Just to make it clear, I didn’t get offended at all.
Yeah I know that which is exactly why I asked.
3 Likes
Yeah, at least Burgundians are fun to play. Hope we’ll see some interesting designs which will differentiate them from the other Eastern European civs especially and Euro civs generally.¨
Still hope though that Dawn of the Dukes won’t be the last DLC or I’ll be dissappointed 
Kinda hoped we were done with Europe after LOTW.
1 Like
Yes, 3 Indian civs (big empires) is too much, but 4 Slavic civs (1 big empire, 1 small empire, 2 duchies) are justified.
Why aren’t 4 Southeast Asian civs too much?
Why aren’t 5 West Euro civs too much?
…
Kalinga will definitely be another South Asian Camel civ.
1 Like
Indians even had many major religions, while Europe had only one.
Armenia is overrated, it was just a small kingdom. We need big, relevant empires.
1 Like
I’m pretty neutral in regards to Armenians.
Anyway, I hope we’ll get some South Asian civs.
1 Like
No, but are our few Indian fanboys?
I knew you had little knowledge of Slavic civs but calling Poland a duchy is even worse than expected. At least you will be able to learn about them with the new DLC 
4 Likes
First of all, be respectful. Secondly, there’s a lot of people who want South Asian civs.
Poland lost its Kingdom title three times in a row. That’s what I read in another thread here so @CheshireWig3203 isn’t completely wrong either.
It’s anyway pointless and very off-topic to argue about Poland here considering it is coming to the game now.
I just hope the next one is going to fix South Asia and grant the missing Indian graphic assets like Sails, King graphic and UI.
3 Likes
Firstly, what irony to hear this from you. Secondly, that’s simply not true - people just want more Non-European civs, not a total of 3 or more Indian civs. That would be ridiculous.
Africa, other parts of Asia, the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula and Balkans are still very underrepresented too.
2 Likes
I’m simply going to ignore the first part of your comment because it would lead nowhere.
There’s like at least 20 threads just here on that topic by a dozen or more people here. You can easily find them. I would even dare to say they’re the most requested region since DE’s launch alongside Poles.
Stop going off-topic.
1 Like
Ignore all you want. I haven’t seen more than two in the past couple of months requesting 3+ Indian civs.
Instead what I do see are civ suggestions for Tibetans, Jurchens, Siamese, Serbians, Venetians, African civs and more.
I’d argue a majority of players will be happy with 2 different civs representing India but thereby getting more diverse, missing civs from disregarded regions. But let’s not go too off-topic.
1 Like
I dont think you get to understand how diverse and badly represented India is.
Basically: imagine if our Chinese civ was based only on the Manchu or Tibetans with a bunch of Mongol secondary bonuses or the whole Balkan peninsula was represented by a civ based on Latin Empire. Thats the situation Indians are in, probably even worse considering how many powerful kingdoms with an unique independent culture existed on medieval India.
A Bengali and Tamil civs are the bare minimum that should be added (and tbh its all we want for now)
3 Likes
Europe has like a thousant farming bonuses, let India have a bunch of villager bonuses
3 Likes
Good lord this is just so wrong. Slavs have this problem a million times worse than India and you are still fighting to get all the fairly minor kingdoms represented
4 Likes
I’m only going to comment on the civ design. While it might be historically accurate, both these civs seem extremely weak. Far weaker than even Sicilians. Other than those thrilled by history and campaign lovers, no one else would ever play as Tamils. Bengalis seem like a modified version of Persians without dock bonus. Faster repair for siege as a castle tech would just replace Madrasah as the worst castle age unique technology. Free techs on the market are also very minimally impactful since players research them much later in the imperial age for trading or buying/selling stuff at better profit or slinging an ally.
I’d like to have non-European civs to be added sure but I’d prefer good civ design and variety over historical accuracy and geographic representation.
5 Likes
As a Bengali myself, I will see through that these campaigns are designed. Currently working on Byzantine campaign, but will add the Bengal campaign in my Indian mega project too! Publishing a DLC puts many obligations on the developers that we might never know. So, many civs end up not being featured, which leaves us to design custom scenarios to fill in those gaps. Bassi, Ramsey, Alkhalim are some of the good examples of scenario designers who constantly publish high quality and popular scenarios depicting various historical events outside of the official ones.
8 Likes
You have good ideas here. Even if we won’t get any of them, i hope some custom campaign designer give us a taste of how it should be such civs 
2 Likes
They did introduce the Cumans and Tatars as 2 new Turkic Civs with both focusing on Cav Archers and with both (especially Cumans) being unfamiliar to a European ear .
2 Likes
You say that because you’re a European and you know more about Europe than rest of the world.
I’m an Indian and to my eyes , all europeans except Slavs look the same . If I didn’t know much about European history then I’d be saying the same thing but for Europe
1)Over 70 year as a Frankestein state , not as a collective one .
2)India is still diverse even though the British drawn borders on the map may disguise that .
3)All of this mess happened after the timeframe of AoE2 and so it should be irrelevant .
4)Devlopers shouldn’t have this sort of illusion as their game is based of history , not stereotypical history .
10 Likes
The website only allows to compare countries . So i guess (s)he just took the Republic of India to compare with Europe .
4 Likes
People? CloudAct=People?
3 Likes