3rd civilization for the African Expansion Revealed!

I doubt they are adding a 4th civ, but Moroccans are a must.

7 Likes

Confederacy. Why not?

Why not call them the Barbary States?

Morrocoans are not halfdone, have you seen the units? They are generic and blend as ■■■■.

They got nothing original about them, an archer unit, a pike unit and a arqubusier unit. Not even the names save them. Berber archer, berber spearman… come on.

Of course names can change but they got nothing going for them. When you look at Sioux they have a clubman (which works like a spearman but atleast has flavor to the unit in sense of esthetics), you have for Japan the Samurai and flaming arrow etc.

Also not entirely sure, but I thought alll their animations are copied from their counterparts. Which isnt bad if it is 1 or 2 units, but it is when your entire army is. Again refering to units like Sowar, flying crow, Rajput, battling ram, warrior priest etc.

Not to mention they definalty dont have even half a building roster.

2 Likes

lets see, other than being a slaving state that is still controversial in US politics to today? idk why they wouldn’t :crazy_face:

The objective of this topic it’s just a clickbait for views.

If anything the name of the DLC is hinting to some civ on South Africa.

1 Like

The Boere are to far down the time line of my country, in the second Aglo Boer war the Boere used Mouser Rifles, the same Mouser (Early model) of the K98 that the Germans used in WW2.

But looking at the Dutch Cape colony ,started in 1652 AD, and the subsequent Groot Trek (Great Trek) of the Dutch and French settlers further north , they had intense battles against the native populace such as the battle of Bloed Rivier (Blood river) so the batel potential in South Africa is vast, but for these battles you can use the Dutch,French and HOPEFULLY the ZULUs as well as the British.

They should certainly only keep Republic of SA as a revoulution for there we fit in perfectly but for the other extencive battles in the region, the Dutch will soffice.

They could give the Dutch a new unit called a Voortrekker, that could be a skirmisher that can also gather food.
Or if they are heading towards creating a Transval or South African civ, they could have the Voortrekker as their main ranged infantry and only have the Boer as a very late game unit.

1 Like

The Barbary States and Ottomans also had slaves in a large way.

sure but they didnt create themselves in the 1860s, decades after other western states had banned it, with the purpose of holding on to slavery.

2 Likes

No difference. The US could revolt into Texas or the Confederacy. If you feel strongly, then don’t revolt, perfectly voluntary.

the US doesnt need revolts to begin with.

and no they wont add the confederacy.

5 Likes

There are plenty of games with the Confederacy. Its just some wokeists who are dominating the public discourse at the present time.

Here is what I wrote on the previous topic about this:

3 Likes

I mean, US have the bear flag revolt in game already. And I think that is a interesting mechanic and a elegant solution.

Again, I cannot link the post, but I remember a member of the developers team talking about how adding controversial issues like slavery could increase the age rating of the game.

Plus, the game purpose is to entertain and relax. I really don’t want to get reminded of problematic issues like slavery, or even darker things like cannibalism (Common between some of native American tribes) when I’m just trying to play a game and have some fun.
Although this things are historically accurate, I don’t think that the game need to represent those as it’s purpose is simply to be fun and enjoyable.

they specifically said they didnt wanna make a game about wiping out people, which is why genocide and slavery aint in the game.

The Confederacy could fit in a campaign on the civil war, that could be cool but i really don’t get all this obsession of having them in the game, i could take it or leave it. I do understand why they’re not a revolt option though because of the controversy, i think California or Texas would be better choices.

This is a historical missconception. Cannibalism existed as a ritual, but not was common in the sense of a everyday thing or a diet.

Simply stating “cannibalism” has broad meaning that does not imply the specific “everyday thing or a diet” you mention.
There was no historical misconception.

3 Likes

Well it depends of how do you understand “common”. Sorry if I understand it badly

Even then, specific campaign factions are often excisting ones with a different flag and the units a bit shuffled around. A Confederate faction would probably be the oppossing faction in such a campaign and just be a slightly altered USA civ.

3 Likes