Are You Tired of European Civilizations in DLC(poll)

Theres a diference beetwen thinking Vandals are interesting and thinking they should be added, I think they shouldnt be added anytime soon. Either way some people here are just anti dark age for some reason, although Vandals are still fairly minor and shortlasting

Also, you call me off for liking Vandals but you are the guy that constantly asks if a civ cannot be already represented by other civs while asking for Venice who would be an Italy clone

Your idea of “most of the times the majority is silent” is abaolutely insane when applied over most stuff too.

3 Likes

Do you see majority of people holding signs and protesting in the world?

3 Likes

That’s because people who don’t want Europe in the next DLCs are going to be vocal about it, while the people who want Europe in the next DLC are not going to be as vocal about it.

Usually, the “I don’t like” feeling makes you more vocal than the “I like feeling”.

I like cheese pie and don’t like pumpkin pie. And in my life, I have been 10 times more vocal about the fact that I don’t like pumpkin pie than the fact I like cheese pie.

Currently the answer is 56% No and 43% Yes but the forum is full of “less Europe” because only people who are tierd of European civs go out of their way to say they are tierd of them.

For Europe, I would say 3 packs of DLCs would fully cover Europe:

1: Swiss + Romanians.
2: Croats + Serbs.
3: Georgians + Armenians.

6 Likes

A lot of the times yes. But your comment can be applied to almost anything and it wouldnt really work.

Its the same logic HealFortress used with his Nomad poll

I am very upset and sad you put me and him in the same bucket :expressionless:

generally no, but it will be nice to see in first order some new civs from for instance: Africa or Asia

As i have read on the forums, ‘everyone’ is saying ‘tired of’, not ‘prefer’.

1 Like

I was responding to the guy who said “55% for no seems people do like more europe.”.

1 Like

And I was responding to you responding to him.

I mean, you are using the same logic even if you talk about a diferent thing.

Can I interest you in some Wars of Liberty?
Also, how do I change font size?

Edit: I’m personally not tired of European civs, but I do believe that the game should enhance its representation of civs around the world. I don’t think is cool adding the 49874247823 duchies of the Holy Roman German Empìre and the 100000 cities of the Italian peninsula as individual civs while there’s just one civ for the whole Indian subcontinent

6 Likes

Wars of Liberty should be included in Age of Empires 3.

The same way The Forogtten was included in Age of Empires 2.

2 Likes

Considering they’ve removed Aztecs and Maltese,I would say no nowadays, but back when they were part of the game I would have agreed with you.

Aztecs and Maltese are not in WoL anymore? Great. I’ve always thought they were way too anachronistic to bee in that game. Are Incas still there?

1 Like

I’ve been vocal about ‘being tired of European Civs’, but again, this is kind of a biased poll.

I just want to see more representation in areas yet to be shown in the game (while fitting in the game very well if not better) and each DLC adding two European Civs does make me tired very quickly. I’d also be similarly tired of any other region if we only got that region Civs. Though the threshold for becoming tired might be higher due to the game being Euro-centric anyway, African or Asian civs feel more interesting even after 2 DLCs than playing the same region as 3 different civs or whatever 11.

I just don’t know why people want Armenians and Georgians (or Swiss/whoever) before like, African or Asian civs/DLC and going so far to screech about not buying those DLCs if they are made. Very puzzling.

5 Likes

The problem that I personally find with it is the 48 civ limit. I’m not sure if this still exists, but until the devs confirm it can be changed, we have to assume it is. Because we have 39 civs currently, this leaves space for 9 more civs. If we look at the use of different architecture sets as an easy measure of where civs come from:

  • Eastern European, with 6 civs, about 15% of the civs use this.
  • Mediterranean, with 5 civs, about 13% of civs use this.
  • East Asian, with 5 civs, about 13% of civs use this.
  • Central European, with 4 civs, about 10% of civs use this.
  • Western European, with 4 civs, about 10% of civs use this.
  • Middle Eastern with 4 civs, about 10% of civs use this.
  • South East Asian, with 3 civs, about 8% of civs use this.
  • Mesoamerican, with 3 civs, about 8% of civs use this.
  • African, with 2 civs, about 5% of civs use this.
  • Central Asian, with 2 civs, about 5% of civs use this.
  • South Asian, with only Indians, about 3% of civs.

