I agree Habsburg is not a good civi name but it can easily be Austrians.
Bavarians is fine but having swiss pikes and the units thats supposed to counter them is not a great design choice.
2 Likes
Teutons still exist.
1 Like
X DDDDD
The Teutons as civ have nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire. You can see it with the naked eye.
Exactly
My proposal of the Bavarians civ would be an umbrella for South Germans.
Regarding the presence of Landsknechts and Swiss Pikemans in one civ, it does not have to be incorrect because anyway these units were present in South Germany and were also present in HRE. One South German civ instead of two civs - this would save one slot for another civ. It can be written that these individuals hate each other historically, but it doesn’t matter in the game. Bavarians civ would focus on mercenaries so their two UUs would be mercenary. I think this is a better solution than creating the Swiss civ and Austrians civ separately and giving them one UU, i.e. Swiss Pikeman for the Swiss civ and Landsknecht for the Austrians civ. Why divide something into two that can be neatly combined into one?
Honestly I think you just cant get past the UU and rhe name (which considering the game uses names of peoples instead of states I think its a fairly okay option) because theciv has a lot from the HRE. ES clearly took inspiration from the HRE for Teutons.
Ironic.
2 Likes
Teutonic Knight is simply a Knight of the Teutonic Order. Pay attention to his appearance - THIS IS WHAT THE KNIGHTS LOOKED LIKE, NOT THE KNIGHTS OF HRE.
When the Knights in the Teutonic and Livonian Orders Knights looked almost the same as during the Crusades, in HRE the Knights wore richly decorated extravacant armor and uniforms.
Holy Roman Empire
Teutonic and Livonian Orders Knights
A Teutonic Knight on the left and a Swordbrother on the right.
Teutonic Order
Livonian Order
If you don’t know the difference, it’s really bad.
Just because the UU is based on the TO doesnt mean the whole civ is. Malians srent Dahomey just because they have Gbetos
3 Likes
I like your architectural suggestions, but I think we have enough European civilizations in AoE II at the moment. As far as I am concerned, the Germans in AoE II are the Teutons. I’d rather see new civs for Africa and the Americas.
5 Likes
Only civi missing from the game is tibet but that dosent mean there is too much of europe and people cant make concepts for european factions.
1 Like
Ok, but what about Kanembu/Hausa, Zimbabwe, Geotgians, etc?
You arent making a good argument
3 Likes
What is the point in going in to every topic and saying your choices suck mine are way better?
2 Likes
As I mentioned in an old thread, the only “”“European”"" civs that are missing are Georgians and Armenians (What else is better than Armenians? Khazars? Cumans got them sort of covered) since they’re part of a theme which sadly we can only get from the current bad DLC practices instead of having a mixed 5 civs DLC like The Forgotten and Conquerors.
I agree with all of you who got sick of Europe having 2 DLCs in a row that serve as a fanservice for the AoC:H mod and want to see other areas represented including Caucasus (personally) that feels way different than West/East Europe, It’s time for the Realms fanservice to be a thing with mixed civs around the globe.
end of offtopic…
To be honest, I would have received DoD with far more enthusiasm if it wasn’t preceded by another European DLC with far less relevant civs, and if both of those didn’t contain half the number of civs of tAK/RotR for the exact same price. In any case, I would not be against new European civ in the future, but only in a distant future after all areas of the world have received the amount of love they need and deserve.
4 Likes
You are saying that theres no civs left to be added outside of Tibetans and thats just wrong.
And I just dont get why you want more Euro civs. It feels like you just care about marketability to me…
1 Like
Under the assumption that they’re marketable…
Most people want something outside of Europe from what I’ve seen lately.
100% correct unless it makes money how will it progress?
This is not a modding project every asset in game costs money to make so adding europe is a quick and less costly way to earn money.
1 Like
If the objective was to make money Sicilians and Burgundians (or Finns) dont fit that idea. Even Kongo is more marketeable than those.
And they can afford to take more risks (like, cmon, the last two DLCs barely had any new assets and had less campaigns)
1 Like
Exactly my point less cost more to earn.They tried to be innovative with the first one but with the backlash devs went back to playing it safe.
1 Like
Honestly if this is how you think about new content you shouldnt even be talking here. You want them to be lazy when its clear that they can afford to do a bit more since this isnt a random indie game.
2 Likes
You have no clue how corporates work do you?
1 Like