I would be ok with that. We have almost all european countries of that time. I just hope that we get some oriental civs in between.
Oh wow the game would be wonderful to have Colombia and Gran Colombia.
1 Like
I think oriental civs were not that powerful or influential in this period of time.
i think making the game up into being geographically fair is a folly.
factions should get in on merit, not on whether there are 2 or 20 civs in their region. some regions simply produced/produces more competitive nations than others.
also it depend how one views region, USA in Anglo and Mexico is Hispanic, so id argue we only need Brazil.
besides if we go with your idea wed end up with like 2 north and 3 south? or 1 north, 2 middle and 2 south? or like how do you decide what faction is what?
1 Like
Why would it be a folly in this case?
And according to you, what would those merits be?
If a developer didnât say it, I donât think you should assume things like this.
it would be something similar to the following
North America: Haudenosaunee, Lakota, United States and Mexicans
Central America: Aztecs and Mexicans (ÂżHaitĂ?)
South America: Inca, (ÂżArgentina, Gran Colombia and Brazil?)
PS: Which civilization would you like the developers to add?
1 Like
Chile, PerĂş, Argentina, Brazil, HaitĂ, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Gran Colombia and Greece as an Ottoman rev
Take a guess which continent Iâm from
WoL me tiene malcriado
1 Like
denmark, poland and persia are my top 3. id also like Kongo, Rozvi and maori. korea, siam and south east asia (indonesians) would also be interesting but each of them has issues.
this is my personal opinion, just like its your personal opinion to want south american countries. that said the mexico was heavily advertised to latin america, a lot of spanish advertisement.
historical relevance, being a great power gives more points than being a city state.
time period, being active for the entire period gives more points than being active for 50.
colonial impact, how far did the merchants and colonists of the country reach? what where the ambition of the country in general. more global reach=better.
number of wars and the size and importance of them, being at war with the Ottomans gives more points than being at war with local natives. wars further away from ones coreland counts more.
cultural uniqueness, this is esp. important for stuff like Lakota, how unique is a culture? speaking the same language, and worse being a break away from an existing country is a negative. speaking a completely unique language and having unique warfare styles is a bonus.
possibilities for fun unique units and mechanics. interesting cards etc. this kind of comes from the other points, but still, if a country had a very important innovation it makes for a better civilisation than one who just copied everyone else.
7 Likes
- ÂĄOceanĂa!
- Ok, eso me dio gracia.
- Me agrada tu optimismo.
PD: No veo mal apuntar tan alto como sea posible, al final los jugadores no somos los que elegimos las prĂłximas civilizaciones. 
They seem interesting options, none of them particularly attract my attention, but I donât see a bad thing in adding them.
Donât take it the wrong way, but now that youâre part of the moderators, you should clarify when itâs an opinion. I clarify that I say this with all possible kindness and I do not intend to offend you.
I agree that a civilization must be relevant.
I donât see why it should be something so strict, for example, Gran Colombia could be a wild card civilization, you could start with Gran Colombia and end with imperial Peru.
That seems like something that would only benefit potential European civilizations.
Because limiting only colonialist and warlike civilizations, because a civilization that seeks to defend itself against invaders could not be in the game, I donât like this limitation.
Also because fighting against the Ottomans would be more important than fighting against, for example, the Spanish empire, the British empire, the French empire, etc.
Perfect, so Peru, Argentina and Mexico could very well be in the game at the same time, because Mexico was highly influenced by the Mexica, Peru was influenced by the Incas and Argentina by immigrants.
Regarding the language, technically we speak Spanish, but customs, words and contexts could make a big difference.
PD: Envidio un poco a nuestros hermanos peruanos, tiene ancestros geniales.
Any civilization can have unique mechanics, to give an example, they could give Brazil the ability to produce great quality lumber and lumber and they could make Argentina produce great quality food and food.
