Are You Tired of European Civilizations in DLC(poll)

Nah.

It is something you and the rest of people here dont understand. Europe back in the middle ages was just another region of the globe and were pathetic compared to the great asian powers. Europe becomes really that important for the world at some point but not in the AoE2 timeline.

Acting as if Europe was the center of the world back in the 1400s is just being ignorant and/or biased.

Edit: Also you talk as of the missing factions on Europe did much better (they really didnt)

4 Likes

Because it is. Just as important as Asia, or Africa. Even you can’t dispute that.

I disagree with you that there is nothing important left in Europe to add. I have a handful left in mind, but the most important of those in my opinion would be Venice. The Venetians were crucial to the flow of Mediterranean trade throughout the Middle Ages and were one of the richest and most powerful Italian city-states and maritime empires of the Continent during the High period of the Middle Ages that were never conquered by the Lombards, the later Italian city-states, the Byzantines, or the HRE until Austria finally accomplished it after the AOE2 timeline ends. Even if no other Euro civ gets in, the Venetians do ultimately deserve it, as they were fiercely independent of the Lombard Italian Kingdom and the later city-states in both cultural and military specifications. And don’t try to give me “But the Italians already cover them!” argument, because they do not. I don’t believe I remember hearing about the unique prowess of Genoan Galleasses, or the Tuscans using Stradioti mercenaries as staples in their armies to great effect, or the Milanese subverting a Crusade that took Constantinople for the Catholic world. There are too many differences between the other Italian city-states and the Venetians for them to be satisfactorily included in the “Italian” umbrella.

But I do agree with you that there are other, non-European civs that need to be included in the game. Dravidians, Tibetans, and Siamese/Thai would be excellent for a 2nd Asian DLC for example, or even the Georgians would be a great addition, since contrary to popular belief, they are NOT European. They are in Asia geographically.

4 Likes

Thats not what he was saying. He was saying that Europe is more important than all these “primitive and uncivilized tribes”.

And tbh even I (a person who believes that Europe in the middle ages wasnt that important) cant argue that Europe matters less than Africa, I just think that Europe having half the civs is kind of umjustified.

I know Venice is important and the only major power possible to add in Europe but they would just be the same as Italians. They are still better than the last additions but they still would be very hard to diferenciatw and I would be happy with them just staying under the Italian umbrella even if I kinda doubt that will hapoen.

And beyond Venice everyone either lasts too little or are mostly very small. Serbia is fine but we still have a ton of other stronger kingdoms to add (sorry Serbs).

Since Europe is divided from the rest of Asia because of culture then Georgia is European imo

3 Likes

In that instance though, he is correct in a couple of locations. Everyone wants North American civs, but can you really come up with more than maybe 1, 2 at most that could meet the criteria of a civ and be able to compete with the rest? Beyond the Mississippians and the Puebloans, there isn’t much evidence to suggest any widespread empire-building or culture spreading during the timeframe on the landmass. There’s next to no information about them that has survived during those times either, making it even harder to justify giving them a chance. You may possibly have a hit with the Inuits (the people accredited with driving off the Vikings) or the Iroquois, (if you believe the 11th century foundation theory), but neither of them ever really reached beyond Iron Age technology until roughly after the AOE2 timeframe though, so idk if it would be worth including them in this game either.

The other instance is South America. Again, besides possibly the Chimu and the Musica (which I do believe are two more worthy additions to the game as a possible SA architecture type group) none of the rest really have the tech or the civilization level to match what is already in the game. Mapuche, Tupi, Carib, etc., none of them were even centralized enough to call themselves more than tribes. I don’t see any of the SA tribal civ possibilities even coming close to something approaching the Goths’ level, honestly, and that would be extremely difficult and limiting to put into practice in-game.

And that’s fair. In fact, I actually agree with you on that. There should be more non-European civs in the game. But to say that we don’t need any more European civs altogether is, imo, untrue.

Well, there are several ways you could differentiate from the Italian civ:

-Firstly, the Venetian Galleass is a definite choice for a naval UU. As for a land UU, you could go with the Stradioti since I doubt that Albania would be relevant enough to add into AOE2 given the bevy of other options available, and historically Venice did occupy several ports on the Albanian coast itself, chiefly Durazzo, so that could be the smoking gun for their inclusion a la Burgundy with Flanders.

