European DLC (polls)

LoL ever read the history page of Bengalis? Pala Empire had more wealth than all of Europe put together. Go check.


That’s true, it was copy-paste mistake.

This isnt true. Berbers and Burmese had multiple very powerful kingdoms and the Cumans were just other type of state (and either way they were also the successor of the Khazars)


Yes, Berber kingdom lasted 130 years, as well as Burmese 100 years or so.

My point is why are the Croatians of a smaller worth than Berbers or Burmese for example?
Using word laughable and disparaging history of a nation in that way is not very nice thing to do.


Burmese: Toungoo Empire, Pagan Empire
Cumans were a waste of civ slot, but that doesn’t mean weak kingdoms have a place in this game
Berbers: Almoravid Dynasty, Saadi Dynasty, Wattasid Dynasty etc

Kingdoms like Croatia held zero significance. In fact they were easily wiped out when a strong power came.

Berbers and Burmese had very big empires and conquered many kingdoms/empires, unlike Croatia which was a village compared to them. In fact Burma and the Berbers had major kingdoms/empires for almost the whole medieval period.

1 Like

Which kingdom are you referring to?

1 Like

Kingdom of Altava, and Myinsaing Kingdom.

and you ignore the fact burma was an empire for 500 years in the middle ages

1 Like

Ah you edited your post to delete Bengalis. (from your list of non-european non-empire civs)

Where did you copy paste this from by the way?

1 Like

Interesting… Christian Berbers…

Berbers and Burmese had multiple very powerful and indpendent kingdoms through the timeline of the game. The two kingdoms I think you are talking about (Toungoo and Almoravids) were just their peak.

Burmese also represent other peoples that could be added separatedly like the Mon (which tbh I dont see ever being added anyway)

Toungoo Empire and Saadi Sultanate are from post medieval period.

Well, if you are for more Sino-Tibetan, Turkic and African ethnic groups and their Kingdoms.
It’s your choice.

I think the disagreement comes from wording here. The point was that Kingdom of Serbia was minuscule compared to other kingdoms or whatever, but not that the requirement for adding a civ was that it had to be a kingdom/dynasty/sultanate.

Because they were kingdoms, aren’t they?

Well, don’t be indecisive.

1 Like

The game’s timeline goes up to the 16th century as many campaigns take place there, even Bayinnaung, a Toungoo Emperor. Also you should stop nitpicking and ignoring the fact the Pagan Empire existed for 400 years.

So is the kingdom you mentioned for Burmese, and either way AoE2 includes the 16th century

But they arent all they had

Those civ’s should suit more for AoE3.
I thought that AoE2 was set primarily in middle ages, maybe i was wrong.

I’m not ignoring the fact.
I’m personally not for more civs outside Europe except Georgia and Armenia, that’s it.


That doesnt make any sense

Ok, but having an opinion doesnt justify ignoring stuff to make an argument. You can say other stuff but saying that Berbers and Burmese are only relevant for barely more than a century is wrong. You just picked one of the many kingdoms they had and decided to say that they represent all the civ is worth


Why exactly? Are you more in favour of adding some basically extremely minor city states from Europe instead?

1 Like

It is called Euro nationalism or Euro supremacy