The Devs should focus first on adding Medieval civs that actually had empires:
Ghurids (Afghans), Chola, Tibetans, Kanem and Jurchen.
Adding nations that had smaller kingdoms such as the Burgundians and Sicilians is alright but for me, they are not the priority.
Both had empires.
Really, they were both imperial thrones, and parts of imperial thrones after they fell.
The Kingdom of Sicily extended from the island, all the way to the Middle East and North Africa.
They literally had more Arab Archers than Egypt, at one point.
Duchy of Burgundy occupied a huge chunk of Central Europe, as part of the HRE, and was bigger than France for a very long period.
It actually is a conglomerate of several different peoplers within Europe, From Flandres to Brabant.
I have a problem with this mindset because people forget about how metagame works. In 2s, you pick an archer civ and a cav civ, because archers are really good, and the mobility of knights helps control the map. And because the current community is split on forcing random games, you will always have Franks + archer civ for a good portion of the ladder. That takes the “millions” number down to a handful of possibilities.
What you say is true. If you look at pick civs match ups, then you see some really popular picks that dominate the picks. So some match ups are pretty rare, while others are pretty common. In the end you just play a handful of match ups. Adding more civs wont really change this at all. You still end up with the same number of dominant picks, so even more match ups arent played frequently. So an even larger part of the game isnt really being used. Those match ups are so rare, they never occur.
So in theory there are many more possibilities then you can see in the meta game. Adding more civs will result in a larger portion of match ups that isnt really seen in the meta game. So for me there is no point in adding new civs.
Nowhere in the internet is it written than any of them had an empire.
All I could find is this:
For Burgundians:
For Sicily:
(all these screenshots from wikipedia)
they were both tiny kingdoms. nothing more.
They were both historically important kingdoms, I have no serious issue with including them, but I have a serious issue with historically important entities like empires that are not represented. They should be priorities.
Some ideas:
Lords of the Far East - Tibetans + Jurchen + Thai
Lords of the Caucasus - Georgians + Armenians
Lords of Africa - Kanem + Congo + Swahili
Lords of India - Ghurids + Dravidians + Bengals
Lords of the Americas - Mapuche + Muisca/Chimu + Iroquois.
Lords of the Balkans - Romanians + Serbs (+Croats)
Lords of Eastern Europe - Bohemians + Poles
All the above can change names.
Or a DLC with Empires:
The Last Empires - Tibetans, Kanem, Ghurids, Jurchen, Chola (Dravidians), Bengals.
No tibet forever,Not having Tibet will give Microsoft more money than having it, so it will never be added.
Most of the Middle Ages modern Romanian lands were part of or vassal to Hungary, Bulgaria, Avars Khaganate Rus, Poland-Lithiania. Bysantium and the Ottomans. Thansivania, Walachia and Moldavia never had independant enteties before 1350. And when they had their independance was very shortlived. In 1600 ( after the time period of the game) for a period of 4 months Michael the Brave controlled the three before subgegating to the Ottomans again. We are never to see Romania until the 19th century.
Bohemia was part of the Holly Roman Empire for the vast majority of its existence. Its independence period was several decades during the 10th century after Moravia seized to exist. Still Moravia in its strongest periods was bigger and kept soveregnty for longer. Still it can hardly ever be considered a major Power let alone Empire.
Unfortunatelly the glory days of Armenia are long gone in the Middle Ages. Armenians are an ancient culcure but were independent for a very short time in the Period and their Kingdom was pretty small. For the most part Armenia was a region under Umayyad Caliphate, Bysantine, Persian or Ottoman rule. Georgia on the other hand was a considerable regional power and they would make a good addition to the game.
I do get your point and I agree with you. There are far better options we would/could have in the game and they have to be priority. I just think Burgundy and Sicily are better suited for the game than these three examples in particular. (cant say for all of the rest as Im not well informed for them)
Cheers
Moldova enjoyed independence from 1350-1500. I think that’s enough to be considered.
For Armenians we had the Armenian Principality of Cilicia 1080-1200. Another century.
For Bohemians, we can consider the Duchy of Bohemia from 870-1002. Again one century.
Sure they are not long lived but their presence is there and as ethnic groups, they played an important role in the Middle Ages. So I believe they would be nice additions.
But again, I repeat, if Burgundians and Sicilians get to be in the game, it’s almost a demand/mandatory that the Empires of Tibet, Kanem, Chola, Jurchen, Ghurids and the Palas are added.
Absolutelly agree they are all important and have left their mark in history,. is just the timeframe is not the best for these examples. Im a Bulgarian and if its not medieval game or game about WW1 we would be never considered 11. On the other hand Armenia has very long history and was around for a very long time.
Nice to hear you are from Armenia though I have a very little Armenian origin myself have always had a soft spot for the Armenian people.
Kingdom of Bohemia is also fine.
Reminder - Teutons =/= Holy Roman Empire
Whether or not it was independent does not matter. It was simply bound to the Emperor and provide tax, military support, whatever if the need arose. Otherwise it was ruled by a king who could do what he wanted. Bohemia could go to war without the rest of the HRE going to war for example.
Basically this is the same as something like the European Union if it was ruled by one autocrat - the empires within it are still individual from each-other.
tl;dr: No Holy Roman Civ = Bohemians can be added.
I suggest to add Bavarians for representing South Germans.
And then I have ideas that may be preposterous:
-rename Celts to Gaels and add Scots
-rename the Spaniards to Castilians and add Andalusians and Aragonese
-rename Vikings to Norwegians and add Danes and Swedes
-rename Slavs to Rus and add Poles
-rename Italians to Genoese and add Venetians, Romans (or Latins for representing Papal States), Toscans and Lombards (it might do too much for Italy). PS: Sicilians can represent Neapolitans
We don’t need any of those civs.
I want more nomadic steppe people
we have enough steppe civs
It’s never enough, i would totally play age of nomadic empires if it existed
Good idea. Uyghurs were the major nomad civ when Tibet reached its zenith. Khitans were the major enemy of the Seljuqs and the Koreans. Jurchen were half-nomadic and had the best heavy cavalry in East Asia.
EDIT: and of course, the Khazars.
They already are the most represented group in the game.
West Europeans are more represented.