If Lombards can represent germanic lombards and milan both isnt that a better solution?italians are mainly based off genoa and romans can more or less be papacy.Veniti can be venice and maybe someother civi can represent florance to complete italy.
Ideally a barbarian invasion dlc should get Vandals too as they are still missing.
Iâm personally not a fan of these potpourries but Iâm way beyond caring so sure but mind you Sforza will then become a Lombard campaign, arguably with a dark age UU, which imo kinda defeats the purpose of adding them given your intention is to make civs and campaigns more accurate. Itâs similar to Franks representing French too I guess, if you want more of that. They made the original aoe2 with a nationalistic lense typical of German romanticism connecting modern romance people more to their Germanic counterpart rather than to their Roman heritage.
Thereâs a famous video where Sandy Peterson himself was kinda surprised to hear the forgotten added the Italians in a similar way he was with Indians and Slavs (then again they added a civ called âTeutons"). I wouldnât be opposed to an âItalian warsâ DLC with the factions you named though, it could have interesting and related campaigns.
I definitely think that the Lombards should explicitly represent the Germanic people who settled in the region named after them, as well as their southern Italian continuation. They should not continue to represent northern Italy after their integration, as thatâs the job of the Italians. Thus, the Sforza campaign would remain Italian.
Me neither, it just creates unnecessary mess.
And then what language do you make them speak? Itâs too long a period with too many linguistic and social changes.
In any case, the Italian voices lines needs to be redone, moving the clock forward several centuries. A 13th-century vernicular would be fine, and incidentally, this is the period when Italian literature was born (a century before Dante). And remove the Longobard kings from the name of the AI, but thatâs trivial.
Yes, as I keep saying, the Goths need to be adjusted.
I am also in favour of a DLC that follows the story of Charlemagne (it doesnât necessarily have to add civs for multiplayer).
Why?why should they change to have Vandals?
The development team simply adds new regional units for each DLC. And the Goths are the best candidates for sharing a unit with the Vandals.
Goths Huns Byzantines Romans all share the dromons if Vandals are added they too will get it.No need to share anything else.
As would Alanâs also get Dromon but as a civ that is simultaneously steppe, Caucus and barbarian invasion it could have quite the assortment of regional units
Researching something that is free is counterintuitive.
I would make âfirst blacksmith techs 80% cheaper,â or have them research instantly and automatically in the Feudal Age.
The issue here is⊠what do the Lombads add?
Compare them to Vandals who are Germanic barbarians too: besides being the one civ who used obsessive amounts of unmanned ships set aflame to destroy the Byzantine fleet, there is a definite access to camels to fill a civ that is otherwise European barbarians. If Genitours become regional they are certainly a fit as they learned the art of Javelon cavalry from the Berbers they started hiring and working together with.
Alani? Besides Alania being close to Georgia, ergo there are indeed Churches and likely Mule Carts, you can see steppe influences for Lancers and Camels as well. Possibly some sort of Iranian influence on their tech tree too
The Lombards have⊠Dromon? Maybe Legions?
It just doesnât take advantage of the cool toys we have not enough places so far
Why do you only care about the regional units a civ could use? You should think about the history and gameplay that a civ brings to the table.
Gameplay is what he is talking about,a civi with SL line mule carts and savar is pretty different to anything we have right now.
I agree that Lombards donât bring that much new to the table gameplay wise but arenât people becoming quite conservative lately? So Lombards could be an inoffensive addition in that regard (though to me itâs a lower priority than Vandals or even Saxons). Also itâs quite obvious you donât care about the history and culture of a civ, just the gameplay aspect which is essential sure but itâs not everything. I donât think itâs good to use geography and history just as a pretext to add as many regionals you can like I donât see how giving Savars to Alans would ever make sense given Savars are strictly a Sassanid thing, itâs actually already jarring enough to train them in the Ismail campaign. Alans also have a poorly documented history compared to others, youâd struggle to find a campaign and you would basically always play as the henchman of someone else, be it Romans or Vandals (I mean you could argue this is what the new el Dorado does), which is not very epic. I wouldnât be that surprised if they add a Vandals+Alans civ, if you really want you can split them further but Khazars who also have a not too well documented history could be added instead of Alans. But of course none of this is a problem if you just look at gameplay, then sure add Indo-Europeans or something super vague and undocumented and theyâll get all the regionals you want.
Thatâs very common, and I think most of the fanbase is that way. However, I primarily care about history, not gameplay or even game balance, which sets me apart from others. I still try to keep my concepts fun and balanced, but that isnât my first priority.
Agreed. Regional units need to have real-world justification behind them.
The Alan campaign would be focused around Goar, who led the Western Alans to help Rome fight their enemies. While he wasnât involved in the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, his successor was, and the final scenario would add another perspective of it.
As lazy as it might sound, David Sos⊠Tamarâs wife. We already have crossover campaigns with Saladin, Barbados and Genghis Khan oh and Longshanks and Wallace for instance so the Alanian side of their relationship could be interesting since he is more than just her husband and apparently a tactical general himself although him being an infantry while his civ is playing off of mounted units would be ticklishly funny
That could work. I was disappointed that such an awesome, masculine historical figure was completely absent from the Tamar campaign aside from the narration.
As a funny twist Tamar could be the narrator of his campaign