I’m still waiting for AoE II’s version of SWBG’s Jedi/Sith- a warrior monk.
Since the GENIE engine is capable of it, it’s only a matter of time, 
A Pastor and an Iman with Laser-Canes duking it out in the middle of the map, with Godrays coming down and gregorian chanting blasting?
Let me show the True Theology!!!
2 Likes
That’s because the devs avoided any hot topic issues in their campaigns. The 2 “Eastern European” campaigns we have are basically “Turks and allies bad” (which is like the only thing all Balkans agree on, lol), and “Mongols also bad”,- and I mean, while I don’t think anyone would’ve known who Ivaylo was otherwise, and it’s a cool idea that fits the “Khans” topic of “everything being connected to the Mongols/Golden Horde”–but really, 95% of Bulgarian history Medieval history is either fighting the Byz, or trying to dominate Yugo lands, or both. I mean, it’s been pretty mild here, but the Steam forums were a bit mental with the Polish civ posts spam over the holidays… there’s a ton of drama over “why is X more worthy civ than Y” that can be projected to Eastern Europe as well. That Sandy video with “Lithuanians over Poles? what???” didn’t help either. There’s just slightly less vitriol, because no one brought up modern Poland’s political leanings into it.
1 Like
And La Hire would become the Bounty Hunter!
1 Like
I guess the whole topic of adding more civis starts here.
Who knows maybe there will be a polish civi with the next expansion.
There’s a bunch of things that probably goes into it
- what cool bonuses can be inserted into the game that sorta fit the civ? (though not always- Hi, Torsion Engines!)
- What cool stories can we tell with it
- how marketable is it.
Personally, since I only play campaigns/custom scens, I don’t care about the MP balance, shrug. Though obviously me with my 1450+ hours played on HD with no multi or skirmish is an outlier. I love more “exotic” civs, cuz I have a pretty good idea of European history and when they go outside Europe I often learn something new, which is always cool. And since I know very little about the places in question, the “why no X instead?” rarely occurs to me. But people who ARE familiar with the region would have those opinions. So (I’m guessing) it’s better to pick areas that lesser part of the playerbase is familiar enough with to question? IDK, just thinking out loud here, 
…
That being said, I still want a Hussite Wars campaign, lol. But I’ll take a modded custom one as well, some of the stuff people have been pulling off with DE editor is pure magic.
1 Like
Grunwald and northern crusades,hussite wars scanderbeg there are more interesting stories to tell from europe and its easier to market them.
1 Like
imagines the meltdowns if Albanians are put into the game next, but no other Slavic civs
2 Likes
A Pope with an instant cast mass conversion and buffing champion’s pierce armor by 2 armor. Deus Vult!
1 Like
Well, I think the Chinese are fine with adding a medieval Tibetan civ, cause that doesn’t concern the modern era. If you’re still worried, changing their name to Tubo can certainly avoid the problems, since the Tubo Kingdom has been acknowledged in Chinese history textbooks. And if that still doesn’t work, then just add the Tangut civ instead of the Tibetans, cause they were a branch of Tibetic people and they can sort of represent the Tibetans as well.
3 Likes
Same can be done with Indian faction without causing too much gegeopolitical issues cholas palas zamorins etc.
Never heard of Tubo Kingdom, will do my google research now. 11
Looks like there will be more upcoming DLCs, I really hope that at least one of my suggested civs could make it into the next DLC
1 Like
I’m thinking about adding another one to my list, the Jurchens. At first I’m not quite sure about adding it since I don’t think we could make it any different from the Mongols, Cumans, Huns, or Tartars, but now I’ve got an excellent idea about their unique unit.
Tiefutu, a cavalry archer clad in heavy iron armors, slower and shorter ranged than other cavalry archers, but packs quite a punch, and its attack ignores pierce armor (just like how the Leitis ignores melee armor). This is to reflect the fact that historically the Jurchens (and their descendants the Manchus) used heavy arrows that didn’t shoot very far but had a powerful penetration.
Stats
Cost: 50 Wood 65 Gold
HP: 60 / 65 (elite)
Attack: 10 / 12 (elite) pierce
No attack bonuses, but its attack ignores enemy’s pierce armor
Rate of fire: 2.0
Frame delay: 25
Attack delay: 0.7
Range: 3
Accuracy: 95%
Projectile speed: 7
Melee armor: 2 / 4 (elite)
Pierce armor: 2
Armor classes: Archer, Cavalry Archer, Cavalry, Unique Unit
Speed: 1.3
LOS: 6
Dont we have enough cavalry archer uus already?
I don’t want to see princedoms in the game. We need people groups as civilization.
Name them Tibetans if you want to be taken seriously
Name them as Chams rather than naming them after the kingdom.
Nanzhao and its successor Dali weren’t princedoms, they were fully fledged kingdoms with their own kings and own governance, independent from the Tang and Song dynasties.
As to the reason why I think Tanguts are more suitable for this game than Tibetans, I think I already explained it quite well in this thread and in other threads. They were a Tibetic people, so you could incorporate Tibetans into this civ as well, like that we can circumvent any potential censorship, since Tanguts are recognized in Chinese history books.
Yeah, because Britons, Franks, Teutons, Vikings, Saracens, Chinese, Slavs, Italians and Tatars are super geographically, culturally and historically accurate names that sit absolutely right with other civ names.
Might as well rename Italians to Genoese or Franks to Gauls because of the Sicilians and the Burgundians.
2 Likes
Thais would be a good addition over the Chams… Foundation of Ayutthaya and the overthrow of Angkor could form a campaign base.
And much more new campaigns!!! I love this game for them)))))