AOE3 Forums

Well, I was somewhat unsure where this post would make a better fit. At first I thought adding it to the Future ES Games forum would be a good idea. Yet, then it came to me that, since part of this has to do with making the Revolution concept more fun and "balanced" (Not going into the extremes it does right now), it could serve as a good proposal for the AoE 3 Balance Forum. This is a serious balance and gameplay suggestion. 

I'm not expecting for anyone to think my ideas are the best or anything of that sort (as some people have a tendency to believe their ideas are), nor do I really expect for anyone from ES to answer this post. I'd just like to point out what I believe would be a good thing in order to balance the Revolution.

You might just agree with some, but all I'd want is for ES to for the least consider some of the suggestions. I'm sure some could be in a patch, with ES's own special changes of course.

First, we should look at what happens when a revolution takes place:

1. Only the European Civilizations are able to revolt.
2. Only one revolution can happen per game.
3. You get 2 options for a revolution.
4. Once complete, revolution changes your HC.
5. You also get a new "Revolutionary deck."
6. You get new units like: Colonial Militia, Gatling Guns, Ironclads, and Fort Wagons.
7. All the settlers become Colonial Milita, and you can't make new settlers.
8. Certain civilizations get unfair bonuses, like the Dutch still have their banks for coin, the Germans can still train settler wagons, those lucky enough to have trading posts or factories still get income. Everyone else gets stuck with spending what they have left. 
9. You can't build anything new other than what the explorer can build, which stick to Trading Posts and Town Centers. OR the fort that is sent through the HC. 

Basically, the player gets thrown into a military extreme that really leaves a large risk that few players are willing to take. Even I barely use the concept since it generally ends up back-firing and the others quickly do away with me as I lose troops and can't find a way to create more due to my lack of resources (which in part comes from my inability to gain them).

Then, there are some people that whine and complain about revolutionaries being "wrong" and not being part of their nation (Like Bolivar, which people want Venezuela and not Peru representing him), or that their nation was not in the game, or that ES is wrong because they hate life and thus they hate ES too.

Sure, we also have to take a look at the positives (ES didn't just make the idea without prior thought and discussion; I'm sure of that). First, ES made a nice "historical" option for all of America. I mean, being a U.S. company, ES could have simply made all the revolutionaries U.S. revolutionaries (IMO, there are plenty to pick, such as Ben Franklin, James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson, John P. Jones, James Madison, etc.); instead, they decided to add several nations of the continent of America that, at that particular moment, were important (the current list of nations). Next, using the Revolution option can sometimes really help to destroy your enemies, especially if you had a great early start and have tons of resources ready to spend on your military for the revolution, and a good amount of XP points left to use for calling out troops like gattling guns and more colonial militia. Finally, the revolutionary HC has nice graphics with the troops coming out as you send for them through cards.

Yet, as in every good game, there's always room for change and/or improvement. The following are, after careful consideration from my part, the things that would improve the Revolution and would make players actually want to "go for it" and not put such a strain on their economy. 

Proposing Balance Improvement (6 Proposals + 1 Interesting Idea):

• Only 50% or 75% of the population turn into Colonial Militia.

I mean, first by historically speaking, not every single person in the revolutions of America turned into soldiers (colonial militia in this case). Realistically, it would be strategically illogical to have all of your people be soldiers. Why should the game (which is supposed to have some base on strategy) have revolutionary civilizations turn all of its units into soldiers? Secondly, gameplay wise, the Revolution should be an option that gives you an extra help in defeating civilizations in the Imperial Age or that have some other of strong hand in something. Yet, the option only gives the player a momentary military strength that eventually becomes a burden as the economy becomes completely destroyed. Seriously, that's not fun at all.

• You can create more settlers from your Town Center (even if 100% of your colonists turned into soldiers), but they would cost more resources. You can still build Colonial Militia, though.

The reasons are pretty much the same. But, okay, let's say all of the prior colonists still turn into soldiers. That would give an economic blow to the new Revolutionary in the map. Yet, by having the ability to build more settlers, the player would have the chance to recover and thus be able to continue the attack. The player would also be able to still build colonial militia. Of course, I know that would suddenly make the Revolutionaries OP, but the rise in the price of settlers would account for some more work needed. Also, the balance suggestion is not over...

• All European civilizations during the game can have a revolution.

Why not? Once again, historically speaking, the Revolutionary civilizations eventually ended up having wars between each other. There's the Mexican-American War, the war of 1812 (Almost a U.S. vs. Canada thing), the War of the Triple Alliance, the wars between Peru and Great Colombia, the war between Brazil and Argentina, etc.

