Listen if Armenians and Georgians weren’t European they wouldn’t be in Eurovision
it’s also why I don’t want Australia!
Even if they’re not European, they’re still Europe-adjacent and of course you’ll have intertwined history because the devs keep adding sub-factions of the European civs already present in the game, and we will get intertwined history on other continents when we get DLCs added there as well, do we really need to go through the entire alphabet of European geography while the campaign location selectors while there are several continents under one generalised name.
Let’s have some pages of Africa or India or Asia or anywhere other than what’ll fall under Europe first, then we can fill out the remaining parts of Europe.
What would you measure for how important a civ is? How widely requested one is?
I’m willing to bet there’s a lot more importance in delving into important factions on the African continent, or the Indian peninsula, or for anywhere in Asia.
it’s a joke for how Europe-centric the last DLCs have needlessly been, and how the next DLCs should be somewhere else
To return to the Porto DLC, I’ve thought about it during one of my daily walks. Considering the last two DLC didn’t include new architecture sets as well as the fact that there’s 21 achievements and that all 4 DE DLC civs we’ve got lately have been in some form in the campaigns, I’d guess we’ll get 3 civs with one extra campaign achievement.
If I had to guess which ones it will probably be, I think with high likeliness that it will be the Swahili (African) (featured in the Portuguese campaign as Kilwa, Mombasa and Swahili villages), the Siamese/Thai (South East Asian)(featured in the Rise of the Rajas campaign) and the Dravidians/Tamils/Chola (South Asian)(Featured extensively in the Portuguese as well as Rise of the Rajas campaign).
I’m pretty sure such a DLC would be welcomed by almost anyone and would not feature any too controversial additions.
Rhodesians? The name comes from Cecil Rhodes, a British colonist from the XIXth century. It would not make sense to use it in AoE2, and it may even be considered slightly offensive. I’d rather have Shonas, Zimbabweans or Mutapans (Shonas being the actual name of the ethnicity and the other two referring to two successive Shona kingdoms).
Anyway, I would love to see those two factions represent Central/Southern Africa, ideally together with Swahili and Ambundu peoples.
While all 3 civilizations are good additions you missed one key point,last two dlcs had campaigns for civis without one with close proximity to the new civis.
I don’t think you understand what I mean. The Georgians have allied with the Franks and Cumans to fight the Turks. Those are three civilizations already in the game, two being in since the original. The Armenians were conquered and subjugated by the Turks. Lots of relevance to existing civilizations here.
I hope the Taino or Arawak! that would be great.
But honestly i’ve always been waiting to see a dutch civic from my own city of Utrecht that would be amazing hehe. But our city wasn’t that important outside of the Netherlands so i can imagine the lack of importance to play a role in the game.
I would love to see a Utrecht game where you start with a Bishop. And you get a fortified starting tc. Maybe the ability to build walls with canals as extra defense to create chokepoints. Or start with more stone. And have foritfied gates with (a) tower(s).
Cheaper farms.
And have the ability to build a handful foritified large towers in the castle age with a limit of 3 and 5 in imperial age. With a large amount of capacity.
A unique unit would be Wakers (Guilders) defenders from the towncenter to call for defense with a time limit.
And definitely a high garrison limit for towers.
Like minute men in Age of Empires 3, and they’re light crossbowmen. I really wish units could mount walls like in age of empires 4 haha.
High building speed for villagers when construction defensive constructions and farms. And free sappers. Cheaper fishing ships. Towers, castles and towncenters do more damage to ships.
And they would probably have an ambassy building where they can hire military units from other european factions for a heavy sum. Or just the teutonic knight in the castle is probably more fitting for the early medieval times.
Wrong. If the divide beetwen Europe and Asia is based on culture then they are closer to Europe. If it isnt based on that then Cumans and Huns are European
The Armenians are relevant because of the Georgians, mainly, but they did have a strong military and some states. The main reason they should be in is because their history is intertwined with Georgia’s.
