Seriously, considering how improperly done (admittedly by Ensemble Studios) the original Civs were, due to the lack of extensive and easily accessible knowledge in '99 compared to nowadays, and comparing them to the newer ones, shouldn’t taking the old Civs (especially the umbrella ones) up to quality standards be the priority?
I’m NOT saying anything completely new can’t be added, only that it should have a lower priority, exempli gratia have a new-new Civ pack every 3-4 DLCs.
And, by the way, many, not just some, new Civ proposals (names not concepts) floating around these forums are rather bizzare.
Asking to add a Civ that didn’t even had written tradition while the Franks have Throwing Axemen as a UU in the Late Middle Ages, Celts are stereotypical barbarians of the Late Antiquity, Vikings are a misnomer, Italians are treated like it’s 1861, the Teutons are named after a Germanic tribe but are an induction of the Teutonic Order, the Turks are just the Ottomans basically, the Slavs encapsulate everyone with a russian accent except we got Poles and Bohemians and Bulgarians and the bloody Saracens contain everything that speaks Arab and didn’t get anything else!
Could you? I think maybe I can articulate what you think and it isnt very pretty.
To you, it sounds like Toltecs and Chimu and the many “wealthier than Europe” Sahara empires were savages that didn’t have advanced agriculture and cities and trade. Let alone a written language which in the case of almost every civ is completely untrue.
You sound to want more European civs but look at all the units out there. Camels, elephants lancers eagles warriors. What civ in Europe can have any of those… maybe Vandals
Then why not explain with precision instead of “some civs bad others good”? Because this feels like a rant without a purpose. And your one civ craftish post was your thr British Isles… sure
First of all, there’s a question in the post, so there’s purpose.
Second…
What? About the names somebody makes? I’m talking about asking for the Tupi for instance, as I read today. Compare that to the Mongols, again for instance, and tell me how they compare for relevance and pertinence.
Also I’m not saying that all new proposals regard peoples without recorded history. I was taking it to the extremes, the existing extremes.
See now here we can more agree. A tupi tribes sure. But this community attracts the types who think anything south of Nubia was savage African tribes or there is nothing worth adding in America. So hopefully the fatigued lash-out is understood ans d thus apology I do offer
Business speaking, doing both should be the best choice.
Rework old civs & updates for free encourages people to come back and play the game, the more people enjoy, the more people spend money on DLC. Hardcore fans buy the DLC anyway so it’s all about how many casuals they could bring in.
That’s exactly what they doing in Mountain Royal DLC & Persian rework.
Saracens and Chinese are the civs for which I’ve seen calls for split for the longest time, and they’re not exactly Europeans. There’s also the Malays, Dravidians, Tatars, Turks and so on.
Most of the threads about splitting Euro civs are hijacked to ask for new African, East Asian or American civs, so we don’t need to create threads dedicated to ask for non Euro splits, we just need to wait for someone asking for a Teuton or Italian split
And in fact, Britons were a branch of Celts while the civ called Britons in this game are Anglo-Saxons. What’s more , this so-called archer civ doesn’t have tech Thumb Ring.