With the gameplay, that would allow other civilizations to also revolt and give a shot at destroying others. I think it would be very fun to have ironclad battle another ironclad, or a gattling gun going at it against another gattling gun. How could this possibly not be fun? OR how could this destroy "gameplay?" It's up for the player to make the decision, and if the decision ends up in a backfire, then for the least he had a fair choice.

• Keep the Homecity the same, don't change it into a new "Revolutionary" screen.

Why should the HC change? Sure, historically Revolutions cause for new governments to be made and blah, blah, blah. Yet, wouldn't it be more simple to simply have the flags of the original Home City change to that of the revolutionary and say that the city is not the same as before? The only thing to change would be the cards...

• Make changes to revolutionary deck (since villagers are now available for Revs.). Half all of the revolutionary deck's bonuses (in amount of units given) and keep the ironclad's maximum to 2.

What else could I say other than it would be a fair change since now the revolutionaries have colonists they can use to gather resources? The only card that wouldn't be affected would be the one for fortress wagons, whose limit should only expand with each wagon sent from the HC. 

• Add a couple of new revolutionaries and "fix" one to make some people happy.

Several players complained about Simon Bolivar and how Venezuela should be the nation that represents him. Of course, I really don't care much about their whines since, historically speaking, Peru was much more important than Venezuela at that time (Which is part of the reason the Spanish made Lima, capital of Peru, their center of operations in South America; also why it took the armies of Bolivar, O'Higgins, and San Martin to liberate Peru; among other reasons).

Nevertheless, if you would want to make some people happy, why not make a couple of new revolutionaries along with changing Bolivar's flag to that of Venezuela? The game already has 8, and adding a couple of more would make 10, and 10 certainly makes a nicer number than 8. Here are those I think would do nice in the game, along with a possible bonus:

1. Peru -> Ramon Castilla. Bonus: All units recover HP (ES decides by how much and how fast).
2. Paraguay -> Fulgencio Yegros. Bonus: Can get a couple of Imperial Upgrades (ES decides which, depending to which civilization the nation goes).
3. By having the two, or just simply Peru, above: Venezuela now represents Bolivar.

Since the flag of Peru is already in the game, there's no reason as to why it should be eliminated. The only things being added would be 2 flags and 2 pictures.

I guess you could give Peru or Paraguay to the Spanish, which would make the Spanish have that particular bonus, which would be both unique and historically accurate (since the Spanish did have several colonies revolt under them). The other one could be a civ. specific revolt, much like Argentina is for the Germans.

Interesting Idea:

Another neat idea would be to give each of the available Revolutionary nations Unique Units for their particular nation. They already get Unique Technologies (Their Bonuses), so why not give them one Unique Unit?

I know the ironclad, colonial militia, and gattling guns are already unique to the Revolutionaries. Yet, how about giving each of them just one Unique Unit? Maybe they could be built solely out of the fort (hence that would give the fort a more interesting purpose), or be sent only through cards. These are just some of the ideas I had:

United States: Continental Infantry. Desc.: Instead of Colonial Militia and Settlers, the U.S. gets Continental Infantry. They work as settlers (Maybe 1/2 as good), but have the same stats. as Colonial Militia.

Argentina: Horse Grenadiers. Desc.: They would be a grenadier on a horse, and would have hand grenades as their main weapon. They would be both a horse and artillery unit, and even though it would be a strong hit-and-run type unit, they would also be able to get easily killed by anti-horse and anti-artillery units.

Colombia: Batallon Rifles. Desc.: They would replace the Colonial Militia and cost the same, but have higher attack, defense, or speed. It depends on what you want to make them as unique.

Peru: Hussar of Junin. Desc.: They would be a type of elite hussars. Their hand-to-hand attack would be very strong and they would also be faster than the average cavalry unit. They probably would need a lower HP or lower defense to balance their extra-attack and speed, or cost more resources.

I could probably think of some more, but I don't want the thread to be based around this part (which would be a nice inclusion). Like I said at the start, I'd like for this to be taken as a serious balance suggestion (not a "future ES Games" thing).

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Hope you liked it.

The True Blood of the Black:

click this

That has nothing to do with this thread. Please stop spamming the forums.

The True Blood of the Black:

click this http://accrre.myminicity.com

Yes seriously stop spamming with this, it's already in your sig, and it's a crappy city anyway.

@General, nice ideas. I could make a FI or "FR" a lot more viable tactic. I certainly would use it more  

Cookie_Monster:

@General, nice ideas. I could make a FI or "FR" a lot more viable tactic. I certainly would use it more  

Thank you.

