Africa and America DLC soon?

[Szaladon]

That would be the best case.

[KHANATTILA]

@Velk413

You’re entitled to your opinion and I am to mine

I think every person who is here loves this game and loves to talk about it. And then I like to discuss about possible new content.

@Velk413

This would also give a civ to represent the earlier Germanic barbarians that don’t fit under another umbrella (Franks, Goths, etc) for campaigns.

I think my reservations are the fault of the Goths. I mean, despite this huge update, which is far more than I can hope for (and I don’t think it will ever happen again in the future) the Goths still don’t make any sense with the HC and BBC.

If we want to cover the other tribes (and the Goths originated from the Steppes like the Huns, before splitting into Ostrogoths and Visigoths) why not integrate the Vandals who are much more important. But then only Saxons is reductive, if one used the term Anglo-Saxons one would also include Angles and Frisians, already a better umbrella.

[DynasticPlanet5]

If we wanna talk net worth… trust me, you don’t really wanna make this argument. Can we not pretend that even today most Sahara empires of the era would when inflation applies, would on their own compare to modern European GDP

[PersiasRerising]

To come back to the topic:
I see a lot of potential for more African civs. The kanemburu, Songhai, hausa and yoruba were all developed empires. We have good candidates for unique units, castles and wonders.
Maybe we can also get some regional units for Africa to make them more unique. And with that some more animals for the Maps (Hippo and giraffe please)

For America, I see big difficulties. The meso American civs are already the most developed ones in that timeframe. Especially in north America there was not much that would be the basis for a civ in aoe2. The Iroquois are basically already in the game. you can find them in Vinlandsaga and Karlsefni. And in my opinion, they are very good represented here because this is exactly how they were with Tomahawk and bow and arrow, without siege, cavalerie, gun powder, metal working and so on. They also have nothing for a wonder and caste exempt one makes something up but even then a campaign has no history to be based on.

[TyrannoNinja]

@KHANATTILA

If we want to cover the other tribes (and the Goths originated from the Steppes like the Huns, before splitting into Ostrogoths and Visigoths) why not integrate the Vandals who are much more important.

I’m not desperate for more European civs at the moment (right now I want to see southern African civs get more representation), but I wonder what a Vandal civ would look like in the game. I know a lot of players feel too many of the recent civ additions have Mediterranean-style architecture, and I personally wouldn’t give that to Vandals even if they did establish their kingdom in what used to be Roman North Africa. Would Central European architecture like what the Teutons and Goths have be better?

[Velk413]

@KHANATTILA

I think every person who is here loves this game and loves to talk about it. And then I like to discuss about possible new content.

That’s fine, sorry if it came across as me trying to attack or something, I was trying to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to attack your opinion, just voice my disagreement with it.

@KHANATTILA

why not integrate the Vandals who are much more important

I mean, yeah, the Vandals were the lynchpin of my “barbarian invasion” DLC idea. They are the cornerstone of it that everything else is build around. Just trying to find another barbarian invasion civ to pair with them in a DLC, and IMO Saxons seem like the best option for a second. Lombards are probably third but I know people have issues with them too.

But yeah Vandals are more relevant, and they certainly should be included in any such barbarian invasion DLC, no argument there.

[Velk413]

@TyrannoNinja

Would Central European architecture like what the Teutons and Goths have be better

Ideally i’d rather see a “Barbarian” architecture set, but barring that Cent Euro is probably the second best option yeah.

[KHANATTILA]

@PersiasRerising

To come back to the topic:

Sorry, you are right.

But I think only an idiot could not recognise how there are several developed African kingdoms with a proper military organisation to choose from.

@PersiasRerising

For America, I see big difficulties.

Likewise, if I could vote, I would probably not include any North American civilisations.

@TyrannoNinja

I wonder what a Vandal civ would look like in the game

On a gameplay level, they would be like the Goths only instead of having the infantry bonus they would have the knight bonus. Cheap Paladin spam no stop.

@TyrannoNinja

Would Central European architecture like what the Teutons and Goths have be better?

Good question. Probably yes?

@Velk413

That’s fine, sorry if it came across as me trying to attack or something, I was trying to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to attack your opinion, just voice my disagreement with it.

Don’t worry, you weren’t rude.

[Holyheart]

I think Vandals are necessary if we get one day a Roman campaign. Each side won and lost some battles.

Speaking about campaigns, it’s very hard to produce content for NA civs. I think only Iroquois can have a documented campaign, and it means pushing timeframe to 1650 (why not, because AOE3 doesn’t cover well 17h century) and adding… Dutch, an other European civ

[PersiasRerising]

Right. Make way for Sweden

[Apocalypso4826]

@SMUM15236

Yeah, the pure Saxons.

You might not like my Saxons concept from a couple years ago then.

@Velk413

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).

Agreed. My Saxons concept was mostly based on the Anglo-Saxons of the early Middle Ages, with a bit of continental Saxons as well with the naval tech tree, IIRC.

