Oh my god, what have I done? Why has this topic turned so fast into a discussion about Europe’s so-called underrepresentation?
6 Likes
yes and then 3 uu for each europe civ too so is fair 
huns in this game clearly represent Attilas huns, which were settled on the danube. furthermore again, they don’t commonly use them
but every other civ has to deal with european skins. which is my point. instead of having proper Asian or Arabian heavy cavalry, they get to deal with European skins.
so look on the bright side, at least European units are properly respresented, which is more then most the world can say.
3 Likes
It’s also hilarious with ‘no region has gotten so much love’ while we look at LotW and DotD…
The regional unit is Villager, because most of the DE DLC civs have so strong economies and the Villagers are all euro-centric 11
2 Likes
‘‘deal with’’. be happy their included in a used-to-be only europe medieval game
1 Like
Siri, who are the Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Persians, Saracens, Turks, Byzantines?
14 Likes
You know, that’s something I unironically would love. Not for this reason, sure, but I think the game should get several heavy cavalry variants instead of having all of them based on Western Europe/France. Just like we already have a regional variant to the hussard for Poles and Lithuanians (though it’s still a hussard so maybe bad exemple)
I do think in general, having regional varieties for all units would be great. Villagers, Military units, Monks etcetera. But I understand why that might cause some legibility issues at least for Military units. Even Xolotl Warriors confuse people right now. And Villager regional varieties are iirc very time-consuming to implement.
1 Like
ok game made by europe/usa for their audience.
make ur own chinese or what game then can put camel units for all
literally since the beginning they had non European civs. and 40% of the campaigns were for non European civs. 50% if you don’t include the training wheels campaign that is William Wallace
you’re so eurocentrism you’re upset that non European civs are actually getting real representation and that you want Europe to feel even more special, in a game that already heavily caters to the European crowd, and calling those who point this out, toxic. I can’t believe how completely biased you are being right now.
16 Likes
One of the biggest rumored reasons for not adding Tibetians is the Chinese influence on the entire game industry. AoE1 (not DE, apparently) is the most played Age game out of all because of Vietnam(?).
Yeah early 2000s games games in the West were made by a bunch of white nerdy men, but even then it was surprisingly diverse for a Western audience, and the game has evolved since then. You could also reason the RTS scene usually is dominated by the Asian audience.
Also also, history nerds would know the game shouldn’t be eurocentric at all to be anywhere close to accurate. 
3 Likes
by the way lainky. the winged hussar is a European regional unit. so I guess your claim is false.
8 Likes
I really like all these ideas, but who will pay for it? A lot of people won’t even pay for DLCs with new civs, nevermind pay for changes to things they are more than happy enough for the “Devs to leave them alone”
India did get a fair amount of work done, but we could justify the new DLC as paying for it. In order for other civs to get overhauled they would need to add new things , and with Europe already so incredibly saturated, it’s hard to justify yet another civ dlc that will somehow affect Brits or Goths
At this stage I would bet these only change with a fanmade mod or standalone sequel. Like brood wars was to StarCraft
As in aoe2:remake. And then they reskin Vils, rework civs like goths and the older architecture types
The problem is readability. using 1 unit skin for every version of the same unit makes it a heck of al ot more readable. a knight is a knight is a knight. now imagine if you had to remember 10 different knight skins, and 10 different archer skins. game becomes much more complex. I’m totally for regional Skins. but it has to be client side only.
2 Likes
I think a heavily armored dude on a heavily armored horse will always be recognized as heavy cavalry x)
1 Like
but here’s the thing - is it a knight or is it a unique unit?
like i said. make such a thing client side only, and i’m all for it.
I think there is some merit in what @LankyDaisy8966 is saying, but I want to give context for why I think that.
Most of the Euro civs that were added are from the original Ensemble Studios devs and from the very first Forgotten Empires expansion.
Obviously we have to thank Ensemble for making the game, but they made some civs with an extremely loose historical approach and some lacklustre game design.
Forgotten Empires was originally a mod (which I played back before it was official) and was trying to emulate the approach of the original Ensemble civs, which is why they also have a bit of a loose historical approach and some very basic design, even more basic than Ensembles.
Some of the new UTs they added in the FE mod were terrible and they’re still in the game now and still terrible.
But FE (the studio) kept working on expansions and balancing the game and becoming better at making civs and trying out new things.
The campaigns are getting really advanced too and the DLC campaigns have been really good (for the most part.)
I think they’ve been doing a pretty good job.
Since the base game and the FE mod were Euro focused, most of the expansions that FE went on to develop were away from Europe.
And that’s good and I’m not against that, I think every expansion they’ve made has at least one civ I really like.
But I do feel like some more attention could be given to fixing, tweaking and maybe even overhauling some of those old civs.
Maybe even renaming some or fixing some languages for old civs, so that they match the new vision that FE is taking (which I like).
I think the confusing and unspecific identities with some of the older civs is what has helped fuel the continued demand of Euro civs.
A good balance example is the Teutons.
Teutons for many years used to be terrible and there was very little incentive to play them.
Now with Ironclad and the extra melee armour bonus for infantry and cavalry, they feel really good and them being the “melee armour” civ has become their new identity, which was completely created by FE.
I feel like you don’t get any big change ups to old civs like that much anymore and I think there is a lot more to be made.
I hope that FE hasn’t stopped the big changeups because of the expansions and needing bonuses for new civs.
I think it is fair to say that FE has been treating new civs with more care, both historically and civ design, not because they’re biased but because they’ve become more refined and ambitious over time.
But it would be nice if they directed a bit of their energy back to the base game some more.
6 Likes
I have to admit the game is already quite confusing regarding what is or isn’t an UU, with some regional units or unique upgrades counting as UU and not others. Must be quite confusing for Japanese mains and the samurai bonus against UU.
1 Like
We have enough europeans civs. Europe already has some of the best civ/units in the game.
Franks. Super knights.
Britons. Super long ranged archers.
Teutons. Super heavy infantry, even super heavy, yet slow knights.
Celts. Awesome death machine siege weapons and fast infantry.
That’s not even them all. Europe has enough civs.
2 Likes
i repeated many times here this is NOT to get more europe civs.
give ALL OLD civs region units. like the new indians who have 3 uu and 2 region units
non europe and europe, saracens persians berbers and so on
1 Like