Sandy Petersen said they choosed those names like “britons”, “franks”, “saracens”, “teutons” because they sounded more medieval and cooler. Just that. I think we’ve grown past of that mindset.
I’d support renaming Teutons to Germans. It’s something I’d say germans themselves would love as well. To be honest I’ve never seen the name Teuton outside of AoE, not even reading about medieval history. The only reason to be against this is grabbing to hold to old memories and nostalgia.
Yes true, there are many civilizations missing.
Wow i’m glad to hear there are still so many civilizations for Africa that would be really cool. As a capoeirista im personally looking forward to the Kunene of Angola 
Eh I think Germans gets complicated in a period in which germanic peoples is a common term to use
And in general I see no problem with using medieval names, and Teutons just sounds cooler
There’s a rough acknowdlegment from the general public about the difference of German and Germanic. If anything one could mistake Germanic for German, but not the other way around.
Also, even in that time there was some kind of German ethnic identity based on the germanic speaking peoples of East Frankia and the later Kingdom of Germany.
If the game were to be released now and not in 1999 and you asked people what name would they choose, they would most probably say “German”, since not only it is more familiar to people, but you can establish a clear link between the medieval and moder germans.
Only European civs I really care about adding to the game are Venetians and Swiss. On the periphery, Armenians and Georgians.
Redditors get mad at this because they think of Venice as just a small part of Italy when in reality they were more important than all the Italian cities combined, except for Genoa, and one of the biggest naval and economic powers of the mid to late middle ages, only relying on mercenaries for their land armies. Funnily enough, current “Italian” is suited for the Genoese, who were the biggest adversaries of Venice for a good while.
Venetians just dont have much to add that Italiand dont do
the “italians” is Genua and the papal state. Venice is a different story.
Without new architecture sets, the most natural additions would be 2-3 civs for Africa and 2-3 civs for Central/South America.
The Pachacutec campaign could really benefit a lot from some more South American civs e.g. Chimu which already have a great civ concept here:
and are featured in the Realms mod too:
Some obvious African options would be Swahili, Kanem Bornu, Benin, Somali, Nubians.
https://www.forgottenempires.net/age-of-empires-ii-definitive-edition/civilizations/italians
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.
They’re representing most Italian city states as well as the Papal states which is clearly seen through their design.
Venice would be an archer,trade, naval and gunpowder civ. They would basically just be Italians
The person that wrote this description literally had no idea that Italy wasn’t an unified country, and Venetians NEVER considered themselves as part of the same thing as Genoese, when fighting the Hungarians. The developers have made mistakes, and sometimes they have corrected them. No idea why it’s such a nightmare for some of you that Venetians were to split off Italians, as if something like it hadn’t been done before…
Civilizations are based on cultures/ethnicities, not states. No need for Venice, it would literally be an Italy copycat.
Venetia is a different culture, which is not an Italy copycat. That’s literally what I’m trying to explain.
How would they be different from Italians?
If your brain cannot process history beyond XX century, and you can’t bother yourself to read something as simple as a wikipedia page for five minutes, please refrain from posting here absurd generalizations about what constitutes a culture and what not.
So they are not different, I got you.
are you familiar with the burden of proof? you are the one making hte argument that they would be different. you are the one who is required to back up your argument. it’s that simple. don’t like it, don’t get mad when others say not interested.
I have zero obligation in doing extra legwork for someone who already replies with “no i’m not interested in knowing lel”.
Besides, this has been done before, and many times more too.
If you don’t give a crap, that’s fine, you’re not obligated to engage neither. But if you have nothing relevant to say, about something you don’t know and don’t want to know about neither, then keep your opinion to yourself.
It is literally Italians 2.0
Did you actually read it? Given that it mentions “Italian city states”, and gives no indication whatsoever of Italy being a unified country, I’m pretty sure they did. Unless you think they don’t know what “city states” means?
I’ve read the Venetian civ proposal, and it seems too similar to Italians to me. Especially the cheaper University techs bonus, and the fact they gets Condottieri.
I agree with this. “Germans” sounds really modern to me.