Are You Tired of European Civilizations in DLC(poll)

I’ve included Malta back. PM if you want more details :wink:

1 Like

Just reading this topic, clearly there’s a lot more pro-European sentiment on the forum than the anti-European users would market.

This isn’t the only poll with more pro-Europe than anti-Europe votes.

For the 48 limit, as a programmer myself, it’s fake news. They can change that. Whether just by changing a number or by doing a lot more workaround & patch depends on the architecture of the program, but no it’s not going to be anything like “they have to work 6 months just to change that limit” or anything close to that.

I see a lot of people arguing about which civ is the best based on: size, importance, relevance, power, etc. At the end of the day all these comparisons are useless.

The only reason you want civ A over civ B is preference, the other guy just has another preference. Your civ-picking standard is no more objective than his.

Personally, I’d go for a DLC like this:


Meanwhile the recent poll about what regions should get dlc shows most wsnt to get out of europe.


Well that doesn’t mean much. My poll shows that 55% of voters don’t mind another European civ.

The Civ poll is showing what civs they prefer.


All those changes are very superficial and some of them make the civ even more alike Italy

I was talking about the 1800s but either way, sure lets talk about how Europe wasnt as powerful back in the day.

It starts appearing in the 1400s, they werent suddenly relevant either. It is simple: Indian and Chinese armies reached the hundred of thousants of soldoers and had the best tecnology of the time. Europe wasnt able to do that amd their tech was average until the 15th or 16th century

And if your argument is about America then I think you have to remember how ridiculously lucky Spain was. The greatest nations of the new world were all extremely politically fragile. Incas came from a bloody civil war, the Aztecs were an empire built on fear and had too many enemies and the Muisca were politically exploitable. Mayans were already in decadence.

Spain didnt win because of tech, they were able to use the fragile structures of the Muisca and Aztecs and exploiting the crisis of the Inca empire and with all the plagues they brought along to the new world.

You were the one that brought up colonialism and talked about the people that dont want more euro civs defending “puny nations”

They would be practically the same gameplaywise.

1 Like

You are drawing the wrong conclusion from this poll. Its wording is very loaded. If you want to see a poll that uses neutral language and is therefore easier to interpret, please see [Polls] With regards to new civs II.


Here, let me post you another topic where the results did turn out in my favor.

Also, you don’t seem to understand the difference between this topic & that topic.

This topic asks you whether you are tierd/want European civs or not.
The other topic asks you what civs you prefer.

When it comes to whether the forum is more pro-European or anti-European this topic is more relevant.

Also, again in the topic you just linked me, @MUTYLATOR5553 made a poll asking this exact question.

The results? 15 yes for new European civs; 11 no for new European civs.


It’s not about new European civs for everyone, it’s about the timing, and that isn’t something this poll covers very well.


Your poll shows people arent against anothee European civ at some point down the road and thats it. The other poll shows that people would prefer something non European more though.

I dont think the civilization overview matters much now as the slavs have poland included in them as per the wiki.
While new kingdoms formed from the ruins of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, Slavic tribes settled the rich lands of Central and Eastern Europe and established formidable states of their own. Illuminate your populations with the teachings of Orthodoxy, recreate the rich farming and trade economies of Poland and Kievan Rus, assemble retinues of Boyars and Druzhina to defend the Russian principalities from the Mongols, or lead a charge of Winged Hussars to save Europe from Ottoman conquest!

1 Like

Superficial changes in this game can lead to drastic gameplay differences based on the overall balanced civ design intent, and those changes were spitball proposals I came up with them by looking at the Italian tech tree and looking over the Venetian wiki page. They were not a serious attempt at civ crafting. Are you wanting me to go the route of a LOTW civ and depart greatly from the existing formula instead, even though a lot of people seem to hate that type of style?

No, I want the civ to not just be an archer, gunpowder and naval civ with trade bonuses and such

1 Like

Then we agree, I don’t either. The Italians have that covered.

The way I envision Venice is that it would be a Naval/(Light) Cavalry/Defensive civ with a naval UU, a light cav UU, a trade bonus, and a naval bonus. That is mostly different than what the Italians offer, even allowing for a few overlapping areas between them. The bonuses wouldn’t be the same, the UT focuses wouldn’t be the same, the unit comps wouldn’t be the same, the build orders wouldn’t be the same. The only thing that is the same is the Naval civ classification and there being a trade bonus, and the bonus I have in mind for them is vastly different than cheaper trade units.

Venetians werent a light cavaory civ and if anything giving them Stradiot makes them.more like Italians. What I said is what Venetians would actually be like I believe and I honestly just dont see Venetians being made unique enough to be addef

1 Like

There were plenty of Italian states in the medieval era: Florenece, Naples, Sicily, Milan, Savoy, the civ “Italian” civ is clearly based on the Venetians already.

Also, I’d rather not open that can of worms again when we have a “Slavs” civ then: Polish, Bohemians, Bulgarians, etc.

1 Like

No its mainly based on Genoa.UU wonder coat of arms all are from genoa.


No. It’s mainly based on northern italy. It takes elements from the whole region.
UU, wonder and coat of arms from Genoa.
Navy oriented in reference to Venice and Genoa.
Condottieros from the whole northern Italy.
Cheaper age up in reference to the reinassance, which was prominent in Florence and Milan.
University bonus for the universities of Bologna, Padua, Roma, etc…

The italian city states and the papal states share a common cultural heritage. Even if “italians” is not an accurate term (A Kingdom of Italy existed in the middle ages as part of the HRE tho), it’s not wrong to group them all in a single civilization. Yes, even venetians. Yes, venetians were extremely relevant, and rich, and military powerful, but they still fit quite well sharing a civ with the rest of the italian cities.


I agree Italians are a representation of the whole region but the above poster is saying Italians are based off venetians mainly which is incorrect by looking at the game assets.Only thing venation about them is the full dock and 4 leader names.

I agree on this with everything except Venice. I see the Italians as the culmination of the former Kingdom of Italy and it’s successor city-states. there were 3 other major maritime states in this area for the duration of the Middle Ages, and they are all perfectly represented by the civ. Venetians, are not.

This sums it up perfectly.

1 Like

Lol their military totally fits Venice outside of the poor siege workshop and strong knights, and a weak siege workshop doesnt fit most Italian cities either.

Just leave them alone. Compared to Malay this isnt that bad at all