quickly to defend thier homeland, should be interseting and they WERE THIER unlike many of your theoys ( native american's invading africa lol id like to see that )

Lone Rex
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 08:07 AM EDT (US)     12 / 63       
Yes, i would have maybe prefered a lot African and Asian maps, but with the x-pack we discovered that the game is not the colonization of the world, rather fight for control of the Americas.

This is why they added the native civs, to add more variety.

But the Asian maps and Asian nations and natives would rock too.

As for the Euro civs, as Es said, it took a long time in a graphical game As AoeIII to even add a new civ, u had to make a great HC, new cards, meore research...

They would add the nations that would make sense to.

Euro would be Italy, Sweden, but that would take a long time.

Belgium, i would drop Belgium, the US would make sense to be added along with the Native Civs, as they were fighting the Natives at all times.

However 1 or 2 Asian civs wouldnt be bad either (China, Japan, and maybe even the Mughal Empire or Safavid Empire(Persia) would be good as well.

However i do like the idea of the Native American nations being added as major civs, and we will have new maps (California, Pacific Northwest and the Andes), who knows if they will add even more maps like they did with the latest patch in Hispaniola.

[This message has been edited by Lone Rex (edited 03-16-2006 @ 08:14 AM).]

Kor
Busschof Happertesch
(id: Derfel Cadarn)
posted 03-16-06 08:19 AM EDT (US)     13 / 63       

Quote:

I also agree that Belgium is not a good choice. Read up a bit on the history of Congo or Zaire; it is not a happy story. Because of the Belgian meddling in that area (or any European colony in Africa), the direct effect is evident the turmoil we read in the news on Africa


Technically, the African lands were owned by the King of Belgium - they only reverted to the state in 1900, after international complaints of maltreatment of the natives. The Belgian government wanted to put a stop to that so forced Leopold (III, iirc) to give his lands to them.

So technically it was not a Belgian colony but a personal one, during that time period.


Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
Novoa20
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 08:27 AM EDT (US)     14 / 63       

Quoted from Natus:

This is just about the funniest thing anyone's said on these forums, considering we just added a new colony...

Natus, I'm starting to get a bit bothered by your constant flamings. You should learn a bit more history before you keep bashing.

The United States of America was never a colonial power because:

-They never colonized, they conquered, but they never colonized(Liberia in Africa was its' only colony, and their racism led them to get rid of it).

Quoted from Lawfire:

So, my point is virtually all the land held by the US was claimed by someone else first, and therefore never set up a colony.

That's the basic overview of a whole page that I could have written of why the US was not a colonial power.

Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska were already inhabited by people and those conquests happened when the world was pretty advanced and colonization really wasn't possible anymore(There was nothing to colonize in the world, since technology had expanded world communications and trade, and thus nothing was "unknown" or "new" to anybody anymore).

Yamato Take
Prince of Tennis
posted 03-16-06 09:44 AM EDT (US)     15 / 63       
My friend Mythos Ruler... I wholeheartedly agree with you. Except for Chinese and Japanese as playable civs.

Cosmopolitan? Check.
EmperorPatrick
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:13 AM EDT (US)     16 / 63       
I see that someone has said that the Japanese were not an Imperial power. You are gravely mistaken, my friend. Influenced by Western Imperialism, Japan developed its own broad shere of political and economic influence in the Pacific Ocean. As France did in North Africa, as Great Britain did in the Pacific, and as the US did in Latin America, Japan developed a massive colonial empire that straddled the western Pacific. In the Ruso- Japanese war of 1903-1904, Japan proved that it could be a viable world power by crushing a major European nation- the Russians. Later, Japan developed colonies in Manchuria, Korea, and other areas in Asia. Before WWII, these holdings developed into the East Asian Co- Prosperity Sphere. So before one writes off the Japanese as a mere "native" civ, think of their fantastic Imperialist empire.

AOE III/TWC: 1st Lieutenant
TAD: Master Sergeant (~30 Games Played)
EmperorPatrick
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:16 AM EDT (US)     17 / 63       

Quote:

The US was never a colonial power.


Ever heard of the Phillipines? The Panama Canal and Latin America? I guess not.

I am really excited about the native civs in the X-pack. I don't want anything else, and certainly no more major European powers. And while I think that some of the nations mentioned might be interesting choices, I am fully statisfied with and excited about what has been announced. I must again commend ES on a job well done.


AOE III/TWC: 1st Lieutenant
TAD: Master Sergeant (~30 Games Played)
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:29 AM EDT (US)     18 / 63       

Quote:

Ever heard of the Phillipines? The Panama Canal and Latin America? I guess not.

That doesn't necessarily make the United States a "colonial power". Being a colonial power would imply that one is imperial and trying to expand nation boundaries. In most cases, these United States "colonies" were meant to somehow benefit the United States in the long run without exactly needing the land.

Lucky for us, our government hasn't always been one sided, so we have avoided becoming completely imperial.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
EmperorPatrick
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:33 AM EDT (US)     19 / 63       

Quote:

That doesn't necessarily make the United States a "colonial power". Being a colonial power would imply that one is imperial and trying to expand nation boundaries. In most cases, these United States "colonies" were meant to somehow benefit the United States in the long run without exactly needing the land.


What it does mean is that the United States displayed undenaible Imperialist tendanices in the latter half of the 19th century, into the beginning of the 20th century. The United States acted like other Imperial Powers in that it employed the guise of Social Darwinism to mask its true intentions. By claiming to "liberate" "barbaric races and people", like those in the Phillipines, the US acted like Great Britain and France did in Africa.

AOE III/TWC: 1st Lieutenant
TAD: Master Sergeant (~30 Games Played)
Colonel_James
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:43 AM EDT (US)     20 / 63       

Quote:

....with how this expack could have been a great great game.

