Are you saying the game should have no civs that have no direct descendants? Because that would be way too restrictive.
No. What I’m saying is that it wont bring the game to new markets like OP is aaying
Im perfectly fine with adding civs that dont exist anymore
1 Like
Ah ok I just wanted to be sure
Why does every AoE2 civ thread devolve into fighting?
2 Likes
Because some people been waiting for I don’t know how long for legitimate civ requests while others ask for more of the same without seeing that they’ve gotten already a lot of what they want.
I’ve been asking for a more than a measly amount of 6 non-Eurasian civs since 2015,
1 Like
In case you havent realised most dlcs have none euro civis than euro civis.HD has 4+3+2 against 2+1.Only DE started adding euro civis.
2 Likes
He changed from euro to Eurasian now so you can’t fight his opinions
2 Likes
He’s been talking about Eurasia this whole time, since before he posted the picture of the literature he’s been reading. Don’t make a point in bad faith - stick to the facts.
I agree with most of the people here. It would be great to have more Africa and Meso/South America and I think the arguments against their addition are deeply flawed.
Obviously if a certain region only has a couple civs, it’s easy to make the argument of “they didn’t interact with many civs” (although many African civs did interact with others a lot, for example with the Indian Ocean monsoon trade). But the reason, say, that the Incas only interacted with a couple of civs is because they are the only South American civ currently in the game.
If the Teutons were the only European civ, I would not be arguing against adding the Franks by saying “well the Franks only interacted with a couple of the civs in game so they’re clearly not important”. That would be a dumb argument and I’d never make it if the roles were reversed because I have an interest in all medieval history, not just stuff from where I’m from. Instead, I’d be saying “well we can’t just add Franks! We should have Spanish, English, Vikings, Italians, Rus, Byzantines…”
And that’s what I’m saying about Africa and America. We shouldn’t just add Chimu! Let’s have Wari, Muisca, Mapuche, and Tarascans, Mixtecs and Totonacs as well! We need to add lots of civs from these regions so that they can do battle with each in the campaigns and in MP and those cultural regions will feel more alive! So I’m totally with @Szaladon and others here
That being said I don’t think the devs need to rush out expansions too fast! I’m still busy enjoying the last two!
6 Likes
I meant from the “years ago”, not what he’s said here, today. I will try answer you when I get home.
That part is funny because the game has literally never received an East Asian DLC yet.
1 Like
I honestly wouldn’t mind if the entire Mexican continent was filled with civs. I don’t give a dang about history but I care about fun new civ design. And that hinges here on Eagles. Stop me if you heard this tech tree design: Castle Age UT that boosts skirmishers and Imprr oak UT that really promotes heavy Eagle play! That’s all of them!? Huh funny.
Compared to camel regional units which have far more variety. We have civs with generic full camels (China/Persia/Turks) a civ missing the Heavy upgrade (Cumans) civs with weaker but discounted camels (Byz) civs with camels but missing some key techs to make them outstanding mainstay units (Ethiopian and Mongols) there’s a lot of versatility in this unit that is only available to like a dozen civs and only 3 (possibly also Berbers) make this unit central to their play style.
I would hope more civs WITH Eagles and not revolving around them come to being so we can have the generic FU eagle, the version missing elite or maybe even be Teutons if eagle scouting all while the civ can find other units to base its late game power on. Or maybe a civ that has Eagle boosts before a UT and maybe no UT at all.
If the next 10 eagle civs follow a pattern similar to the current 3 then that is a design failure because it feels bland and repetitive. But if say there’s such a civ with a non focus on the unit just because they have access to it that could be great for creative design of overcoming the lack of guns and horses.
I really don’t care about history unless it defines a civ bonus super hard.
Vandals with unmanned naval ships that beat Byzantines? Sounds like a great Demo ship civ! Gimme!
Jurchens being at a point of influence of gunpowder, steppe horsemen, crossbows from China and some heavily armored cavalry!? Sounds great just find a unit line to cripple super hard to compensate for such diversity (probably rams?)
So on and so forth.
All this umbrella and “this represents this civ” stuff I’d cancer to the endless potential additions of civs if you can find some facet that would make them fully unique from their umbrella. This is the attitude we need to reach triple digit civ count!
1 Like
To those people making the “they didn’t interact with many civs” argument: if you prioritise adding civs that interacted with many existing civs, you’ll create a feedback loop in which you basically only add new civs to one region, giving a very unbalanced geographical distribution. This happened to a certain extent with the European DE civs, which seem to have partly been chosen based on existing campaign appearances.
If you really care about interactions between civs, you should pick the existing civs that currently had the fewest interactions (at the moment that’s probably American civs and Japanese) and add new civs that interacted with them.
7 Likes
To be honest, the campaign filling method is not necessarily a bad idea and, if applied to Africa, it could snowball pretty fast. There are already three non existing civs clearly depicted in game (Soninke/Ghaneans in Sundjata, Nubians in Yodit and to some extent Saladdin, Swahili in Francisco de Almeida, possibly more with Ruins of Empires’ orange Bantu) and each of those would get its own campaign with new interactions to add.
3 Likes
Honestly it Only really needs to be one. Incas prove this.
I guess since Chinese, Japanese and Mongolians were in the base game, and Koreans in The Conquerors, there wasn’t many options for a regional DLC
Maybe now it’s possible, idk
Well, there’s plenty of material for one or even several dlc if the devs dare to split the Chinese into several civs. Tibetans and Uyghurs may be complicated considering the current political cliamte, but there are still the Jurchens, Tanguts, Dali, and possibly others.
Edit: And there’s also the Khitans.
7 Likes
damn indian DLC just came out and I already want more. africans tho, we need more civs from africa to have them use it’s regional monk that never made its way into the game.
2 Likes
Yes, I agree – if it targets the campaigns that have the least civ diversity then it does roughly what I suggested in my second paragraph. (Although it still misses civs that don’t have campaigns.)
Interaction with one other civ, you mean? Maybe, but the Inca campaign suffers from only having one civ.
If you ever feel meso civis only met spanish look up tr spanish expedition in to Borneo.incas aztecs fought ottomans and malays.
Do you mean those who don’t appear on existing campaign?
Well, yes and no. For instance, if you bring the Swahili into the game their own campaign may be the opportunity to add the Somali, Shona, Kongolese, etc. In fact every civ you add to Africa or Latin America open the door for other nearby civs. That’s why I was talking about a snowball effect.