I’d call it Age of Eurocentrism: Cashgrabbing with Duchies Edition instead but you’re not far off XD
4 Likes
YEs but again this is about order of addition. Maybe just finishing of Europe and then moving onto finishing Asia, Africa whatever was an easier gameplan. And most people of European descent think of Europe when you say MEdieval. And i think it’s obvious to say that more Europeans would play this game over Africans
Im not denying different interests, I know not everyoone likes Europe
1 Like
i have nothing against EU - i’d just like more diversity in civs. almost half the civs are in EU regions as is. we could easily add more civs elsewhere to balance that out.
3 Likes
There is a difference between finishing Europe with different civs (Georgians) and finishing Europe with small unimportant kingdoms that are copies of existing civs.
By that logic Asia should have 5x more civs than Europe.
5 Likes
Bro it is not about Europe, I am actually not a fan to add more civs in the game at all, I mean by the dukes we almost now 40 civs so how many do we want to keep adding civs?! What ever the civ is (Middle east, Central Asia, Europe, South east Asia and America) the game really have many civs now and I am not a fan to add more at all whatever the civ is.
Especially if those civs are literally referenced in the history section of already existing civs as being part of it.
2 Likes
First we should have age of city states then villages then potatoes and cabages.
4 Likes
Anyway, I wonder how the community wide reception of the seemingly inevitable Poland civ will be.
That’s what will probably heavily influence on what we’re going to get next.
This forum is just an echo chamber like any other social network. I should know better than participate in those.
I don’t like EU 
WHen you say diversity, you really just mean no one who is ethnically European. But diversity to others is adding the many peoples that came under ‘European’. As others have said before, it is West Europe with the dense amount of civs, East has only 4 becaus e of dumb umbrella… I think you won’t hate more EAstern Europe than you do West. I hated learninng of only France and England, India, USA. No one ever taught me about Eastern European countries, and to see only West Europe being done in depth and East Europe just being ironed ‘Slavs’ is shit.
Great 
. I would love more. I know Tibet is always there, as well as breaking down Indians. Are there other Asians?
Your very presence here means this is not an echo-chamber
3 Likes
At least Slavs had different armies and cultures, but French, German, Briton, Spanish and Italian minor kingdoms/duchies were the same.
I laughed when Cysion lied that they chose Western Europe because they hadn’t added civs from that region before, but they made Portuguese and Italians. Only Eastern Europe (4) and Southeast Asia (3) got more.
Jurchens
Khitans
Tanguts
Chams
Thais
Bais
Visayans
Javanese
Uyghurs
Khazars
etc.
3 Likes
Slavs, Magyars, Lithuanians, Bulgarians + 2(3) Dawn of the Dukes ones is pretty much ironed out (+2 if you count Cumans and Huns). It’s laughable to pretend anything else.
Not even Far East Asia has as many civs with 5.
6 Likes
TBH I really think they should change the Slavs civ name to Rus, especially that we have now Bulgarians which they were Slavs, and in the upcoming Dukes if we got Poles and Bohemians both of them were Slavs too
1 Like
Jurchens: a raiding civ ? More info on them pls
Khitans: Breaking up Turks and Mongols more
But, how can you distinguish them?
Tanguts: Tibet?
Chams: Good 
Thais: within Khmer Empire, so this turns into a similar thing to breaking down Teutons or Franks, whatever. But imo it’s fine by me, usually people like you wh o don’t want to break up empires, just saying 
Bais: Rajputs? I thought ingame Indians are already Rajputs
Visayans: Something from Philippines is good, but what makes these people better than the other potential people from the area?
Javanese: Majapahit Empire, good
Uyghurs: Sure. Less of a problem with breaking up Mongols or whatever since Mongols’ glory was short lived.
Khazars: Similar issues to above with Cumans, Turks etc. but I wouldn’t say no
3 Likes
They’ve made a mess with the recent additions, that’s clear.
4 Likes
Yeah I was really against breaking the Umbrella system but since they broke it then they should fix the old ones.
2 Likes
Guess they consider slavic & turkik mix for the bulgarians.bohemians and poland could be german and slavic mix.
2 Likes
Well guys the thing is, if they keep breaking the umbrella system, then according to this we could have the “Turks” by more than 10 new civs (Suljuks, Ghasanavids, Gögturk, etc.) Same for Saracens (Umayyads, Abbasids, Al-Andalus, etc) and same for Persians, Tatars, China, India, etc. Actually this will just make the things very messy and silly by breaking all those.
2 Likes
Why do we have this discussion in like every thread about new (european) civs.
Its just a suggestion, it has the same right as other civ proposals.
Why they added burgs + sicilians? I have no idea, but it seems they tried to AVOID already proposed civ concepts. And if I read this discussion I can understand that, cause if they chose proposed ones, the people proposed overseen ones would be very disappointed.
1 Like
Pretty much every possible civilization is already discussed so there is no point in trying to surprise people with odd choices like normans renamed to sicilians.
Not necessarily a raiding civ. A Gunpowder+Heavy Cavalry civilization with Cataphract Cavalry Archer.
Only the Mongols. Mongol IG history doesn’t include anything about Liao Empire.
Tanguts are Tanguts, Tibetans are Tibetans and they can be made very different. For example Tanguts could have Camel Artillery.
Thais and Khmer were different people.
Nanzhao and Dali Kingdoms
Which civs do you mean? Phillip-Island Natives had many kingdoms fighting with the Spanish, Portuguese and Malay.
I think we need to rename Malay to Javanese and add a true Malay civ which covers Malacca and Borneo.
The game still don’t have Turks from the early Middle Ages.
Cumans and Khazars didn’t meet each other and Cumans were just a minor horde while Khazars built a big empire and had unique culture compared to any classic nomadic civs.
3 Likes