I personally would prefer the cap to be at 50 civs. I think that there are civ boni left for about 15 civs, especially if we look outside of Europe.
I’ve seen a concept for a regional archer unit, the Tracker, which might be interesting.
If we’d go with 5 more only, I’d pick:
Tamil to have a second civ using the South Asian architecture set which could definitely have Battle Elephants in the stable
Iroquois to have a representative of North America
Mississippians to go alongside Iroquois which would provide the architecture set this new region would use.
Kongolese to have a representative of Central Africa
Zimbabweans to go alongside Kongolese which would provide the architecture set this new region would use.
As new regional unit, I could see the Tracker and for Central Africa either a reskinned Eagle warrior or another appropiately named warrior with slightly tweaked stats.
If we go with 15 more, which I think is probably the maximal amount which is reasonably possible, I would pick:
To be honest, there’s no source for this claim aside from SteamSpy. It wouldn’t surprise me though that a sizeable part if not majority plays almost exclusively SP.
BrownBear, a AOE3 veteran who played AOE since its beginning, explained that the popularity of AOE is greatly due to the casual elements they offer like tons of different factions and RNG elements.
according to the numbers in game around 400k people play multiplayer. and that includes people who only played a game or two even.
steam alone has over 2 million aoe2 DE sales.
Afgans would be the one with more historical value,termalanes first armies were majority afagan and mughals came from that region .but i feel they overlap with persians and tatars too much.
They might be the only civi that can have all the stable units in the roster.elephant camel horse.
afghans would have paladin, i was also thinking non-elite BE, and does the stable roster include ST? i was thinking like saracens they would be a camel civ.
also, would making afghans a gunpowder civ be accurate? i originally wanted to give them a zarambuk, and ever since then the idea never left my mind. and lastly, would a sowar be a good uu?
Sowar and zarambuk both feels kinda over the AOE2 time frame but you can choose the one you like.Indians are already a gun powder civi so both indian and afgan might be too similar.
okay, thanks, i think ill give a cavalry theme, trheir main unit at the stable is the camel and they replace paladins with sowars, thanks for the feedback! ill also look into other uu’s
What civilizations/factions/kingdoms should be included if there is a total indian conversion mod made?time frame is from 1200 to 1600.
feel free to join the discord.
We already have so many civs, and probably don’t want too many more.
India has two big divisions: North vs. South, and Hindu vs. Muslim. India would be fine with 2 civs: Northern/Sultanate India (what we have now - just rename it to Hindustanis), and Southern/'pure" Hindu India. As it can only have 1 language for dialog, just make them Tamils. Chola campaign probably more interesting than Vijayanagar anyway, and if devs want other south Indians to appear in campaigns, they can just rename the Tamils in that scenario.
You get two civs using the Indian architecture set, and you can have an Indian civ that is more focused on elephants than camels. If we don’t want 100 civs, we need to pick and choose carefully. Tibet IMO would be much more interesting than 3+ Indian civs.
Easier solution keep indians as it is add a new civi called dravidians change the tech tree by removing gun powder and camel units and make it a navy and monk civi.
it would be nice to know what the hard-coded limit for AGE is in terms of civ number. then we can theroycraft from that.
I do agree with the sentiment that the Subcontinent should not be represented by a single civ. I do hope that’s the next area to be addressed with a proper (no the bite-sized we got in Lords of the West) expansion pack.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am working on a more detailed DLC suggestion for the Indian subcontinent and will publish the ideas step-by-step here:
Tatars speak Turkic and they consider themselves turkic.they dont have anything to do with Chinese.
Mongols are not Chinese also.They mostly fought against them even their language familiy has nothing in common with Chinese.Mongols Koreans Turks are in same language group Uralic-Altaic language group.They have nothing to do with chinese.Maybe their roots can be connected with Xiang-nu empire. Ancient Huns.