[Velk413]

@Holyheart

Speaking about campaigns, it’s very hard to produce content for NA civs. I think only Iroquois can have a documented campaign, and it means pushing timeframe to 1650 (why not, because AOE3 doesn’t cover well 17h century) and adding… Dutch, an other European civ

I think Mississippians is the choice for an AOE2 NA civ. The below attached thread is pretty solid, and has not one but two campaigns! (one is a Bari-style campaign but I think its still got legs)

Another North American Civ concept

A lot have already been said about possible North American Civilizations and I am the first to say to force the civilizations of North American in to the Age Of Empire mold is slightly awkward. However the more I learn the Mississippian mound builders the more I think it is possible. In the end we know more than a lot of people think, still there are a few blind spots. I have tried to fill those up with not always the most historical plausible option but more in the vein of fun gameplay, like …

[JuryMusic777863]

This is the most recent civ map:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/19a079z/map_of_all_45_current_civilizations_as_of/

[ZestySage992416]

Very badly made map
Lithuanians without Lithuania
Armenians without Armenia
Bengalis without Bengal

[Akoskaaa10]

and why is the Songhai Empire on the map instead of the Malian Empire??

[JuryMusic777863]

I agree. But it’s something.
Also Burgundy with central Netherlands, weird.

[KHANATTILA]

@Holyheart

I think only Iroquois can have a documented campaign, and it means pushing timeframe to 1650 (why not, because AOE3 doesn’t cover well 17h century)

This seems to be a problem of AoE3 not AoE2 tbf

@Holyheart

and adding… Dutch, an other European civ

Onelsty, I always put it under Teutons split. But then dividing it into what is a huge problem.

[KHANATTILA]

@JuryMusic777863

This is the most recent civ map:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/19a079z/map_of_all_45_current_civilizations_as_of/

It is really badly made. I understand that many civilisations overlap territorially, but come on.

[FasterScarf7691]

@Velk413

I think Mississippians is the choice for an AOE2 NA civ. The below attached thread is pretty solid, and has not one but two campaigns! (one is a Bari-style campaign but I think its still got legs)

Regarding the Mississippians, I read the thread and the author did a great job, the civ bonus are original and the illustrations look stunning, but I still think it’s not a good fit for aoe2.

Correct me if I’m if wrong in any of the following, but from what I understood they had neither bronze or iron metallurgy, nor stone based construction. Hence it feels weird to plug them in a medieval themed game.

I know a lot of civs, like the Huns or the mesos, already differs quite a lot from your “standard medieval civ”, but they still created some sorts of empires and left their marks on other civilisations.

I’m not denying Missipians built cities, had complex hierarchies and religions, but this doesn’t sound “medieval” or “imperial” to me. It sounds like an aoe1 civ to me. It would be a much better fit within a game about the emergence of complex political systems and the first cities. Not within a game where civs transition from a dark age of “barbaric” invasions and political collapse to an empire.

The other arguments to include them in aoe2 are that

1. they fit in the time period (which is not doing much if they didn’t really interact with other civs)
2. we somehow need to fill the blanks on the map (??)

It’s like saying we need to add celts to aoe1, because we need to fill Europe with something, and they built oppidums and had chiefs so it was definitely the same thing as Babylone or Pharaohs.

[Velk413]

I mean i’ll be honest, a large part of why I want to see Mississippians is as an American (European American, not Native American, but still) i’d like to see my geographic corner of the world represented personally, even if just a little bit.

They didn’t have bronze or iron metallurgy, but they did work some copper, which from my understanding is still more metalworking than the Aztecs had.

I don’t think the Mongols really had stone-based construction, until they adopted it from others as they grew their empire, and even then a lot of common folk still lived in yurts (heck even modern day a lot of Mongolians still live in yurts)

@FasterScarf7691

It would be a much better fit within a game about the emergence of complex political systems and the first cities.

The game is still about the time on the timeline first and foremost. The only reason AoE 2 is mainly about transition from dark age to empires is that is where a lot of civilizations were at the time. And the whole reason i’m pushing for Mississippians as opposed to, say, Ancestral Pueblo (who also built some settlements and political systems, but really didn’t do anything to expand power) from what i’ve seen about Cahokia, they did actually put effort into expanding power beyond the city and its immedate fields. I’d be more opposed to putting Mississippians in AoE 1, because while they were around that level in the AoE 2 timeframe, they were still in fact in the AoE 2 timeframe.

Also the whole point of the Hernan de Soto campaign is twofold; one to get a campaign where you play the conquistador, but also to show the interactions between Mississippian peoples and an outside civilization (the Spanish) so there was, granted small, but some interaction with others, as others got to them.

@FasterScarf7691

they fit in the time period (which is not doing much if they didn’t really interact with other civs)

With this logic, Incas shouldn’t be in the game either, because they didn’t interact with other civs until they got stomped by the Spanish in the course of…what, a year?

And on your Celts comment, yeah I personally do think that if they ever added more civs to AoE 1 they should add some of the European barbarian civs.

I do think that when you have a whole major continent with nothing, and there is a civ option that, while granted, its not the perfect archetype of a medieval society, fits decently, and is in the proper time period, it fits well enough and should be done.