Thing is…
It’s stuff like seeing 9 civs for the entire rest of the world as somehow even to Europe getting the same amount of civs. South Asia is almost as big as Europe, yet they have 4 civs. Why should Europe get “finished” before they get some number that’s even a quarter of what Europe currently has?
Honestly the only “European” Civs I still want to see are Vandals and Alans and the latter technically migrated in from the Caucus (and still has a kingdom there) and the first one went to Africa so they’re different enough. Both with things most euros wouldn’t have, like cameos and Dromons and in the case of Alan’s possibly Steppe Lance, Mules and churches
Like what’s so special about the Balkans compared to like… the thousands of miles of African landscape untouched
So? How many Siberian Civs then? That Region is huge, surely it should have lots of Civs…
I think you need better arguments than “number of Civs per km2”
The game has the most of European Civs because it is aimed at a Western audience, with the history and characters familiar to them. They will probably eventually fill those regions like they did with South America, you are being impatient.
I understand your frustration. I still want to see many non-European civs.
Nevertheless, the term Medieval Ages is a term inspired by conditions in Europe and it is not a surprise to me that this game focuses on Europe more than it does on other regions. So why not finish up Europe once and for all and move on? A Balkan DLC would serve that purpose imho. Your disagreement is understandable.
Anyhow, if it is any solace, the next DLCs are probably not going to be in Europe. My guess is Africa and Meso-North America.
How about this; it also has a higher population, GDP and multiple cultures/ethnic groups not even closely represented in the game.
Oh dear it looks like there’s room for more Mexican tribes and empires than there are Balkans (not sure why Turkey is included when it’s not really a very European civ)
We should unleash the eagles!!!
Han Chinese has a lot of Population, how many Chinese Civs then? Can I see that XII century GDP list?
Cultures/ethnics, now finally a real argument and very subjected to be discussed how distinct needs to be to deserve to be a separate civ. A lot of common agreements and lots of discussion of who is a who isn’t
The Vlad Tepes campaign is effectively a campaign for the Wallachians without a civ for them. You play as the Magyars and the Slavs instead of the Wallachians. That’s like having the Constantine XI scenario of Victors and Vanquish but you play as the Turks and not as the Byzantines.
That’s because it’s very appropriate. Wallachia was not a major power, and Dracula had to petiton larger neighbours for help raising armies.
How important is that vs more eagles
I’m not opposed to (sensible) Euro DLCs, but why make up something like this 50% quota? It doesn’t look healthy for the game.
A campaign where we switch the civ every two scenarios isn’t a great design in my opinion. It should be Vlachs/Romanians with access to UUs of different civs allied with Vlad at a given point in time.
Alfonso, this is the 3rd time this week you sent the Cid to exile!
My point is they are too minor to put into the game.
Anything in the Balkans is more interesting than Three Kingdoms, Burgundians, and Viking Sagas combined. Don’t treat Europe as a monolith, it’s culturally overrepresented but only in certain regions/periods (Rome, Western Europe, Viking Era) – Eastern Europe is barely even considered European in popular imagination.
I can agree with this sentiment. But what it is now, is unfortunately what it is now, and tech wise I can’t see some way to make the area interesting without the regionals feeling forced unless like they all share Krepost because of Bulgarians which would be wierd to see for both Turks and Byzantine since technically they are Balk civs too
We’re already close to that, with 42% European. I think 50% of the civs should be European by the end for four main reasons:
For these reasons, the further-removed we get from European history, the more the theme is lost. While it’s cool to get the occasional pick from other parts of the world (like Oceania civs that I want, for instance), most civs in the game should in some way connect to European history, because the further the game gets from it, the more arbitrary the theming becomes. We should severely limit the number of civs that didn’t make contact with Europe within the time period, because, again, Europe is literally the center of definition for the Middle Ages, and it should remain central to the game. The units, ages, general counter structure, and even certain buildings are all based on European and Europe-adjacent powers. There are some isolated civs that can plausibly use some of these elements, but not all of them.
That’s why I think half the civs should be European, and the other half should mostly consist of civs adjacent to Europe. The game isn’t set up for too much of anything else.
Croats can have a trash unique ship, Kondura. For Serbs I’ve been thinking about a tech that replaces the gold cost of Knights with food (no Cavalier upgrade).
Chinese history is as documented as European (if not better) yet the devs went with Three Kingdoms and no campaigns for Jurchens and KhiTanguts. Byzantine history is well-documented yet their campaign is about a made-up family in Italy. What help is the depth of documented history if the devs don’t make use of it?
For croats you could have the zupan, unique light cavalry , and the kondura, and for the three civs( or however many added ) along with the turks, you could have the martolos, an armour piercing skirmisher
That sounds anti-fun even if the base damage is 2 or less
My guess is Africa for the next vanilla topic. Why that ? Because no major african themed content since The African Kingdom.
Balkan will probably come after Africa.