I clarify that this is only my opinion and I do not intend to offend anyone. 
my list doesnt mean a faction in order to be relevant has to adhere to every single point, they are guide lines for different aspects that combined makes a faction interesting. and can at least be used as a stick point.
being a colonial power helps, but colonial powers tend to hit other points here regardless. the point was more that if one only ever has purely defensive wars or only have small border wars its probably less interesting as a faction than one that overwhelmed a kingdom half the world away.
the ottoman empire was more of an example, seriously fighting the british or french would also count. but if its the âthe british came and blockaded us and then we diplomatically ended the warâ then i dont think that really counts, britain is famous for having invaded pretty much any country on earth.
just a fun illustrator.
i think when one looks at ones own culture and history one tries to find differences, norway and iceland does it towards my country but that doesnt mean they are really all that different, they just simply build their national identity on being different and thus creates logics for how they are different. national identity is fun like that.
the former spanish colonies have a lot of similarities, your history is somewhat similar (hell half of south america was liberated by bolivar), a lot of your base costumes are similar, your view on the world and politics are similar at large. yes you can find differences, even genetic ones but that doesnt change the fact that you are largely the same culture split into different nations and that they are very similar from esp. a historical standpoint is just not to gloss over.
it goes a bit beyond what this forum post to discuss all aspects of what makes a culture unique or not but i just think that from the outside south america looks and smell quiet similar, differences for sure but its harder to see than the difference between britian and germany for example.
we know the devs have no interest splitting the germans up into subfaction, despite a lot of regional difference and even countries 1 could point to, i think the same logic largely applies to south america. its not that there arent differences, its that in the grand scheme of things they are very similar nations.
We could always get more native american civs in South America you know.
5 Likes
wouldnt mind more minor natives, maybe even mapuche as a full faction, but ill be honest and say my understanding of american natives is somewhat limited.
Ok, your list doesnât make a civilization interesting for me, but as you said before, itâs your opinion and therefore your personal list, I respect that.
Ok, I admit that the British are not the most exclusive opponents, but it was not necessary to leave them so bad either.
In my opinion, a charismatic leader defeating a vast empire on its own territory should count just as much, if not more.
I am not going to deny that all the empires of Hispanic-Americans have some similarities, we were all part of the Spanish empire at some point, but we have all built our own identities and cultures, also denying the differences would be almost disrespectful due to the nature of independence that we Hispanic-American countries have, in a few words we know that we have similarities, but our cultures are not centered on our origin, but rather on the path that we have been building throughout our history.
Iâm sorry, but with all due respect I cannot accept your premise.
They are a people who managed to retain and defeat the Spanish empire, forcing them to negotiate a lasting peace and earning the respect of many. To give you an idea, the Lautaro lodge was created in the name of one of its leaders. Toqui Leftraru
I think your points are very valid. Especially about cultural uniqueness and the unique units themselves.
This is actually one of my justifications for West Indies pirates (or rather Sea Rovers).
TLDR? Basically (Caribbean) Sea Rovers had Home Cities (Nassau being the âmainâ one for the sake of gameplay), had a traceable journey from Boucanier (jerky making hunters who dabbles piracy), to Buccaneers (Spanish-targeting pirates who were often used as mercenary muscle and had their own bases) and finally to Pirates who were happy plundering anything and had their own Self-Governing bases in the Bahamas and Madagascar. In gameplay terms? A piratical civ with a Governor (Consulate-style) system to change to legit or pirate rovers, an age-up system similar to Federal States, except using âHaven Portsâ instead of States, with shipments tailored to the pirate haven (i.e aging up with Port Royal over Petit Goave might give you specific Buccaneer unit perks plus buildable Rum Distilleries) and lastly the ability to plunder resources from buildings and ships.
Yes I agree that they have been built up in popular culture, - they didnât look anything like Hollywood pirates (most wore short brim hats, shirts and baggy trousers) and apart from some later pirates, they didnât try to take on navy warships broadside to broadside.
The rest is where I disagree though.
Importance:
⢠Buccaneers did on occasion capture ships laden with gold and silver (normally boarding from much smaller boats in an ambush), however they much prefered to attack and plunder the ports that the treasure fleets unloaded/loaded cargo.
⢠The Buccaneers were powerful enough for both English and French colonial powers to commission them to attack Spanish forts, raze towns and shipping and plundering significant wealth, whilst also acting as the defence for France and Englandâs new and weak colonial territory in the Caribbean.
⢠The Buccaneers/Flibustiers had their own stronghold in Tortuga (including their own fortress) before branching out to Port Royal and Petit Goave. These Buccaneers all operated within a broad coalition, The Brethren of the Coast and used Letters of Marque from any country they could get commissions from, or just attack the Spanish without (still just a pirate to the Spanish)
⢠There were some incredibly talented individual Buccaneers - take William Dampier for example. He was a Buccaneer, naturalist and explorer who went on piratical raids, hung out with Logwood Cutters (pirate lumberjacks) and circumnavigated the world 3 times, not too mention he worked Bartholomew Sharp (outright pirate who was pardoned after raiding the Pacific and sharing his map info with the English), marooned Alexander Selkirk (the inspiration for Robinson Crusoe) and sailed with Privateer Woodes Rogers, went on to put and end to the later pirate haven of Nassau.
⢠Buccaneers didnât attack harbours with ships - they would moor up miles away, and march through jungle (in large numbers) to attack fortress from the rear, relying on the element of surprise.
⢠Buccaneers used long barrel muskets, pistols and grenades and were individually better equipped than most national army soldiers due to self-funding plus were either ex-soldiers or hunters. They were using âmodernâ flintlock muskets whilst most Spanish colonial forces were using matchlock. Contrary to Hollywood, Sea Rovers really loved muskets and grenades over cutlass/melee.
⢠When Buccaneering (i.e. piracy just against the Spanish) waned, many joined Pirate companies to sail to Madagascar and plunder the Red Sea / Indian Ocean leading to millions of £ going into the coffers of the pirates (which then went into Madagascar pirate haven economy, then to North America, to places like New York where smuggled goods were highly sought after).
⢠Pirates on the Pirate Round, such as Henry Every did massive damage to trade relations for the East India Company and the Mughals and was being hunted globally.
⢠Returning Roundsmen pirates, Logwood Cutters and ex Buccaneers/Privateers raid the wrecked Spanish treasure fleet from Nassau, Bahamas bringing a gold-rush style wealth which helps with the establishment of the Pirate Commonwealth.
⢠Golden Era Pirates (1713-30ish) whilst not into the land raids in huge numbers of rovers like the previous Buccaneers, still raided wreck salvage camps, plantations and the odd castles/forts in West Africa
⢠Golden/Silver age pirates caused enough of a threat and a dent to the economy (Sam Bellamy was the wealthiest pirate of all-time with the equivalent of 151 million dollars to his name, which was plundered from somewhere right?), that the British from 1713 used all means necessary to try and curtail piracy, including proclamations in pirate-friendly American states, more naval presence/pirate hunters and the Royal Pardon to try and turn pirates into good little law abiders. Thatâs, at the time, a world power turning itâs attention to pirates that are doing economic damage and terror.
One last thing to add is that I use the term Sea Rovers as this covers all the (very) interconnected subgroups - Buccaneers, Privateers/Corsaires and Pirates. Each group has slightly different quirks, like the Buccaneers actually having armies of rovers, with flagbearers and drummers (like real armies!), Pirates often operated within smaller Companies (made of many ships with many crew) sometimes within a coalition (like The Flying Gang) and preferred plundering via the sea (and odd raid) over overland adventures, and Privateers are your commissioned pirates or private professional companies which either previously mentioned group could become or turn to out-right piracy from.
1 Like
Iâve been thinking itâll be something water based, like Polynesians. Lots of people are talking about pirates which I also think are definitely on the table. Pirates were in the original campaign after all.
This could come with a host of water maps and AI support for water maps, and maybe even a new water mechanic or two.
2 Likes
bueno pues en defenza no es lo mismo invadir tantos paises que ganar en todas tus invasiones xd
Theyâre not adding romans to AoE2, theyâre porting AoE1 into the AoE2 engine and selling it as a DLC so they donât essentially sell you the same engine twice.
1 Like
I know that. But there are some people who want to add Romans, even though we already have Byzantines
1 Like
REAL Germany was a Frankenstein of cultures.
2 Likes
Something being historical doesnât mean itâs good for the game. From a gameplay perspective Germany is a Frankenstein because itâs now bloated by conflicting content. Units like Landwehrs are completely unnecessary and redundant other than as a historical reference. Replacing War Wagons eliminates a key feature that made Germany unique. The amount of content theyâre trying to cram into one civ belongs in two civs. That would give two civs with an actual identity instead of one thatâs just everything crammed into one.
2 Likes
Having a second German civ doesnt solve anything. They should just not add unnecessary content and remove the things they added which are useless.
We simply dont need a second German civ when we miss more important civs, giving revolutionary states as example argueing we can have a German one aswell is stupid as I am against those aswell, and rather have less of such civs then more just because the other one is present. We arent 5 year olds.
The devs should stop adding so much units in general. Its breaking balancing and its just too much. We cant have every civ having totally unique units and besides most units being added to Germans or Ottomans are already existing units but just with slightly adjusted stats and they look different, which only complicates it for players.
I also like how pre-Germany update your arguments were different from now and now they are just about the landswehr and reiter unit or whatever its called, so pre-update Germany was actually fine?