Do we know anything about them as they too were a hunter gatherer society like the finns.
Finns atleast got invaded and fought ingame civis unlike north americans.
We should always look at potential civis from a gaming point of view and not go fully historical.
They developed a farming society, and actual cities like Cahokia.
Its not great, but its much better than nothing.
Completely isolated peoples dont really make interesting civis tho,other than spain who can they fight?
Lets not forget devs are going an economical way and adding minimum things to dlcs now.so making a new building set for one or two civis they might not even consider.
Tbh if we go by those standards we would only have european civs considering a lot of civs outside that only fought one present civ or two.
Will you finish with these Finns?
I wrote the Swedes and the Finns to the main post.
If it were a Swedish civ (which could also represent Finno-Ugric) then they could get a Regional Unit along with a Viking civ - so that a Viking civ would have at least one more modern Scandinavian Unit.
I will correct you:
The whole Old World
That goes for Mali too for example.
Partly because we dont have Songhai, Kanem, Hausa or Mossi
Yes, and that’s why it’s in the game.
No I mean that Mali didnt fight with more than Portuguese and Berbers directly (in terms of in-game civs)
They traded with arabs so three ingame civis. The new world civis came in to contact with each other via spanish only.
Would love to get this back
The point is, if we already have 2 MesoAmerican civs and 1 Andean civs - both of these groups of cultures were the most developed in the Americas, where the rest were too backward. Adding civs like Mississippians or Tupi to AoE 2 will do more harm to this game than good - opening another can of worms!
If you want NA civs then at least they are Mesoamerican.
Tarascans, Chimu and Muisca - these are the top candidates for new civs from the Americas.
3 NA civs + 3 SA civs
I kinda have to agree with this. North American civs don’t even make any sense for AoE2. We mostly don’t know enough about any of them. His ideas would be wonderful for AoE3, though, because he does do his research and all, but just wrong game.
Exactly.
Much more NA and SA civs are needed but for AoE. 3 new American civs are enough for AoE 2.
Hm, lets go back to what started it all, shall we?
How is that “destroying” the thread?
You started us down this rabbit hole and then blame others. You are the biggest hypocrite on this forum
You claim we are indocentrics (I rarely ever venture into new civ discussions, so how the frick you can assume that is beyond me) when you are the one saying that we only need 4 civs from India while you feel free to make the Balkans have 8 civs. You don’t even try to hide your bias
IT WAS JUST CAUSING THE STORM
Same standard for every region of the world, perhaps we may accept about 55~60 civs in the game finally.
It would be lively and bustling. 11
39 current civs
+
3~5 New World civs: Chimu, Muisca, Mapuche and even Tarascans and Polynesians.
+
2 Caucasians: Armenians and Georgians.
+
4~5 Inner Asians: Jurchens, Khitans, Tibetans, Gokturks and even Sogdians (Iranic nomads)
+
2~3 South Asians: Dravidians (Tamils), Bengals and even Sinhalese.
+
1~2 Southeast Asians: Siamese and even Chams.
+
3~5 Africans: Kongos (Bantus), Swahilis (Bantus), Zimbabwean (Bantus too), Sahelians (Hausa states, Kanem–Bornu Empire, etc.) and even Nubians.
+
1~3 European maybe (include Balkans).
I may not be a strong supporter for all of the civs above but they are the potential options people talking about.
Byzantines and Bulgarians - Balkan civs present in this game
Byzantines and Bulgarians + Serbs + Croatians = 4 civs!
7 actually, I counted Finns on accident.
Romanians, Serbs, Croatians, Byzantines, Turks, Magyars, Bulgarians=7
Now you are directly lying, this is getting sad man
