Europe:
1.Frenchs
2.Englishs
3.Byzantines
4.Vikings
Asia:
5.Mongols
6.Chineses
7.Japaneses
Africa&Middle East etc
8.Arabs
9.Etheopians
America:
10.Mayans
DLC’s:
Barbarians:
11.Goths
12.Huns etc.
Inner Conflict:
Europe:
13.Russians/Slavs
14.Germans
Asia etc
15.Indians
16.Turks
Others:
17.Spanish/or Portugal
18.Aztecs
19.Incas
Not really, seeing that the mongols are one thing, and the hre is going to be probably one thing if they add it just like Byzantium. point beeing there are a lot of empires that controlled others for a short or long time period. If you are limited by a question to provide only 10 civs you have to make choises. And in a medieval games Arabs are important. But if i can only name 10 i would pick 1 general arab nation. Of course dlc should add missing civs if i could have picked 20 civs or even 15 i think at leats 2-3 arabian civs would have made it.
Unique and accurate skins is something completely different then unique civs. Skins are just the visual while for unique civs they are probably going to have unique mechanics for different civs and i personaly think more in the way of the unique civs of AoE III then II (Example in AoE III the dutch settler costs coin which i dont think would ever be implemented in AoE II but gives a civ more uniqueness). You also need to balance the civs and their units. There are currently around 35 civs in AoE II and i honestly dont believe you made a mod were in every civ has unique skins and architecture. If so post a link or screenshots and how long it took to make.
swords line, spear line and archer line of all civs of my personal mod for HD…
I like your architecture a lot good job on those.
I don’t believe that more is better… I think that 5 civs is enough as long as they are very in-depth and very different with a ton of choices, like age-up advisers etc. I don’t care about 20+ civs if that means the same units, the same buildings and 95% the same techtree.
We don’t want 20+civs.
But 5 civ is too few.We need at least 8-10 civs for campaigns.this game is not just a multiplayer game.i love multiplayer too,but for me campaigns more important
I was thinking:
Like 9 civs;
A rusher
a turtler
an eco
a demi-rush-turtle
a demi-rush-eco
a demi-turtle-eco
a genuine/flexible
a micro intensive
an unique
All should be dynamic/flexible obviously, but with +10% as a little edge towards their specific thing.
Turtle is the definition of eco i think.
With only 10 civs, i’d focus this only in Europe and the Near East, and then go for regional DLC’s.
-Brittons (Jack of All Trades)
-Franks (Focused on concentration of force and decisive battles, hits you with everything at once)
-Hispanians (Uncentralised bases, defense in depth, offensives based on raids and harassment, militarised religious orders mechanics)
-Germans (Economic boomers, mercenary mechanics, will snowball if unchecked, maybe a mechanic where they established allied AI controled bases to mimic the decentralised nature of the HRE)
-Italians (Solid turtle economy, can afford to run on a single base, to mimic the italian city states) and loose map control and still keep an economy running, mercenary mechanics)
-Slavs (Dominates map control, some mechanic to make expansion easy)
-Byzantines (Noob-friendy, Great early game turtling and economy, almost imune to raiding)
-Sarracens (Good map control, great early game economy, mechanics to baiting you into a war of attrition like trash wars.)
-Mongols (Entirely mobile base)
-Turks (Unmatched late game siege and offensive capabilities)
Possible campaigns would be:
100 Years war (Franks, Brittons)
Reconquista (Hispanians, Sarracens, Franks)
Italian Wars (Germans, Italians, Franks, Hispanians)
Mongol Invasions (Mongols, Slavs, Sarracens, Turks, Germans)
Crusades (Franks, Brittons, Sarracens, Byzantines, Turks)
It would be cool that if they used a Age of Mythology minor-god approach when aging up.
Each civilization could have sub-cultures within itself that gave you different bonuses and different units.
Like, if the Brittons could choose English Longbowmen, Irish Kerns or Scottish Galloglaich.
The Hispanians can choose Castillian Knights of Calatrava, Aragonese Almugavares or Portuguese Conto Crossbowmen.
The Slavs could choose between Polish Hussars, Muscovian Boyars or Cossack Cavalry.
Etc…
British
Mongols
Chineses
Turks
Byzantines
Latins
Slavs
Romans
Persia
Arabs
good but i prefer frenchs & germans to latins & romans.
Turks got more important in late medieval when they invented gunpowder and became the OTTOMANS!
Where did you get this?
Gunpowder was invented in 9th-century China as one of the Four Great Inventions, and spread throughout most parts of Eurasia by the end of the 13th century. Originally developed by the Taoists for medicinal purposes, gunpowder was first used for warfare about 904 AD.
Yes,china invented gunpowder.But turks used gunpowder effectively in battle.
Celts of course, the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire
Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, English, Tatars, Indians, French, Germans, Italians.
I don’t think it’d be a good idea to have one civ alone in its region, since any civilizations would need historical rivals for campaigns.
I’d choose these for the base game:
Americas Expansion:
Nordic Expansion:
Then African and Indian expansions aswell.
I really hate it when people immediately think of Ottomans when they hear Turk.
Ottomans were a renaissance empire not medieval. Their existence in medieval era was short and insignificant, compared to other kingdoms and empires they built. Here just watch this video:
Ottomans didnt even consider themselves Turkic.
Yes but they are still a turk empire
But you are right.Ottomans rised after 1453(conquer of constantinople)so they were a renaissance empire.
Italians were part of the Holy Roman Empire in medieval era, same with Dutch also Dutch isnt nordic but western Europe. Slavs are eastern? dont know for sure.