Now, if we condense this into continents/larger areas, we get:

  • Europe, 19 civs, about 49% of civs are European.
  • Asia, 11 civs, about 28% of civs fall into the Asian continent.
  • Middle East, with 4 civs, about 10% of civs are from the Middle East
  • Central America, with 2 civs, about 5% of civs are from Central America.
  • Africa, also with 2 civs, once again 5%.
  • South America, with only 1 civ, about 3% of civs.
  • Indian Subcontinent, which I’ve counted as part of Asia, but I’ll also put it here, because it only has 1 civ, making up 3% of the game.

Now lets say we add some of the most common European civ suggestions, such as Romanians, Wallachians, Serbians, Croatians, Venetians, Swiss, and probably a few others. Let’s just say we add those, over 2-3 DLCs. Now we have 3 civ slots left if we assume the 48 limit is correct, and Europe has now changed to 25 civs, giving it 55% of civs. Asia, as the next highest now only takes up 24%, and South America and India now only account for 2% of total civs. The entire African continent would only have about 4% of civs in the game. Lets say we add Georgians and Armenians, another popular suggestion. Now the Caucasus accounts for 4% of civs, the same as all of Africa. But we only have 1 civ selection left. Where do we put it? It isn’t possible to put it somewhere that will fully be able to represent the neglected areas, India, Africa, America, at least two significant areas will be left out.

Now, let’s use a different hypothetical scenario. Lets say that instead of adding those European and Caucasus DLCs, we add a DLC to South America, adding 2 civs, such as the Chimu and Wari, diversifying it, justifying a new architecture set for South America, to which we can add Incas, as well as increasing the civ diversity in South American campaigns. Now South America takes up 7% of civs. Now, we have another 7 civs we can add. Lets say we add 4 to Africa, probably over 2 DLCs, lets say the Zimbabweans, Nubians, Congolese, and Swahili. Now Africa has been increased up to 13% of civs, and Europe has balanced out a bit more down to 42%. And now, we are in the same position we were earlier with 3 civs remaining. This time though, Europe makes up 42%, as opposed to 55%. That’s a pretty major difference, and allows for a lot more civ diversity. Now, with our last three slots, lets visit India/Southern Asia, the final neglected area. Let’s say we add two civs to India, for example the Rajputs and Chola. This breaks up the Indian umbrella, allowing different parts of India to feature. Our final civ could then be anything, it could be another Indian civ, it could be Nepal, or Tibet, it could be a European civ.

Another key argument to consider is how we differentiate civs from one another. Some of the popular suggestion for the European civs listed above include Heavy Cav unique units, focus on booming, Cav Archer units, Swiss pikes. Most of these either aren’t hugely unique, or cross over quite heavily with civs that already exist. Swiss Pikes from example might just be a Kamayuk/Teutonic Knight hybrid unit, which isn’t very unique. Lots of the European suggestions revolve around knights, of which most of the European civs already do. About 10 of the 19 European civs are typically played as a cav civ, just over 50%. If we add civs from other areas we can diversify this more. We can have more elephant civs added from India, Camel civs from Africa, not to mention the fact that entirely new regional unit lines can be created for these areas.

In summary, if we add more Euro civs, we throw away the potential for greater civ diversity, as well as filling up most of the slots with civs that probably won’t really bring anything new to the table in terms of units, gameplay, mechanics, or architecture. That’s my view on it, we really need to prioritize other parts of the world than Europe as long as the 48 civ limit remains in place.

12 Likes

Great analisis. Even if the 48 is not actually true, still, the best we can do is suppose it is just in case.

2 Likes

Like those that keep pushing for tribes with barely any historical record to be added to the game, because diversity and representation about every lost corner in the world is so much “needed” instead of actually relevant events and figures

5 Likes

Ah yes. The good old “cuz Europe is important” argument.

But theres nothing relevant to add in Europe anymore in the AoE2 period. Theres tons of civs outside Europe that deserve to be added. Multiple longlasting and powerful kingdoms

2 Likes

Yes. Very important

If they were so powerful why they got colonised

4 Likes