I think that making the revolutionary option better balanced would greatly benefit the European civilizations. That would hence help them battle the Asian civilizations which currently seem to be a tad OP.

I like all of these ideas. Also, one idea I want to see included for all revolutionary civs would be "Irregulars." The concept behind irregulars is this:

-They consist of units that are unique to that upgrade (and pertain to the nation), and are weak conscripted units that spawn from town centers slowly, but continuously.

-There is no maximum to the amount that may be spawned.

-This feature is unavailable in treaty games longer than TR 10.

-The trade-off is thus: irregulars are weak and easily taken out, but if left on their own too long can become a severe threat, and eventually will make up for the weaker economy.

I think Revolutions are nicely done currently.

Letting someone who revolts, and still have an economy would make them OP.

To give them an OP army, that can defeat about 4 or 5 x the number of enemies, as it possesses. AND hav the ability to still make normal troops is OP.

Anyways, in history, you hav to give a great deal of consideration for a revolution. You have to be desperate. And, revolutions are a longshot in reality anyways. The American Revolution was a longshot at victory, which worked. And, if in the game revolutions were to become an easy way to get both the best military in the game, as well as have a good eco, would take the whole point out of the RISK of having to revolt.

GloriusGilgalad:

Letting someone who revolts, and still have an economy would make them OP.

That's why ES should also make some changes to the cards revolutionary get. I mean:

1. Revolutionaries would still never get the Imperial Age, hence they can't get the imperial age upgrades for their troops and they can't get the imperial age upgrades for anything else (including not getting the mighty capitol). 

2. Revolutionaries would still no longer have the normal deck of European civilizations. They would still be limited to the 4 cards: Colonial Militia, Ironclads, Gatling Guns, and the Fortress. Moreover, in my proposal they would get a lesser bonus on these cards.

 Those are already big draw-backs  for the revolutionaries. Having them get a stable economy would balance those draw-backs and give them an actual chance at winning.

To give them an OP army, that can defeat about 4 or 5 x the number of enemies, as it possesses. AND hav the ability to still make normal troops is OP.

If another player is in the imperial age, their troops would still be by far stronger. Of course, the troops would have to be properly updated.  

The normal troops of the revolutionaries would never be as strong as the normal troops of a strong Imperial Age player, or if another European player uses a revolution to fight back, then the original revolutionary would have a harder moment trying to wage war against another revolutionary civilization. 

That's why allowing more than one player to revolt during the game would be an important change for balance.

Anyways, in history, you hav to give a great deal of consideration for a revolution. You have to be desperate. And, revolutions are a longshot in reality anyways. The American Revolution was a longshot at victory, which worked.

1. How could have Washington survived at Valley Forge without resouces given to him by fellow revolutionaries?
2. How could Bolivar have tried his revolutions time and again without economic support from felow revolutionaries?
3. How could San Martin have crossed the Andes without first gather economic aid and resources from fellow revolutionaries?

Therefore, Revolutions can't work without some sort of resources to help it have a chance at continuing. Therefore the Revolution option at this point is not properly balanced to make it a truly effective solution.

And, if in the game revolutions were to become an easy way to get both the best military in the game, as well as have a good eco, would take the whole point out of the RISK of having to revolt.

1. No, the revolutionaries would definately not get the best units of the game. Most of their regular troops would remain at the Industrial Age level.
2. No, it's economy would be normal.
3. The problem is that the current "RISK" is unbalanced.

By balancing the "RISK," players that use European civilizations would actually use the option with having a chance to slowly recover after the "big attack." At the point while they're recovering would be the perfect moment to strike and put an end to the revolution. Yet, it gives the revolutionary a minimal and fair chance to strike again if the other players are silly enough to let them recover. 

Fellow:

I disagree with adding roman castilles to the new peruvian revolutionary. Instead you should add Jose francisco de san martin. He was the main leader of the peruvian revolution.

Jose de San Martin is currently the revolutionary available to Argentina.

Ramon Castilla was a highly active member of the military that would do perfect for Peru. Castilla was part of the Spanish army, and even fought the forces of San Martin. Later, he joined the revolutionary forces and was admitted directly as a Lieutenant. Moroever, he participated in various battles and eventually became president of Peru in 4 different occations (The first 2 of them being part of the AoE 3 timeline). On his first and second precidencies he turned Peru into quite a South American power by greatly improving the nation's infrastructure and economy.

The only other person that could go for Peru would be Tupac Amaru II. But Sandy Petersen told me that they would not add Tupac because his revolution failed. On the other hand, Ramon Castilla was a very succesfull revolutionary.