fortress and colonial age should be switched

User avatar
United States of America Squamiger
Howdah
Posts: 1756
Joined: Dec 25, 2018
ESO: Squamiger

fortress and colonial age should be switched

  • Quote

Post by Squamiger »

the discovery age is meant to represent the historical age of discovery, from 1492 with the treaty of Torsedillas to, lets say, 1521, ending with the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs but more generally when regular bases had been established in the Americas.

the next period, from 1521-1650 approximately, was the period where European powers established entrepots and forts along many of the coasts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Most European powers were not exporting large numbers of settlers at this time, so forts made sense in order to secure trade routes and shipping lanes with a limited number of soldiers. If you look at this list of Portuguese forts established in the Americas, Africa, and Asia, a great majority fall within a time span of 1500-1650: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_colonial_forts

It was only after around 1650 that settlers started colonizing many of the territories controlled by these forts. Jamestown, one of the most famous English colonies, really didn't start to have a serious population boom of colonizers until the late 17th century.

therefore, the order of ages in aoe3 should be discovery (1492-1521), fortress (1521-1650), colonial (1650-1775), industrial (1775-1865, corresponding with the development of steam power, factory-based textile production in England, capitalist chattel slavery in the Americas, and mercantilist policies designed to ensure a flow of raw materials from colonial peripheries and produce manufactured goods in European cores), and then imperial (1850-1900, corresponding to a continued industrial mode of production in imperial cores but also the development of formalized territorial empires in Africa and Asia in order to keep the supplies of raw materials and labor flowing, and to secure new markets for manufactured products).

plz implement in the next EP patch
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

  • Quote

Post by EAGLEMUT »

Putting this on the roadmap for EP7.
Image
momuuu wrote: ↑theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Great Britain thomasgreen6
Lancer
Posts: 548
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
ESO: Thomasgreen6
Location: UK

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

  • Quote

Post by thomasgreen6 »

Smackdown idea @Interjection
'I'm gonna win this and I'm just gonna enjoy it' - Tibia 2k18

http://www.Twitch.tv/thomasgreen6
User avatar
France P i k i l i c
Howdah
Posts: 1271
Joined: Nov 17, 2015
ESO: Pikilic
Location: Dijon, France
GameRanger ID: 7497456

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by P i k i l i c »

This makes sense, Portuguese are the most extreme exemple but okay
Consider not the one who speaks the truth, but the truth that is said

:hmm: AoE logic :hmm:
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Imperial Noob »

Fortress age concerns mostly British and French forts in the Northern America, as well as American revolutionary forts, and these were built mostly in the XVIII century, following Vauban's developments. Not to mention all the Napoleonic fortress battles.

Spanish and Portuguese forts are an exception and even in their case there is the logical bomb that in order to build a fort, you need colonists first.
User avatar
United States of America Squamiger
Howdah
Posts: 1756
Joined: Dec 25, 2018
ESO: Squamiger

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Squamiger »

Imperial Noob wrote:Fortress age concerns mostly British and French forts in the Northern America, as well as American revolutionary forts, and these were built mostly in the XVIII century, following Vauban's developments. Not to mention all the Napoleonic fortress battles.

Spanish and Portuguese forts are an exception and even in their case there is the logical bomb that in order to build a fort, you need colonists first.


I suppose it is dependent on which societies we are talking about, and the North America-centric AoE3 developers probably considered Brits and French before Spanish and Portuguese forts. But even so, other colonial powers made forts in this earlier period as well, like the French Fort Caroline in Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Caroline or the Dutch Fort Amsterdam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Amsterdam which changed hands with the British.

And yes, there are a number of late 18th century British and French forts in North America. But I wouldn't call these the defining feature of European expansion in this period-- rather, it was the massive influx of colonists from all over Europe that swelled the population of North American and truly defined the socio-economic system. Whereas "fort life" was much more the main feature of the earlier 16th and 17th century experience for Europeans in the Americas or Asia. So I still think my point stands. Also the designs by Vauban were heavily influenced by the bastion or star fort, which was most prominent in the 16th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort, which again I think supports my point.
User avatar
Great Britain Interjection
Howdah
Donator 04
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mar 15, 2015
ESO: Interjection
Location: United Kingdom

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Interjection »

I was just considering this as a Smackdown format but I'm not even sure how it would even work!!

If you had to age to Fortress before Colonial, I guess you would be able to send fortress age shipments but not be able to build colonial age buildings like rax & stable. So the only way to make units would be to ship a fort and train from that. But even then muskets, xbow/pike would be disabled as they're colonial age units :lol: :lol:

Ageing to col would only be 800f though so probably worth it to enable them! (And to my understanding of triggers WOULN'T cancel fortress age, so you'd still be in fortress but it would say Col)

Do you think it would even work @EAGLEMUT ?
User avatar
No Flag 91
Retired Contributor
Donator 01
Posts: 493
Joined: Jun 21, 2015

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by 91 »

Well maybe in real life most civs went for FFs but don't stop me from rushing and booming in-game just because they go full FF IRL :mad:
User avatar
Armenia Sargsyan
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 3372
Joined: Dec 18, 2017
ESO: lamergamer
Location: North Macedonia
Clan: c0ns

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Sargsyan »

Interjection wrote:I was just considering this as a Smackdown format but I'm not even sure how it would even work!!

