What are some things you don't like about AOE3?

Even the great Mod Wars of Liberty hasn't been able to fix these issues I have with the game. (don't get me, wrong, I do love the game, but i have many issues with it, as I've kept playing for years)

​

1. Lack of compelling campaigns (and historically accurate ones) - don't you miss AOE2 with so much campaigns. There were like Saladin, Genghis Khan, and with new expansions - Vlad the Impaler and Montezuma. AOE2 had so many campaigns that were both fun and gives you the sense of real history. On the other hand, just look at what AOE3 campaign does - bunch of fictional events and alternate history. The first AOE 3 game was about a family of knighthoods with their descendants in the US, which weren't real and didn't like I'm playing something related to "Empires". It is true that Knight Hospitallers did indeed colonize some Caribbean islands, so the first Act was somewhat compelling. The second act is where you play as a "group of merceneries". Yepp that's the civilization, not "Britain" or "France". And 3rd does have United States and was somewhat compelling. The War Chiefs was really just extension of that. Finally Asian Dynasties, where the first campaign was great, it was actually based on some historical events. Then we have China, which is riddled with Alternate History and unproven facts. it doesn't even show the actual exciting places Zheng He actually been to, like East Africa. Finally, India felt like a true game about "age of empires", where it is about anti-imperialism in India. It was great indeed. So, total - AOE 3 has two great campaigns, two somewhat compelling campagins, and 4 terrible ones. In contrast AOE 2 has way much more than 5. Also there are so much things that happened in the timeline of AOE3, give me campaign about Napoleon or Spanish Armada. What about a campaign about Pirates?

​

2) No concept of "sovereignty" - It really frustrates me that, there is no border within which you can play. in 0 ad, there's always a border within which you can build, and it can expand depending on what you can do. With no borders, you never get the idea of actually "conquering" things. The game is literally building a civilization in a stateless society. It's like anarchy, you can get to build whereever you want, and only your enemy can stop you by attacking. Spain and Portugal, in real life, had to get papal approval to which part of Americas they can carve up to. You can even build near your allies, and have a "combined city". How do we get the sense that which part of the lands are mine, which are theirs? Building walls? Most countries during Age of Discovery, didn't need to build walls to mark their territory. Sometimes, when I play, I pretend my allies and me are the same nations, with different flags and colors.

​

3) You have to destroy everything, or kill everyone to defeat - Why do you have to destroy almost every buildings, or kill every units to win? Why can't I capture buildings or people (like conversion in AoE3, but using the military instead)? Empires in the past, didn't need to destroy literally everything to defeat. Germans in 1871, besieged Paris, but they didn't have to destroy the entire city, or kill every citizens there to defeat France. It would be more useful if a colony surrenders to me, aand i take possession of the buildings and people. Like, when New france was conquered by British, the French people weren't slaughtered, they were incorporated into their empire. And today a lot of Canadians are French.

​

4) Why are Native Americans this "peaceful settlements, with which you can also build a trading post"? - When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they were often brutally resisted by the natives. So why in AoE3, they are only this settlements with which you can only ally with. Wouldn't it better if, native americans were this "Mother nature-Al" civilization of its own, with which you have a choice: you can either declare war on them, fight them, defeat them and subjugate them, or ally by trading post, and trade. IN Asian Dynasties, where natives are replaced by religious sites (In Asian map), it makes sense, cuz temples wounldn't just declare on you.

​

5) Indian/Mughal civ's lack of "Mughal"-ness - Indians are suprisingly a modernized nation compared to China or Japan in AoE3. It has Akbar as its main leader, but there's not much the themes of Mughal Empires in the civ. Gurkhas weren't in the Mughal army. Sepoys have more advanced rifles in AOE3. There's also no Mughal horse cavalry like the Tabinan, which is a shame since horse cavalry was one of the defining factors of Mughals, as they were originally Central Asian. IT was pretty wierd calling it "indian". There was no country called India back then. There was no unified Indian identity back then even. 'Who cares? THey now mostly form India"? Then why call Ottomans "Ottomans" and not "Turks"? Also, another defining traits of the Mughal Empire was it's artilleries - especially Cannons. There is literally no cannon units for the Indian civs. There's just teh siege elephant. Mughals were one of the gunpowder empires for crying out loud. Also, why is INdian campaign based on Indian rebellion, and not about any of the campaigns of Akbar, or Shah Jahan?

​

6) Winning a battle is simply one army trying to massacre the other - Battles in wars don't end up with one group of army killing literally every single soldiers from their enemy's army.

7) Railways don't kill your unit, if you have a unit stand there. - For some reason, it is not tangeable, and just passed thru the unit, like some kind of ghost.

What are some things you don't like about the game?