no tibetan,if you want microsoft make a great loss
2 Likes
They can just reuse ingame assets and make it quick too.swiss pikeman can have the shield wall attribute if the burgundian uu charging works fine.
@DarthPyro4335 - this is exactly what I am fighting against!
Listen, I was so surprised and proud, when I heard that my nation, Bulgaria, was added to AoE - that was like the biggest childhood dream, that could come true!
But even I, understand that this is already beyond, what we have as representation. In the Slavs historic description it was clearly mentioned already, that the Bulgarians were one of the cornerstone members of the ethnicity and its culture, so it seems that it would make no sense to further develop them. Here:
My point is, that we can continue this infinite reduction of the big cultural landscape, until we can argue that each city deserves its own spot in the civ list, because it has something different! What is the criterion that we have, which civ deserves a spot and which not?!
Don’t get me wrong - putting all western EU nations under a broad term is a historic atrocity, but going down to each single tribe and trying to justify its representation is too much for me.
4 Likes
Then you must know that I feel the same way you felt for 21 years about my nations (Poles, Bohemians)…
And counting.
1 Like
The Bulgarians are only mentioned because they are in game. Same thing would have occurred for Poles or another Slavic civs.
This is even if you class Bulgarians as Slavs in the first place of course.
Id assume the devs used bulgarians instead of bulgars to represent bulgars and its slavic subjects,but what do I know.
2 Likes
Adding Georgia would allow a Byzantine Buildset which they, Byzantines and Bulgarians could share. and leave the Slavic set for Magyars, Russians and Lithuanians to use.
Folks, lets concentrate back on the topic, which is the developers point of view on adding more civilizations.
Whatever we think and feel, at the end of the day, it is more or less a business and the business owner decides. How: they will sort out our opinions. The majority will win.
I am pessimistic, that this discussion will change anyone’s mind on the subject, so…let’s just vote.
New civilization
-
- I dont’ want more civs - 37 is already enough!
-
- I want more civs - the sky is the limit, bring those Inuits!
-
- I want more, but 45-50 is the most I can handle
-
- I can’t decide
0 voters
It’s a multiple choice vote, so pour your souls, mates 
1 Like
For Bulgarians it is a bit different. If you count Bulghars + Bulgarians it is 4 states in the Period. Old Great Bulgaria, Volga Bulgaria , 1st and 2nd Bulgarian Empire of the Denube Bulgarians (nowadays Bulgaria). The first two are Bulghar states the later are predominantly slav. But First Bulgarian Empire as military tradition and ruling elites is Bulghar also until around end of 9th early 10th century. Than the christianisation and development of the the old Bulgarian language (old church slavonic) plus having independent church formed the mixture of what is known as Bulgarians (slavic culture at its core). Later the 2nd Bulgarian empire except the predominant (Slavic) Bulgarian element consisted of the vlachs who also rebelled with the Bulgarians and a fair bit of Cumans.
When you count all those 4 states plus other migrations the bulghar tribes had the civ is an umbrella for several enteties who all had their differences between them and all were called Bulgaria at the time. We just now use the turm Bulghars to differenciate them from the Bulgarians. Ofc the civ design is done around the Bulgarians (1st/2nd Bulgarian Empires) but the AI players include Volga and Old Great Bulgaria rulers.
PS. While the Denube Bulgarians adopt Christianity in the 9th century the Volga Bulgarians would addopt Islam early in the 10th. This is just an example for the variety of “Bulgrian” states during the Middle Ages.
1 Like
Thats very interesting are there any more umbrella terms which can cover the missing areas like poland and serbia?
1 Like
Good idea with the poll! Im going 45/50 despite I think 40/45 is where we should end. Having a limit while allowing for some more civs to be added allows the devs to prioritise what can and should be added not just fill the roster with civs and bonuses who make less and less sence.
If It was me to decide what the rest of the civs should be it is: Siam(thai). Tibetans, Georgians, Poles, Bantu (swahili). An argument could be given for some more but thats more than enough for me.
To me personally is not about representations of every corner of the World and the ultimate number of civs . I am much more concerned with the design of the civs we could get. Civ bonuses is where my concern is. To me khmer farm bonus is at the borderline I think tatar sheep spawn is stupid and I hate the mechanics. First crusade would be even more stupid and I dont really like the idea sergeants to be building the Donjon. Flemish revolution is also a bit too much for me but I could give it a pass as it refers to a certain historical event. I am not even talking about balance here. Balance will be fixed evenually. I want civs designed the way they fit AoE2 and not go too crazy while still being unique. If they can fit 10 civs and keep the identity of the game Im fine but if they cant better not touch it.
Thats why I think there is room for several more civs that could match this criteria. Than let the devs figure out what these civs should be based on historical information or what not. But I dont think we should be adding mere duchyes for example.
4 Likes
I get your point. You are afraid that we lose the realistic, historic underlining of the game and start to enter the Dungeons and Dragons realm. After all, this is not Warcraft or Starcraft and it could not be! It is a historically oriented game and that’s reason number one that I love it, don’t know about the rest of the player community.
Probably I am too attached to the game and I am conservative, when it comes to new game mechanics or ideas. All I wish is not to go over the top with bonuses that feel like cheat codes. Credits to the developers, who try to do it with respect to the civilizations and history - if there is really absolutely no way to make a civ playable, as it was the case with the Khmer, then ok, let’s give them a game mechanic that justifies making that nation enjoyable.
Overall, the game is in good hands and the balance has never been better, as @Rorarimbo3774 made clear - we can always balance a game, given enough time and effort.
To wrap up a long post, please, if there are going to be new civs, lets not add tribes living in huts, no matter how many millions of them are there, nor the duchy of god knows, which village in the crevice of the Alps, that insists on its uniqueness in the world heritage.
5 Likes
Pretty much agree with everything you said.
Not sure there is smth else than the “slavs”
Perhaps if we were to add more civs after Lords of the West, let’s definitely add in some more civs that uses the Middle Eastern building set because it would definitely to nice to see 5 or more (5 at least to go for) civs that uses the Middle Eastern building set. I know some of you are going to mention the Moors but I was thinking different civs with the ME building set. Also, aren’t the Moors already represented by the Berbers, Saracens, and Spanish for geography?
1 Like
I think Berbers should cover them for the most part.
1 Like
The thing is that Berbers, Saracens, Persians and Turks are well achieved umbrellas that cover pretty much all middle east (not counting armenians and georgians, since the middle eastern set would not fit them).
What else could we add? Kurds? Never had a kingdom of their own. Afghans? Central asian set would be fitter for them. Maybe Somalians or Nubians… but a new east african set to share with ethiopians would be the best way to go.
1 Like
It doesn’t fit the Christian Nubians.
I wasn’t thinking Somalians. When thinking about within the African region in regards to the use of the ME building set for other civs, I was thinking more in the line of Nubians or some other Hamitic ethnic group.
If Nubians are introduced, they should have aspects from both Christian and Muslim periods.
A Bedouin Raiders UT for example, that makes your Camels Trash units.
2 Likes