If you had to age to Fortress before Colonial, I guess you would be able to send fortress age shipments but not be able to build colonial age buildings like rax & stable. So the only way to make units would be to ship a fort and train from that. But even then muskets, xbow/pike would be disabled as they're colonial age units :lol: :lol:

Ageing to col would only be 800f though so probably worth it to enable them!

Do you think it would even work @EAGLEMUT ?

Watching this kind of game would be absolutely amazing, not to mention the casting ;) :o :hehe:
krichk wrote:For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge Challenger_Marco
User avatar
Germany richard
Dragoon
Posts: 341
Joined: Feb 24, 2015
Location: Germany

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by richard »

Simply change the names ... (Fortress Age <-> Colonial Age)

unbelievable this forum.
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Imperial Noob »

petarded, for reasons stated above

discover -> settle -> fortify -> develop -> dominate

this is the model of gameplay basically

and

colonial forts =/= fortresses

outposts and trading posts represent the "little foothold" doctrine in the game anyway
User avatar
India Frost Bite
Dragoon
Posts: 300
Joined: Dec 4, 2016
ESO: ContainsCaffeine
Location: India
GameRanger ID: 3243371

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Frost Bite »

Well, During the British Colonisation of India, factories were first set up during 1600-1700 and then private armies, forts to secure their trade routes and factories. So factories were built even before the industrial revolution.Thus to conclude I suggest the community to allow players to build factories in the age II for the following maps : Deccan, Indochina, Mongolia (idk), Ceylon in the upcoming updates.
World War 3 is inevitable, Run for your lives, fools
User avatar
India Frost Bite
Dragoon
Posts: 300
Joined: Dec 4, 2016
ESO: ContainsCaffeine
Location: India
GameRanger ID: 3243371

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Frost Bite »

I hate the map balance the community provided for Deccan. Deccan used to be the land of riches and they are properly represented in the RE patch.
World War 3 is inevitable, Run for your lives, fools
User avatar
India Frost Bite
Dragoon
Posts: 300
Joined: Dec 4, 2016
ESO: ContainsCaffeine
Location: India
GameRanger ID: 3243371

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Frost Bite »

Squamiger wrote: (1850-1900, corresponding to a continued industrial mode of production but also the development of formalized territorial empires in Africa and Asia).

Also I find this sentence to be incorrect. Please edit this. The continued industrial mode of production led to the development of European Countries by subsequent "de-industrialization" in Africa and Asia.
World War 3 is inevitable, Run for your lives, fools
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Imperial Noob »

Frost Bite wrote:
Squamiger wrote: (1850-1900, corresponding to a continued industrial mode of production but also the development of formalized territorial empires in Africa and Asia).

Also I find this sentence to be incorrect. Please edit this. The continued industrial mode of production led to the development of European Countries by subsequent "de-industrialization" in Africa and Asia.

Have you spent all your hard-earned :export: on fraudulent history books?
User avatar
India Frost Bite
Dragoon
Posts: 300
Joined: Dec 4, 2016
ESO: ContainsCaffeine
Location: India
GameRanger ID: 3243371

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Frost Bite »

Haha good one, but that is the truth sir.
World War 3 is inevitable, Run for your lives, fools
User avatar
United States of America Squamiger
Howdah
Posts: 1756
Joined: Dec 25, 2018
ESO: Squamiger

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Squamiger »

Interjection wrote:I was just considering this as a Smackdown format but I'm not even sure how it would even work!!

If you had to age to Fortress before Colonial, I guess you would be able to send fortress age shipments but not be able to build colonial age buildings like rax & stable. So the only way to make units would be to ship a fort and train from that. But even then muskets, xbow/pike would be disabled as they're colonial age units :lol: :lol:

Ageing to col would only be 800f though so probably worth it to enable them! (And to my understanding of triggers WOULN'T cancel fortress age, so you'd still be in fortress but it would say Col)

Do you think it would even work @EAGLEMUT ?


I just literally meant we should change the names, lol, but this sounds cool too.

Imperial Noob wrote:petarded, for reasons stated above

discover -> settle -> fortify -> develop -> dominate

this is the model of gameplay basically

and

colonial forts =/= fortresses

outposts and trading posts represent the "little foothold" doctrine in the game anyway


Of course we all know that "discover" is really a euphemism for "invade". If Europeans just landed on someone else's land and started settling without fortifying first, they would have been wiped out. Like they tried to do at Roanoke probably. Sure, they were helped by native Americans at Jamestown and Plymouth rock, but that's only because the natives made the calculated decision that helping them was more realistic than trying to fight them in their fortified towns.