So... what you mean to say is you are writing the xpack off not only before you ever even play it, but before you even know any significant details about what it will encompass.

Sounds a lot like impertinent bitching to me.

I love this people who get an idea in their head about what something will be like, and then when it's not, act like it's some sort of grave injustice.

fernandoarteaga
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:50 AM EDT (US)     21 / 63       

Quote:

Being a colonial power would imply that one is imperial and trying to expand nation boundaries

Well, i dont compart your definition of Colonial Power. But i do think USA was/is a Imperial Power by your definition, they exactly wanted to expand the nation bounderies. If not, i dont know what was the purpose of the Mexico-American Wars, basically USA invaded Mexico and conquered half of his territory.


The privilege of absurdity; to which no living creature is subject but man only
Cy Marlayne
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 11:56 AM EDT (US)     22 / 63       

Quote:

What it does mean is that the United States displayed undenaible Imperialist tendanices in the latter half of the 19th century, into the beginning of the 20th century. The United States acted like other Imperial Powers in that it employed the guise of Social Darwinism to mask its true intentions. By claiming to "liberate" "barbaric races and people", like those in the Phillipines, the US acted like Great Britain and France did in Africa.

You make a good point, and I agree with you on this. Nicely put.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Welcome to Life, your vacation from nothing.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
polydeuces
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 12:40 PM EDT (US)     23 / 63       

Quote:

Now, some of you would tell me to "shut up and take it" but what I am doing here is being a little more in-depth with how this expack could have been a great great game.

You're writing it off before its even out. Scratch that, you're writing it off before you even know [i]anything about it[i] apart from a rough idea of what type of civs are going to be in it. nice

Quote:

What the expack should have done was expand upon the colonization aspect of the game.

the expansion includes the natives of the country that was colonised as major players, making it look less like a cakewalk for the europeans. I would say thats expanding on the colonial aspect.

Quote:

"Wow!" you say, "Way too much territory to cover in one expack!" But not really if you take it in a broad context of global colonization.

Yes really. To even get close to representing 3 large continents, plus all the special units it would need a new game. not an expansion pack.

Quote:

The number of Random Map opportunities astounds

Yes, it does. The expansion would be nearing the size of the main game.

Quote:

List of new Playable Civs:
Belgium


Not really

Quote:

Italy
Sweden


Could have been. Weren't

Quote:

The United States (yes, this is now possible)


Thats even more daft then including the U.S as the game is now. 25 years stuck on the end doesn't explain how the US would work at the start of the game (i.e. before it existed) or why a fledgling nation would be trying to colonise africa.
They'll almost certainly be in aoe 4. They're not going to be in aoe3. Stop beating a dead horse.


Quote:

(Incomplete) List of new "Native" Civs:
Maasai
Tutsi
Mali
Zulu
Pushtan
Hindus
Chinese
Japanese
Koreans
etc.

Don't be expecting this many natives in an expansion. I'd be surprised if there's more than 4/5.

Quote:

In closing, it is inconceivable to me with such a huge success on their hands that is Age of Empires III, that ES wouldn't have put it's best foot forward on expanding their top selling game in a manner similar to(not necessarily exactly like) what I have outlined.

A lot of people are going to be happy with the expansion as is. For me it covers an area that I'm interested in, but that was covered rather thinly in the basic game. With any luck, it'll change a lot of gameplay elements, but stay true to the vanilla. I won't say best foot forwards, because i haven't played it yet, or even seen more than a smidgen of info.

Ok so you don't like it, and have probably decided against buying it before you really know much about it. That may or may not be your loss. But just because you don't like the idea, doesn't mean its a bad one.

Novoa20
Skirmisher
posted 03-16-06 02:08 PM EDT (US)     24 / 63       

Quoted from EmperorPatrick:

Ever heard of the Phillipines? The Panama Canal and Latin America? I guess not.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Just because the US had strong influences in the Caribean and Central America it doesn't mean they had influence over LATIN AMERICA, which for your information also includes South America.

No matter how many things the government teaches us(Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt, etc.), none of those things ever did establish the US as a major influence or "Imperialistic" over South America. The only people in the continent that let the US act "Imperialistic" over them are the Mexicans and the rest of Central America and the Caribbean.

I really do not understand where you get the US was imperialistic over Latin America...


On the Philipines, the US acted as a protectorate over them. The US conquered that territory from Spain, the US conquerd Cuba from Spain also. It just so happens that Cuba and the Philippines only needed a to be freed from Spain to become the nations they wanted to be.

Do not confuse Conquest with Colonization.


Quoted from EmperorPatrick:

By claiming to "liberate" "barbaric races and people", like those in the Phillipines, the US acted like Great Britain and France did in Africa.

People from the Phillipines and Central America/Caribbean aren't "barbaric races and people."
You clearly don't know the meaning of the word barbaric, what a shame...

The United Kingdom and France conquered and colonized Africa. The United States simply conquered the Phillipinis, and I even doubt it being a conquest at all since that was just a "price" of the war the US won over Spain.


The US would not and could not fit in a game of colonization. The US was indeed imperial(It's a stretch, but oh well), but don't come here telling me the US was a colonizing power and that their imperial power was one of the greatests(For it really wasn't).

The US could and would fit perfectly in a game about revolutions or about World War 1, and somewhere in between, just as long colonization isn't the theme(Very likely AoE4, but not AoE3).

Botolf
Royal Guard
posted 03-16-06 02:11 PM EDT (US)     25 / 63       

Quote:

could have been a great great game.


It's not even out yet, and you're talking like it's a failure already

| Botolf the Crazed |
There's treasure everywhere!
Winner of the Kman Lame Puns Award
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames