If they will do an European DLC they should add the Poles and the Danes.
4 Likes
And also Danubians (Austrian Empire) and Italians.
1 Like
south africa didnt get homerule before 1910, way outside of the games period.
the boers aren’t much better in this regard.
They could introduce the Zulu which were active in the Transvaal region too, or most probably, they could introduce new revolutions like:
a) Irish for British (removing the USA for this civ);
b) Belgium for French/Dutch (removing the USA for these civs);
c) Norway/denmark for Sweden (removing the USA for these civs)
2 Likes
norway maybe because of the 1814 war but denmark-norway deserves being its own nation.
i could see boers and Zulu being in the game as minor settlements tho, in maps like:
Rhodesia
South africa
Cape colony.
4 Likes
zulu could be a major civ for holding off the British imo, they could also have stealth infantry, like how they waited outside a British camp for a while
isn’t this basically the Dutch revolting into south Africa? i hope the south Africa revolution gets revamped if they add Zulu
1 Like
i dont think we should remove the usa from a gameplay perspective (imagine if you had a USA based strat), you can also think of revolting as joining a bigger revolution, not just starting your own (like how in the original game you could choose a leader)
How many people use revolts enough for the devs to add to it?
i think just the sheer fun of the revolts draws the single player and non-competitive community towards revolting
2 Likes
How about add new revolutions instead of irrelevant civs? Example Liberia is great option to add revelotion on USA civ. Also fit for African Expansion DLC.
i dont see the US getting revolts if i am honest.
4 Likes
Why do the devs keep adding civs that only fits as revolutions? Why Boers? Aren’t there enough interesting african civs to add rather than a colonial nation? Smh.
Btw we have Dutch so adding Boers is basically the US civ mistake 2.0
Maybe answer is “lazy”.
Be patient, we will see African Expansion DLC news.
I don’t think so about Boers is going to become civ because that’s stupid af, but unfortunately South Africa revolution might become civ is mid chance.
Much like my stance on USA, if Boers/South Africa are included I’ll be somewhat disappointed as there are a plethora of civs I’m more interested in but if they are fun to play like USA then I’m okay with it.
2 Likes
Zulu civilization is justified, they gave trouble to the British, much more than Native American civs.
5 Likes
Would make for a good campaign too. Here’s hoping it is Zulu.
Moroccans are already half done, is 4 civs too greedy?
3 Likes
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