-Their focus on trade could mean a flat +x% trade civ bonus.

-The Arsenal could be a unique tech that allows for faster ship creation or +x to attack and/or armor.

-Their focus on mercenaries could lead to a tech that allows +x% recruitment time for units in return for an additional gold cost.

-Their obsession for stealing the bones of saints to legitimize their expansion could lead to something like a +x% to trade per relic, limit of y kind of bonus.

There are any manner of ways to shake things up to get them to be unique using historical justifications, you just have to get creative.

Serbs are one of my last European want-to-sees (in a good way, I mean it as last before the Euro region is complete), as well as at least one other to finish off Europe.

While what you say is true about European and Asian cultures, Georgians are native to the Caucasus, and although they received a great many influences from Europe (Greece, Rome), they also received quite a few from the Iranian and Asian nomadic culture groups too. Before they were Christians, they were Zoroastrians, and were influenced by Old Persian culture in the beginning. They also accepted many Kipchaks into their lands to bolster their armies after they and the Cumans were forced to flee the Mongols. Those families and their practices influenced Georgia a fair bit as well. I think that, as they are a native Caucasian culture, they are therefore a native West Asian culture. But that’s just my opinion as well.

2 Likes

Not true. You’re the one being biased, but by belittling European history, you believe that it makes you intelectually “original” and puts you on a higher moral standing. However if the opposite is done you consider it reprehensible. Europe’s importance didn’t suddenly spawn in the 1400s as a caprice by historians.

I never said that. You’re the one that said “Europe was pathetic before the great Asian powers”. I stand by my position that Europe’s history in aoe2 timeframe is very important, and not only that, as it is also very fun and interesting, including more of it is necessary. But more civs from other regions would be good for the game too.

This is the main point of this thread and you completely missed it. A very vocal minority in these forums act choleric when one suggests that this or that European civ should be added, as if it would somehow prevent other regions from having representation in the game.

No, they aren’t. It was a separate state since the early middle ages, a little after the western roman empire fell, declining and ending the Republic almost a millennia later.

3 Likes

All relevant European figures are already in the game.

I’d much rather have relevant powers with barely any written records than minor entities with a lot of those.

The game is called after all Age of Empires.

1 Like

Age of Empires 2: The Age of Kings, yes that is the game we are talking about. But Venice was also considered for some time to be a major maritime and commercial Empire that dominated the Mediterranean with its military and merchant navies during its zenith, even if it was a Republic. So even by your logic it fits, even if it is unconventionally doing so.

2 Likes

Shed off the burden of the barbarian invasions that have torn your beloved peninsula apart after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Take the role as general of one of the Italian city-states — Genoa, Venice, Pisa, Ragusa, Amalfi, or even the Papal States — that emerged in the chaos and restore the might that once shone from your lands. Lead armies of Condottieri and Genoese Crossbowmen to glory or establish a trade network that dominates the Silk Road! The choice of which history to write is yours.

Venetians are Italians for what it’s worth. Venice would be just another Italian split, and not even a very unique one with a focus on Trade and Navy, things the Italians already do.

5 Likes

Meh, I think there is plenty of potential for a unique split on the Venetians. Imo the FE team made a mistake lumping them in with the rest of the Italian states, as I’ve said before they are so different from the former Lombard states that it would be rather unfair to one of the most powerful maritime empires in the Medieval Era to leave it as such.

1 Like

If the ones in Europe that people want to add are so powerful anc important why were they repeatedly live under foreign rule?

4 Likes

Would you care to elaborate on this, and make it more educational for us who only see a ‘roast’, and no educational learning?

3 Likes

Relevant in regards to what?

@Rissen6157 Same question for you ^

2 Likes

I think he means all the major powers are already represented ingame.

4 Likes

I want to know what his standards of what is ‘relevant’ and what isn’t are.

2 Likes

I guess people like making silly comments here and not explaining what they mean.

2 Likes

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:

2 Likes

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

3 Likes

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.

5 Likes

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