Please, rename this topic as “Future Destructive and Lameful Clash among forum users roadmap”
7 Likes
both of you need to stop.
4 Likes
if you continue both of you will be banned, you’ve already been told to stop.
7 Likes
Even though it has improved a lot in DE, Asia still has a lot of umbrella civs which could perfectly be splitted. And I also think many political entties* are not covered by existing civs yet, like the Gokturks or Sogdians just in Central Asia. And even these civs would still be umbrellas to some extent, since they would still cover many kingdoms and empires. So there’s still a lot of work that could be done to Asia, specially when compared to how Europe is covered right now.
*Obviously it’s a typo, but the actual work I want to write is censored 
1 Like
It is very refreshing to see many posts mentioning the somewhat obscure Tarascan (or Purépecha) civilization in Mesoamerica. They formed a state around their capital Tzintzuntzan and the Tarascans were the only Mesoamerican people that could fight back and defeat the Aztecs. The Tarascans had copper weapons which, along with subterfuge and great numbers, made it possible to inflict a terrible defeat on the Aztec invasions of 1479-1480. They as a playable civilization could have Blacksmith bonuses increasing the attack of their infantry and archers. And as unique unit they could have an infantry unit armed with a mace wit copper spikes or an archer with copper arrows (represented by high attack). Either way the ethos of a Tarascan civ in AOEII would be a Mesoamerican civ with high attack.
5 Likes
Tlaxcalans will never forget this.
5 Likes
Nice topic, all my respect !
But from my side I would prefer some african civilisations :
Berbers civilisations of North Africa
Civilisations of the African Horn
Civilisations of the south of Africa
Then, after we get more African civilistions, I would love to get more Central Asia nomad civilisations (Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Uzbeks).
At the same time I would like a bit some more group of civilisations specifities (Regional Units and regional bonuses like they did for amerindian civs which we call “Meso” even if its not correct).
I think all Nomad civs should have more specific bonus for hunting, fishing. Also Central Asian people, were montaign people, It would be fun that they have better bonus using the relief of the map (for example not 25% but 28% of additional damage from a hill).
1 Like
The way the devs are treating the european tiny civies, if they also treat Tais fairly then a DLC can be made on Tais alone. The most important being the Siamese, Ahom, Laotian, Shan. Each of them should have a civ of its own.
3 Likes
the Aztecs were definitely not good neighbors
3 Likes
I agree, this is a good thread! But aren’t Berbers already included in the game?
Understatement of the year.
6 Likes
They are.
I meant Berber’s sub civizations (Tuaregs, Kabyles, Mozabites, Rifains, Iznassen, Jbalas, Zayanes, Zenagas, Guanches etc…).
1 Like
How would they differ from the ingame onece? You need to have uus story potential leader names etc.
This is not even the same amount of civs Europe has. It would surprise me if we would get even close to 16 civs for Africa, but we definitely could.
Add several of them or add none. People would be pissed off if there would be just Indogermans, Polynesians would be this but in worse considering the presence of several language familiies and oral traditions there.
They’d need a new set which should anyway be used by 2 new civs at least.
2 Likes
I agree with that, but some of the civs you suggest are actually states, not civs. I don’t think the Nubians should be split into Makuria and Alodia, for instance.
5 Likes
I don’t know what to tell ya. There isn’t enough historical material for multiple Polynesian civs.
The other civ would be the Micronesians.
1 Like
This would make a cool uu for such faction.
Yup, the Kiribati was my idea for the Micronesian UU. It’s basically a Cataphract, but on foot and without the bonus against infantry.
The Polynesian UU would be the Koa, an infantry unit that can periodically dodge one melee attack.
If you’re going to add a Mississippian civ to play with, it makes little sense for them to use the same building set as the Mayans and Aztecs. They should have their own architecture instead. The Mississippian city-states were as different from the Aztecs or Mayans as Swedes and Italians are. Similarly, the Incas should have their own separate building set as well, and they’re not even Mesoamerican. They’re from South America. Totally different continent.
5 Likes
Well, yes, of course. I think there could be Iroquois and Algonquin civs that get the same set.
3 Likes