When they go xbow… so you’d end up with a (worse) copy of Vikings.
Yes, it wouldnt go infantry mid game, but thats just how the game works.
Literally the only two civs that go infantry somewhat consistently on mid game are Aztecs and Incas
Yes, thats why Finns arent necesary.
They really have nothing important to add but bbeing conquered
However, one does not have to make Finns and infantry civ, and then they can be added more meaningfully into the game. (In fact, infantry being so unviable is another topic worth its own discussion)
If thats what they were historically not making them an infantry civ is dumb.
If you want to add a historically unaccurate Finn civ you can look somewhere else for any of the more meaningful civs that can be added. Probably you will find what you want
Historically unaccurate is your own idea. They’ve defended themselves against Viking raids and incursions for quite some time. So they could fairly well be a defensive civ, even if they have been conquered later on.
1 Like
250 years of defending against someone is super short considering what we can find in other places of the world. If anything Finns main point should we the raiding civ. They raided more than what they were raided.
And Finns literally had no stone defenses and no major wood defenses as far as I am aware. Really not a base of a defensive civ. Thats unaccurate. At least Scots used some siege weapons.
We already have civis without walls and towers plus bulgarians have a discounted castle so making civi with hill forts or offensive raiding seems taken already.
I do like the spam trash civi idea tho.
1 Like
They did have fortifications on the coast, most were wood, but a few stone fortifications remnants are visible even today. Moreover, long time period doesn’t seem to be a strong factor or necessity in this game, since the Huns didn’t last very long in terms of AoE2 timeframe, and neither have the Goths in any significant manner. Cumania hasn’t lasted more than 200-300 years either, which is again, all things considered, not that long compared to some of the established civs like Chinese or Persians.
3 Likes
Just add Mapuche or Swiss, or whatever else instead
Cumans arent a defensive civ. Honestly, Khazars make more sense for a defensive civ than Finns
Would like to see them, because Im not finding about any of those (the stone ones I mean)
Your point was about timeframe, there are civs that have fared worse.
As far as I know only excavations/ruins exist. Not actual standing buildings to this day.
No, Im talking about the point of them being a “defensive civ”.
250 years of defending against someone being enough to be a defensive civ is a pretty weak argument.
Yes, Im not finding about those either (of stone I mean; Im finding wooden hillforts)
If you mean to argue about realism, then almost every civ should be infantry civ in the game. Infantry was the most commonly fielded army in medieval europe, mostly levied soldiers with very basic weaponry (spears, pikes, whatever else that’s relatively easy and cheap to make/find). So you can consider fielding infantry as ‘default’, because that’s what happened most of the times. So I don’t want to classify a civ as infantry just because that’s probably what they made anyway, since that is a rather dull approach.
1 Like
I am not going to argue that adding them as a trash civ is wrong, thats fine, but making them a defensive civ is dumb (also, Liths already exist if you want a trash civ with hillforts and good at raiding). Making them an infantry civ would make more sense historically (and in the case of most civs in the game is more about looking about what made their army diferent from others rather than to talk about being 100% historically accurate).
Well I guess it would have to be worded as Defensive Civ because I doubt that they’ll add the literal wording as “Trash Civilization” into the tech tree. And again, most civs would make for an accurate infantry civ because basic levied foot soldiers made up the bulk of most armies.
(In the case of some civs, the Ages would have to be reversed. E.g. Magyars transitioned from using Light Cavalry and Cavalry Archers into more European style armies as time progressed, yet it’s in the final age, Imperial Age, where Magyar CA get the biggest of their boost…)
You could name it “naval civ”, “infantry civ” or even “ofensive civ” if you want.
Yes, but theres no distinctive focus of the Finnish armies apart of infantry or any distinctice stuff. As far as I know, Finns were basically just raiders like the Vikings
We have topics for these civis already.
Who gets added or not is completely up to the devs,pretty sure no one asked for the normans.
I personally like to keep this game a medieval themed game not something like civilization games which cover the whole world.
3 Likes
Eh, not really true.
Normans/Crusaders were one of the most popular civ choices beetwen casual fans
But if you want to add them for no reason just add Mapuche/swiss who are civs that makes more sense to add and can fulfill the same roles
Crusader are not a civilization.This is the first time im hearing this.
That didnt stop people from wanting them.
Im mostly talking about reddit.
1 Like
What other civis were asked there frequently?