In what is most likely a massive waste of time, I decided to make a list of new civ ideas, chunked out as specific DLCs. The DLC titles are really just rough placeholders, and I was trying to keep in mind getting campaigns for all the old civs that don’t have one, and trying to keep the civs still power players and not too niche. I have also unfortunately had to avoid Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Manchu due to considerations Microsoft would have to keep in mind with regards to China. Especially the Asia idea has ended up being mainly a campaign DLC which isn’t ideal. I also had to stretch on where to put the Mayan campaign i’ll admit. I’d love to hear thoughts/opinions or suggestions.
Tsars of the Steppe
Rus (renamed Slavs)
Sultans of Arabia (splitting Saracens)
Umayyad (part Arab part Moorish influence, would rep. Moors in El Cid campaign)
Ayyubids (Saladin campaign goes to this civ)
Turks Campaign OR
Moors (Would rep Iberian & N. African Arabs in Spanish & Portu. Campaigns)
Arabs (could maybe even leave the Saracen name and just narrow down to rep. Mashreq Arabs)
Mamluks (Saladin Campaign goes to this civ)
Kings of the South
Bantu (could maybe be an umbrella including Kongo)
Barbarian Invasion (New architecture for these civs, & Goths/Huns)
Romans Campaign (very late Romans, defending the empire from Barbarian invasion)
Chieftains of the North
Swedes (based on the late Middle Ages Swedes)
Princes of the Balkans
Wallachians/Romanians (gets Dracula campaign)
Not at all. I came up with a Lombards concept. I haven’t shared it yet, though, partly because of the stigma against Mediterranean civs (for good reason) and also because I came up with a packing/unpacking TC bonus for them that I feel fits another civ better.
Part of why I proposed them having this theoretical new Barbarian architecture set. While the civ could work for the Lombards seen in the Hautevilles campaign, i’m thinking moreso the ones hundreds of years earlier that attacked the dying Western Roman Empire. Because yeah they eventually influenced Italian culture (and were themselves influenced by it) but they were at first very different.
That’s sometimes remembered as the greatest naval battle of antiquity and basically the one that put an end to it being the reconquest of Africa the western Roman empire last hope. But I can see it being the final scenario of a Gaiseric campaign rather than a historical battle.
Actually I think Lombards were Mediterranean as much as goths were Iberians or vandals African. They were all German people who just happened to occupy that space.
Also the Mediterranean set being overcrowded is not because of too many civs in the area I think but rather because of Devs lazyness in design (I think you would agree that Georgians are not a Mediterranean civ by any means).
The difference you’re speaking of is between Lombards (Italian people living in today’s Lombardia) and Longobards which is the proper name for the Germanic civ you’re proposing so they should be called Longobards to underline that since it’s the correct name even if less famous. Lombards are a medieval evolution deriving from the mix of Roman and Germanic elements during their late antique kingdom in Italy but Longobards existed before that in a different place (coming from Scandinavia in antiquity and then settling in ####### or Pannonia after Huns disintegrated).
Ngl while I think they should shy away from using the Med. architecture more I’m not that worried about how its used as of now. even the Armenians I think are moreso based on the Clician Armenians than those in the “homeland” so I get the Med. pack a bit more, and I get them not wanting to #### # ##### architecture for just the Georgians. I think we need a Barbarian pack, and I get the people arguing for a new East Asian pack for China and such, though even that’s lower on my priority list. I also don’t exactly know what to do with the Mongols, because i’m not sure the barbarian pack would work but the E. Asian one certainly doesn’t. I’m fine with making some concessions with architecture though…maybe i’m just still riding the high of Byzantines actually having a church for a monastery instead of a Mosque from back in the day 11
Some argued for stuffing them with Tibetans in a proper central Asian set (the current one is actually western Asia).
I’m kinda on the fences too when it comes to add a nomad set because it feels too wide and abstract, more of a concept to fill civs than a real thing.
The best thing for me would probably be to make nomads switch between architecture sets through ages.
How to forget western Roman Muslim churches in the battle of the catalaunian fields…
I am very surprised that you said: I have also unfortunately had to avoid Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Manchu due to considerations Microsoft would have had to keep in mind with regulations to China
Let’s not mention how absurd and ignorant the claim that the Chinese government will ban the game due to the addition of civilizations such as Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Manchu in “Age of Empires 2” has always been, and whether Microsoft will actually not produce these civs due to concerns about being banned.
The key is, you are just a fan and not an employee of Microsoft. Do you also need to self-censor yourself when making suggestions on the forum?
In fact, no matter what suggestions you put forward, Devs will definitely not completely copy them. They will have some reference for your suggestions, which is already very good. It’s ridiculous that you should self-censor on such a matter.
We westerners are slowly becoming tired of freedom and started to ban everything.
Justinian is unlikely at this point but the other two not that much even if they’d probably go with Aetius or Stilicho if I have to guess.
A Gaiseric custom campaign is on my to do list, it’s just begging to be created lol.
I’m working on some more detail info for my proposed new civs, starting with campaign subjects. I’m taking your Genseric and Majorian ideas, i’ve also got Abd al-Rahman I for the ######### the guy who fled the Abbasid revolt and established independent Al-Andalus, and Orhan for the Turks; the second Ottoman sultan after Osman (mainly because Osman’s info is largely questionable, after the fact info and Orhan seems to have had some interesting journeys and conflicts in further cementing the Ottoman realm.
Frankly speaking, I don’t know how these Muslim civilizations had their own identities after the split of Saracens. What will their UU be? How different can their tech trees be from each other? Maybe I’m ignorant, but in my opinion, Islam’s ability to assimilate is so strong in the Middle East that when a Muslim is in front of me, I can’t tell whether he comes from Yemen, Iraq or Egypt. Just having been able to independentize Berbers from Saracens is already very impressive.
On the other hand, I think it is very likely that there will be no European civilization outside the Balkans within the foreseeable future. Strictly speaking, only the Vlachs should have a chance. I know there are people in the forum who yearn for the Serbs, Croats, Albanians, and the splits of Teutons, Italians, and even Vikings (Norses), but let’s face it, there are really too many European civilizations, and the slots are more needed elsewhere.
Based on the fact that East Asia and Africa are the most requested regions after the Caucasus, I will discuss them because they are most likely to become future DLC.
The Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty were periods of particularly intense competition with foreign nations in Chinese history, which is a very suitable theme for the Asian DLC. If they want to be distinguished by dynasty, they can be: