Stating out the facts only.
- Yes, Kanembu is probably an even better term than Kanouri. The important thing is to represent the Kanem-Bornu Empire.
- Of course.
- More correctly Ayneha. But absolutely right to represent them.
2 & 5. There is better:
→ Edo (Kingdom of Benin) (wikipedia).
→ Karanga or MaKaranga (Kingdom of Zimbabwe) (wikipedia).
→ Kongo or BaKongo (Kingdom of Kongo) (wikipedia).
→ Soninke (Ghana Empire) (wikipedia).
Modern GDP makes sense when you think about how marketable a DLC is.
I think a pure African DLC would likely sell pretty badly.
This is why I suggested a bigger DLC with 5 civilisations from all over the world instead of 2-3 civs from one continent only.
This DLC would be a lot easier to market.
The ancestors of most US Americans lived in Europe, Africa or Asia though, not America.
I think there should be some North American civs though. Would be boring to leave the entire continent empty.
Bohemia was a pretty large and influential kingdom in the late middle ages. Almost as big as England.
I think there is potential for like 1-2 more HRE related civs in the game.
I like the idea of adding the Saxons to represent the Anglo Saxons before the Norman Conquest and the Saxons in Germany that were conquered by the Franks.
1 Like
It would be great if people could stop using every thread about Europe to ask for African civs and every thread about Africa to ask about more German civs.
11 Likes
Its always so weird to know that you are from South Asia yet obsesed with breaking up the European Umbrellas
Like, you could also aay that the Japanese, Huns, Mongols and Arabs havent gotten anything in 25 years if you wanted to
3 Likes
The Germans already have the largest AoE2 playerbase on AoE2 despite being much less populous most of the other countries with most players (outside of Argentina)
If we care exclusively about Money we can have two more China DLCs since it has a huge playerbase but could be expansed much much further and is the second largest economy
1 Like
Huns are in the german building set.Everyother building set has got a faction other than the mesos got new civis added to them.
I wanted the indian umbrella broken up which happened and i was never really interested in seeing my own people ingame unlike some.
I do think we should add Saxons at some time. Them and Vlachs are the only two European civs that I won’t mind being added.
I frankly find this discussion above so silly because, imo the devs never cared about this and indeed there is no reason for that. I mean, is there more obvious evidence of devs including Malians or Khmers first before even including Poles? Poles were requested since HD, while I’m sure most people have never heard of Cumans.
I’m thankful that Sandy and Ensemble also didn’t worry about player base numbers or the population density of a certain region when they included Aztecs and Mayans instead of, say, the thousands of tiny kingdoms and ultra relevant city-states in the HRE.
6 Likes
You mean Saxons, the pure Saxons? Not like Anglo-Saxons or English.
Because the Britons in the game are practically the English.
1 Like
Yeah, my thoughts have been 2 more Europe DLCs, each include one of the ones you mention here:
Balkans DLC, with Vlachs, Serbs, and (maybe) Croats (And renaming Slavs to Rus’ or Ruthenians)
Barbarian Invasion DLC with Vandals and Saxons (Vandals are the big one I want here, but Saxons are the next best shout because of their presence until after the turn of the millenium in England. I could see an argument for Lombards as well but I prefer Saxons as the second) (Ideally this one also comes with a Barbarian civ architecture set shared by the two new civs, Goths, and probably Huns, but I know that may be asking for too much)
After that i’m perfectly content if they never touch Europe again other than giving more classic civs their own campaigns.
I think the Bohemians should have the central European architecture too.
I would like to see the Andalusi in the game. Right now they’re like a weird offshot of the Saracens in Europe.
I also wouldn’t mind the Alans. Whether we want to consider this civs “European” or not is a different question.
1 Like
We could maybe get all three of them, the next dlc is breaking all the patterns anyway.
Yeah, the pure Saxons.
A mix of Berbers and Spanish?
Sorry, yes I agree 100% with you on Andalusi. They slipped my mind but I do want them included.
And don’t get me wrong, when I say i’d be content with no other Euro civs after those two DLC proposals (and Andalusi) that doesn’t mean i’d have a problem with more being added to Europe, its just that they will have all that I really want to see, and i’d rather other things be prioritized first. Alans could be interesting but are IMO a very low priority.
1 Like
More like a mixture of Saracens with some Berber and a few traces of Roman if you dig enough.
The Spanish evolved kind of differently
They were quite unique in the Islamic world and one of the most advanced civilizations in Europe for the first half of the Middle Ages. Either if we get a Saracens split or a new European civ, the Andalusi are like the first civ that comes to my mind
Okay. Let me rephrase. Saracens+Berbers+Romans+Goths? Can be interesting as you can throw some Spanish+Portuguese+Italians+Sicilians flavour.
Yeah, I know. Problem is how we can differentiate them enough from existing civ?
The way the game is, it makes no sense imo. They are practically the Teutons since they represent the Germanic souls as a whole.
You instead refer to the Anglo-Saxons. Which then in history were not only the Saxons who occupied Britain, but let’s simplify. If I am not mistaken, in historical battles they are represented as the Goths, who are invaded by the Franks, i.e. Normans.
I personally think that the Continental Saxons are covered by the Teutonts, and that the English Saxons are covered by the Britons.
I personally disagree, as the Britons in game are geared towards the later Kingdom of England after the Norman invasion (representing Welsh by virtue of the Anglo-Normans adopting Welsh longbows) whereas the Teutons represent the later HRE German states. This Saxons civ yes would be a progenitor to that Teutons civ, but is still different, and I think is different enough from the Anglo-Normans to warrant its own civ (note even in the Hastings scenerio, the Saxons are represented like you say by the Goths, not the English, and the Goths are just a stand in).
This would also give a civ to represent the earlier Germanic barbarians that don’t fit under another umbrella (Franks, Goths, etc) for campaigns.
You’re entitled to your opinion and I am to mine, but I personally think Saxons is a rather important addition; I don’t see pre-1000 Saxons as being terribly well represented by an archer civ or a civ with conversion resistance and Teutonic Knights, and the civ has legs to represent quite a few different groups in varying scenerios/campaigns.
1 Like
Well, that question can be asked for any other civ suggested here. The Andalusians would probably be focused on light cavalry and farming, just off the top of my head. But I don’t think it would be particularly hard to do.