ESOCommunity

How would I design Italians? I would prolly make it similar to WOL (https://aoe3wol.fandom.com/wiki/Italians) their design had good mechanics ,the early game really sucks rush and is gg ,the architects (u need to do the architect boom early on i think they cost like 50f) pray at the unique building called Cathedrals and you gain faith which you can exchange for gold i would make it for any resources and with better exchange rate and decreases it's % over time like the market

Without Bersagliere no Italy tbh

had it changed this to 2 pop it was 1 pop b4 funny how uberjz carried me in a team game with 100 bersag roaming around everywhere on map doing 1v3 ez carry ,100 bersag >30 cannons lmao
6 speed dragoon inf op




thoughtsh?

I like my civ better, wol civs are too complex

i want cards like "Al dente" and "pizza party"

A big button mechanic that allows you to switch sides in a losing war situation. Would be pretty historical .

Ok, no jokes now.
I like the idea of an Architect unit that costs no population, 100 food but has a build limit of let's say 4. You start with one, others are spawned at the TC. They allow you to build buildings without costing villager seconds.
Special building could be a Merchant shop. You could pick a trade partner same as you do in a Consulate. You also get passive influence (African civs) and you choose the extra production rate like you do with Export for Asian civs. You can send resource crates or Mercenaries.
As for unit design, maybe an age 2 Dragoon. I'd give them a slight focus on artillery - an age 2 cannon (like the Swedes have) and possibly a stronger Falconet. Infantry units: Pikes, Genoese Crossbowmen which act more like a musket unit, rather than skirms. So stronger Crossbowmen in effect. No skirmisher units.
Water: Xebec could be a nice addition or replacement for one of the ships (most likely instead of Caravels).
Age up mechanic: If I had to guess developers would choose "pick a merchant state or a king to age up and get cards" which I wouldn't mind, but for old times sake (you said EP) you get the normal age up politicians.

How squamiger designed it looks ok but I remember that Italy was officially formed (united north and south without Rome and southern Tyrol subsequently and separately annexed), moreover the historical period of aoe3 goes from 1600 to 1800 and the use of crossbowmen in 1800 when Italy was really Italy in the form of a nation, crossbows were not used so to be historically more accurate but at most I would give crossbowmen even if I would give them a militia like that of the United States and at most pikemen special, moreover as others have said without the Bersaglieri there is no Italy, I would give musketeers and Bersaglieri as skirmishers, the sea is not my responsibility so I don't know what to say about it, the architect I see him as mainly a builder so I I would use to build but at the same time if he is an architect he is not a farmer so in addition to building I would add a new building to make him produce something I don't know some res bear or a new resource as the new civilizations have it, being that historically it is subsequently Italy made an alliance with Prussia I would say that as expeditions it is mercenaries (cards) I would put Jaeger and black dragons (I do not remember the precise name I call them thus) or one of the two, historically due to the conquest of Rome (which took place after 1861) the Pontiff did not recognize Italy as a nation and relations were not the best between the Pontiff and the Italian king, subsequently the questions were resolved. Leaving aside this last question, I would say that as another mercenary card I would give the Swiss pikemen.

princeofcarthage wrote:Medieval Italian (equivalent countries of the time) never really had a strong navy, at least not comparable with Portugese, Spanish or the British

Or the Dutch, who ruled the sea during the 17th century.

@Garja @luke23 @marco1698

In the Middle Ages Italy did not exist either as a state or as a spirit, in the present north and central Italy there were all duchies and republics in the south there was the kingdom of Naples and Sicily (I don't remember well if at that time it was all one or separate), speaking of the fleets the strongest among these was Venice

DayanG wrote:In the Middle Ages Italy did not exist either as a state or as a spirit, in the present north and central Italy there were all duchies and republics in the south there was the kingdom of Naples and Sicily (I don't remember well if at that time it was all one or separate), speaking of the fleets the strongest among these was Venice

Kingdom of Naples, Sicily and Sardina belonged to the crown of Aragon and, in consequence, to Spain for nearly the entire timeframe.

The rest of Italy changed considerably. At the beginning of the AoE3 timeframe, large parts of the North were still part of the Holy Roman Empire. This changed in the aftermath of the Italian Wars and when the Peace of Westphalia was signed, Northern Italy was comprised of a number of independent or semi-independent duchies, republics and the like. Wedged in between France, Austria and Spain, there was an alliance system that over time proved relatively stable in that no single faction managed to unite Northern Italy, but foreign powers were not able to annex and hold territories either.

Apart from these historical developments, one can argue that the "Italians" as a civilization existed. On the one hand foreigners like Germans and French often considered people from Northern Italy simply as "Italians". On the other hand it seems like there was a feeling of belonging to a common identity between the single duchies and republics themselves. Of course the main identity of a Venetian was derived from specifically being a citizen of the Serenissima. But at the next level, one felt much more as an Italian than as a German.

I still think that this is an important point to consider, because in this game, we don't play the country of "France" but the civilization of the "French" as much as don't play "Germany" but the "Germans". Hence it makes sense to include the Italians, but it does not make sense to include the Belgians, as the latter did not form a (questionable) unified civilization until the middle of the 19th century.

Yes true, in discussing whether they were Italians or not it is difficult in the sense that in the north it was more so in the center and in the south it was totally different but it is normal because this difference between south and north in Italy has always been so since the crisis of the Roman empire. West, the real question is who lived there felt Italian? Even the fact that when they were still independent many of these duchies or republics waged war but no one unified northern and central Italy suggests that they did not feel very Italian except for the very similar culture and languages ​​derived from Latin, in my opinion the true Italian spirit is felt in the early 1800s in northern Italy

Now I talk about history in broad strokes without going into detail otherwise the thread discussion loses sense

DayanG wrote: in my opinion the true Italian spirit is felt in the early 1800s in northern Italy

Sure, that's the case with many other national identities (e.g. Germans) as well. But (again maybe similar to Germany) there has been a "crown of Italy" around for roughly a thousand years already at this point. So at least there was a certain understanding that the italian lands belong together. From a ruler perspective, that is all which matters. Peasants don't count anyway.

Imo there is no point in constraining civ design too much with historical accuracy. Half of the civs ingame are bullshit from the perspective of historical accuracy. Yeah sure there should be some identifying factor, but getting into the nitty-gritty doesn't really make much sense in a game that just uses history as a loose blueprint.

scarm wrote:Imo there is no point in constraining civ design too much with historical accuracy. Half of the civs ingame are bullshit from the perspective of historical accuracy. Yeah sure there should be some identifying factor, but getting into the nitty-gritty doesn't really make much sense in a game that just uses history as a loose blueprint.

I think it'd be nice to have the design be thematically linked to history. It's a historical RTS after all. For Italy it'd be cool to somehow represent the fact that the Italians weren't united for much of aoe3's history.

Well India wasn't either. Neither were Germany, or the Aztecs. The Sioux never were united as far as i know. I get where you are coming from though, ofc there needs to be some kind of tie. All i am saying is that not including Genoese Crossbows or the Venetian Navy, which are iconic and create that exact tie because it is anachronistic, is kinda a moot point imo, considering that AoE3 is already riddled with similar inconsistencies (e.g. Doppelsöldners not being archaic units, Germans/Prussia not having Line Infantry, missing units from tech trees in general, Qing and Ming china being mixed, Samurai only using Swords when realistically they should probably use guns as well in the time period of the game, i mean i don't need to tell you, you know.).

And i mean the designers knew as well. They just decided that having Samurai with a classical Katana instead of more realistic weaponry like bows, yari, nodachi or guns is more fun. Or that Germany didn't need musketeers/that musks could break them.

I honestly think aoe3 just didnt do a very good job in this regard. Aoe4's civ design is much better with respect to history. I think that doesnt excuse new aoe3 civs to not have a more compelling design though.

Tbf AoE 4 spans a shorter timeframe that is also probably easier to represent, as there were less obvious technological leaps than in the timeframe of aoe3 (as in the technological leaps in the middle ages and early renaissance are probably easier to "hide" than the ones that happened from then until 1900)

duckzilla wrote:

DayanG wrote: in my opinion the true Italian spirit is felt in the early 1800s in northern Italy

Sure, that's the case with many other national identities (e.g. Germans) as well. But (again maybe similar to Germany) there has been a "crown of Italy" around for roughly a thousand years already at this point. So at least there was a certain understanding that the italian lands belong together. From a ruler perspective, that is all which matters. Peasants don't count anyway.

True, on the other hand the unification of Italy was not decided by the peasants but by King Vittorio Emanuele 2. It was a good historical discussion but I think that this was not completely the purpose of this thread

scarm wrote:Well India wasn't either. Neither were Germany, or the Aztecs. The Sioux never were united as far as i know. I get where you are coming from though, ofc there needs to be some kind of tie. All i am saying is that not including Genoese Crossbows or the Venetian Navy, which are iconic and create that exact tie because it is anachronistic, is kinda a moot point imo, considering that AoE3 is already riddled with similar inconsistencies (e.g. Doppelsöldners not being archaic units, Germans/Prussia not having Line Infantry, missing units from tech trees in general, Qing and Ming china being mixed, Samurai only using Swords when realistically they should probably use guns as well in the time period of the game, i mean i don't need to tell you, you know.).

And i mean the designers knew as well. They just decided that having Samurai with a classical Katana instead of more realistic weaponry like bows, yari, nodachi or guns is more fun. Or that Germany didn't need musketeers/that musks could break them.

Yes, unfortunately it is, imagine if aoe3 were as you said, from the historical point of view it would be good but from the design and budget point it would certainly be bad

I think it would have made much sense for the Italian to follow the same principle as the US : different age up options for the different Italian states from this period. You could have Venice, Genoa, the Papal states, Milano or the Two Sicilies.
For their military composition, I think there are too many civs rn who have no holes in their composition, so I'd like Italian to have no musks. Also musks wars are boring.

The question of historical accuracy is moot in the AoE series any way. Mandatory "A collection of unmitigated pedantry" link : https://acoup.blog/2019/11/22/collectio ... %20existed.

Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:I think it would have made much sense for the Italian to follow the same principle as the US : different age up options for the different Italian states from this period. You could have Venice, Genoa, the Papal states, Milano or the Two Sicilies.
For their military composition, I think there are too many civs rn who have no holes in their composition, so I'd like Italian to have no musks. Also musks wars are boring.

The question of historical accuracy is moot in the AoE series any way. Mandatory "A collection of unmitigated pedantry" link : https://acoup.blog/2019/11/22/collectio ... %20existed.

Please no more multi-cards age up.

Jets wrote: Please no more multi-cards age up.

I was more thinking along the lines of each age up option offering different kind of buffs.
Venezia : cheaper and faster training warships and cannons.
Papal states : increase xp trickle for church, can train cheaper Swiss pikes
Genova : buff to xbows and pikes, improved trading route.
Something light but that would make age up choice a real strategic decision rather than something where there is just a clearly better option because you can just count the vills second.

Their hand gestures would be visible

Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:

Jets wrote: Please no more multi-cards age up.

I was more thinking along the lines of each age up option offering different kind of buffs.
Venezia : cheaper and faster training warships and cannons.
Papal states : increase xp trickle for church, can train cheaper Swiss pikes
Genova : buff to xbows and pikes, improved trading route.
Something light but that would make age up choice a real strategic decision rather than something where there is just a clearly better option because you can just count the vills second.

it wouldn't make sense, since the multicard age up civs are north american ones. European civs should have politicians imo

Squamiger wrote:

Le Hussard sur le toit wrote:

Jets wrote: Please no more multi-cards age up.

I was more thinking along the lines of each age up option offering different kind of buffs.
Venezia : cheaper and faster training warships and cannons.
Papal states : increase xp trickle for church, can train cheaper Swiss pikes
Genova : buff to xbows and pikes, improved trading route.
Something light but that would make age up choice a real strategic decision rather than something where there is just a clearly better option because you can just count the vills second.

it wouldn't make sense, since the multicard age up civs are north american ones. European civs should have politicians imo

are the italians europeans? all that pizza and mafia seems very american to me