AoE3 Expansion Pack Announced

“Age of Empires III” Expansion Pack to Storm Windows PCs in 2006

Newest Addition to Best-Selling Franchise Introduces Playable Native American Civilizations in a Fight for Control of the Americas

The incredible momentum behind ”Age of Empires III” continues as Microsoft Game Studios and Ensemble Studios announced their plans for delivering an expansion pack to gamers in 2006.

The new expansion pack will build off of the exciting real-time-strategy gameplay of “Age of Empires III,” providing players with the ability to lead one of three proud Native American civilizations, including the Iroquois Confederation, to expand their empire and fight for control of the Americas.

The expansion pack, which is due on store shelves in the Fall of 2006, will provide new ways to play and win, introducing new gameplay elements and content including new civilizations, a new single player campaign, Home City enhancements and additional maps and units. Additional content will be added to all existing European civilizations as well.

“Age of Empires III,” which launched in October 2005, is the fastest selling title in the franchise’s history, placing gamers in the position of a European power struggling to explore, colonize and conquer North and South America, roughly during the time period of 1500 to 1850. The game has garnered numerous awards, including GameSpy’s 2005 Top Ten PC Games of the Year and PC Gamer’s RTS Game of the Year. It has sold more than one and a half million copies to date and is currently among the top selling games for Windows titles.

I’m trying to figure out what they would use for new civilizations, who else was involved in the colonization of America. Come to think of it why are the ottomons in the game anyway?

I’m trying to remember stories of Turkish trappers and the Turk Indian wars. Fort Instanbul? I’m drawing a blank on why they’re in the game other than “turks had big cannons”.

This is such a huge disappointment I may well start another “I hate Aoe3” thread.

I made a post on AoE3Heaven that ES should post more civ-appropriate but non-American maps, just for a change of pace: Goa, Macau, etc. I was quite alarmed to basically have everyone tell me: “it’s only about America.” OK, smart-asses, so wheree do the Turks fit in? No answer. Now, ES seems to be taking its America First strategy to absurd lengths. Yes, I really want to build civs from teepees ti what? Casinos? And the home cities will be where?

Just when I start touting ES’ glory, I get a tomahawk in the back!

What will be the secret Iroquois defense against smallpox?

Three new civs certainly beats the lame Atlantean expansion for AoM.

Troy

Three new civs certainly beats the lame Atlantean expansion for AoM.

I quite disagree. The Atlanteans at least sounded cool and some parts of them were cool. NOTHING about this sounds good. No part of it. Unless, of course, they are changing the very premise of the game. But if that’s so, why not changer the civs?

It’s really too soon to tell from this press release, to be honest. They’ve announced one new civ, a new campaign (not that the OC was any great shakes) and additions to the European civs. This could be good. It could be terrible.

And the Atlanteans were just Greeks for noobs. ;)

Troy

Yeah, I have to admit, I’m not thrilled by the Native Americans. I think there is also a bit of PC in this. Look, let’s be blunt, the Native Americans got their asses handed to them by the Europeans. It may not have been right, it may have been a horrible tragedy, blah blah blah, but it happened.

I get that in the real world we need to rewrite things so the Native Americans were just as bad ass and culturally superior to the Europeans. That’s just great - more power to the left wing establishment. You go. But I have no desire to suspend my already stretched belief even further when playing these games to have Lakota warriors dominating the North American continent. They had horses, clubs, bows, and arrows. The only reason they should be in the game is to be abused and used by the European powers.

When I visited Ensemble, they were pretty adamant about not wanting the player to be able to destroy Native American buildings and villagers. I think they felt it would be in poor taste, hence the indestructible settlements.

Sounds like that’s all about to change… :)

-Tom

Well, they had no qualms about destroying Native American settlements in the expansion to AoE 2…

Easy on your so-called “left-wing establishment”, Slyfrog. You don’t have to blame liberals for EVERYTHING! Just almost everything. But hey, whatever gets out of bed in the morning…

Point is that it’s just an unbelievably unimaginative concept. I can’t right off the bat think of whom else was running around setting up colonies in that 1492-1776 era, but they could fudge something, as they did already with Ottomans. The Ottos were conceived in such a unique way that nobody really cared.

But the theme, correct me if I’m wrong, is colonization, no? What did the Indians colonize? Actually, you know what? Maybe this is liberal guilt for us starting a civil war in Iraq, how could I not see it…?

Who’s blaming the liberals for everything? I just think that the concept of Native Americans being a subtantive threat to European colonization, or even more, actually dominating and colonizing land themselves over the Europeans, is so anachronistic and idiotic that one of the few explanations I can think of is the politically correct need to rewrite history. Having the Native Americans colonizing the New World is slightly more imaginable to me than having the native bears and deer rise up in unison against their Native American hunter/oppressors.

So you can’t play as the Spanish in AoE III?

Well, you can control the Spanish. But you can’t sack the Indian villages you encounter.

Troy

However, the Atlanteans should definitely be part of the AoE3 expansion.

From a balance perspective of course how they handle New World civilizations will reveal whether they’re just adding some window dressing to the standards already in place for the advanced European civs, or whether they try hard to create asymmetric warfare in the Age setting and so keep the historical obstacles to a Native American empire (or expansion) generally in tune with reality.

I’d be dissapointed if they get a Gourd Cannon instead of a Culverin or a Popcorn Firecracker Thrower instead of a Grenadier.

But i liked the Civs in Age 3; even the Ottomans! In fact the Ottomans are one of the better thought out and interesting civs to play in Age 3.

I liked the Ottomans, too. It’s really a pity they can’t be more inventive. I’m tired of Indians already! Aren’t there books out about how China discovered North America in 1421? Or the Norse (which would translate I guess to the Swedes, Danish or Finns). They have another good three civs left in Europe if they stop being so Ameri-centric about things.

But Indians??? Bring back the Atlanteans!

Where would the native american “home city shipments” come from? I guess it could be interesting if the natives suffered a tech disadvantage but a had a huge boost in numbers and resources.

I’m a little bummed. I thought the expansion was heading to China/Asia for sure. With maps in India, China, and Japan. And hell, Philippines too.

While the native Americans did not have the technological edge, many tribes were actually quite civilized and egalitarian to the point of communism. One could argue that they didn’t need flintlocks and ironclads to settle their disputes. Also, during the American Revolution, your average bow and arrow had superior accuracy, range and refire rate. It also didn’t blow your hand off if you loaded it incorrectly.

But European technology improved until it surpassed what the natives had at their disposal. And the Europeans were used to slaughtering en masse and had become quite efficient at it, while the natives were much less militant.

Regardless, it wasn’t technological or percieved cultural superiority that realized Manifest Destiny. It was meaningless treaties enforced through violence, and smallpox. Europe “won” because it had a merciless ambition to conquer the resources of a new continent and stake their claim. And eventually it had the technology to make it happen.

At least the native Americans got a better deal than what the Spanish did to the natives in the Caribbean. In America, there was at least the pretense of a shared humanity.

Native Americans were murdering and slaughtering each other long before Europeans got there. This is just another Steven Spielberg rewrite of history. The Native Americans were no less ruthless than the Europeans, they just lacked the means to carry out the ends.

The meaningless treaties certainly did not cause the victory. Had the Native Americans not signed the treaties, they would have been destroyed. It was technology and disease, plain and simple.