Frost Bite wrote:
Squamiger wrote: (1850-1900, corresponding to a continued industrial mode of production but also the development of formalized territorial empires in Africa and Asia).

Also I find this sentence to be incorrect. Please edit this. The continued industrial mode of production led to the development of European Countries by subsequent "de-industrialization" in Africa and Asia.


Yea, I wasn't clear. I mean continued industrial production the imperial cores, and exploitation of the peripheries. The whole goal of imperialism was the force the economies of places outside of your imperial core to stop competing with you in manufacturing, and start providing you with the raw materials and labor you needed to make your own manufacturing the most competitive. The classic case is India, which used to produce more and better textiles (and I've also heard, guns) than the UK until the UK intentionally destroyed their textile industries and reduced them to producing raw materials.
User avatar
India Frost Bite
Dragoon
Posts: 300
Joined: Dec 4, 2016
ESO: ContainsCaffeine
Location: India
GameRanger ID: 3243371

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Frost Bite »

Thanks for acknowledging that.
World War 3 is inevitable, Run for your lives, fools
User avatar
India Frost Bite
Dragoon
Posts: 300
Joined: Dec 4, 2016
ESO: ContainsCaffeine
Location: India
GameRanger ID: 3243371

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Frost Bite »

Imperial Noob wrote:Have you spent all your hard-earned :export: on fraudulent history books?


Well, The truth cannot be denied. The Industrial revolution of Great Britain marked the fall of Indian economy. They did unlawful trade practices, dumping their products. Atleast I appreciate the chinese for not bending into the queen's will. opium wars were a result of that. The British didn't develop the Indian economy.
World War 3 is inevitable, Run for your lives, fools
United States of America jap_jon
Musketeer
Posts: 66
Joined: Mar 6, 2015

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by jap_jon »

It would have been difficult for India to do what China did since there was no India.
United States of America jap_jon
Musketeer
Posts: 66
Joined: Mar 6, 2015

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by jap_jon »

Squamiger wrote: the North America-centric AoE3 developers
AOE3 originally only was about the Americas. It wasn't until TAD that it expanded beyond. So yeah, perhaps it should be changed in TAD context, but it made sense to be "America"-centric.
Squamiger wrote: other colonial powers made forts in this earlier period as well
Yeah, forts kinda went hand-in-hand with early colonialization everywhere in the Americas, so "Fortress Age" seems a bit contrived. Dunno if it makes sense to even keep it, but I can't think of an alternative.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by deleted_user0 »

Imperial Noob wrote:
Frost Bite wrote:
Squamiger wrote: (1850-1900, corresponding to a continued industrial mode of production but also the development of formalized territorial empires in Africa and Asia).

Also I find this sentence to be incorrect. Please edit this. The continued industrial mode of production led to the development of European Countries by subsequent "de-industrialization" in Africa and Asia.

Have you spent all your hard-earned :export: on fraudulent history books?


Clearly you have... or maybe you've just never read a book at all.
User avatar
Holy See Imperial Noob
Lancer
Posts: 958
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Location: Well hello DEre

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by Imperial Noob »

umeu wrote:
Imperial Noob wrote:
Show hidden quotes

Have you spent all your hard-earned :export: on fraudulent history books?


Clearly you have... or maybe you've just never read a book at all.


the joke is on umeu
User avatar
India TNT333
Lancer
Posts: 530
Joined: Sep 13, 2018
ESO: TNT333

Re: fortress and colonial age should be switched

Post by TNT333 »

Squamiger wrote:the discovery age is meant to represent the historical age of discovery, from 1492 with the treaty of Torsedillas to, lets say, 1521, ending with the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs but more generally when regular bases had been established in the Americas.

the next period, from 1521-1650 approximately, was the period where European powers established entrepots and forts along many of the coasts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Most European powers were not exporting large numbers of settlers at this time, so forts made sense in order to secure trade routes and shipping lanes with a limited number of soldiers. If you look at this list of Portuguese forts established in the Americas, Africa, and Asia, a great majority fall within a time span of 1500-1650: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_colonial_forts

It was only after around 1650 that settlers started colonizing many of the territories controlled by these forts. Jamestown, one of the most famous English colonies, really didn't start to have a serious population boom of colonizers until the late 17th century.

therefore, the order of ages in aoe3 should be discovery (1492-1521), fortress (1521-1650), colonial (1650-1775), industrial (1775-1865, corresponding with the development of steam power, factory-based textile production in England, capitalist chattel slavery in the Americas, and mercantilist policies designed to ensure a flow of raw materials from colonial peripheries and produce manufactured goods in European cores), and then imperial (1850-1900, corresponding to a continued industrial mode of production in imperial cores but also the development of formalized territorial empires in Africa and Asia in order to keep the supplies of raw materials and labor flowing, and to secure new markets for manufactured products).

plz implement in the next EP patch

So it will be fast colonial? FC?
"We are kings or pawns" Napoleon Bonaparte

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV