South India has almost never been controlled by others,
they (Tamils/Cholas) are a must have in any Indian expansion
3 Likes
I am in support of this, but I would honestly suggest changing the names and removing some.
- Afghan: Iâd call them Pashtun, because itâs basically half Pashtun and half Persian and Persians are already in the game.
- Indians: We could call them Rajputs and then assign the sultanates in the campaign to Persians; that would also be accurate.
- Marathas: They didnât exist in the AOE 2 timeline, so Iâd exclude them.
- Oriyas: Kalinga is a much better name.
- Palas/Bengalis: I prefer the name Vanga for them (kind of like Franks for French).
- Kannads: Jeez, thatâs not a word man! Call them Karnata and it makes much more sense, or Kannadiga: but that is more of a linguistic identity.
- Tamils: Makes sense
- Sinhalese: Also makes sense, but Sinhala is a nicer touch.
In reality, eight is probably too much. I would like to see Rajputs, Vanga, Karnata, and Tamils in there, with probably a Chola campaign and a Tripartite struggle scenario with Vanga (Palas), Karnata (Rashtrakuta), and Rajputs (Pratihara). I even though of UUs: A unique unit elephant unit (like AOE 3 Flail elephant?) for Vangas, a gunpowder-based HC-type unit for Karnata (based on Vijayanagaraâs Portuguese-imported Matchlocks from Goa), some kind of cavalry lancer for the Rajputs, and the Urumi from AOE 3 again for the Tamils would be interesting, along with an Imperial fire ship as a second UU. Elephant Archers become available to everyone from Archery ranges.
1 Like
Now correct me if Iâm wrong but isnât that out of aoe2 timeline too?
1 Like
It makes it into the timeline, just.
Vijayanagara (the powerful times): 1336 -1565 (where they used Portuguese gunpowder support to counter Shahi bombard cannons to win was Raichur 1520, although in reality it seems they used it only as a last option if their usual heavy cavalry and elephant armies didnât work)
Montezuma: 1466 - 1521
Bayinnaung: 1550 - 1581
Kyoto: 1582
Noryang Point: 1598
India should get another 2 civs, but not more.
Tamils should definitely be in the game, however.
3 Likes
India should get more civs than 2
I said 2 other, which would make it a total of 3 civs.
3 Likes
At least 5 Indian civilizations.
That would be too many, and you would end up with copies of other civs.
1 Like
One to represent the South (Tamil/Chola) and one Eastern one (Bengal). Maybe a third one to represent the center (Bahmani).
1 Like
I would go for Tamils and Sinhalese, or Tamils and Odyias.
Sinhalese would be a good Water + Elephants combo, while Odyias would be very much an Infantry and Cav civ like we already have a lot in the game.
I thought four makes sense because of their geographical dominions: for Indus and western Gangetic plains, eastern Gangetic plains and the delta, the deccan, and the southern peninsular plains and coasts, and also provides opportunity to provide different kinds of army compositions (Cavalry, Elephant & Foot Archer, Gunpowder/Siege and Monk, Naval and Infantry) so theyâre interesting even outside a campaign scenario.
Three might be too little from a historical perspective, and while I would ideally like five, or six, or even ten, or an entire âAge of Empires 2: Indian Subcontinentâ game on its own, making them all unique and fun in a random map and other common non-campaign game modes is questionable, and also the time spent in creating units and customising tech trees.
4 Likes
Woah, the devs already said no more civs and here you are asking for at least 4 more. I get that some of the users would like to have a more accurate game from an historical point of view, but aoe2 was never about historical accuracy.
Youâd have to split a lot of other civs too and weâd end with way too many civs to have a balanced game, itâs more than fine having 35 civs
Woah yet here you are here babbling that nonsense interview again? Once the devs state that there will be no more new civs in another official post around here in the forums then the OP and other players who want new civs might stop creating threads about new civs. Up to 5 more civs are acceptable as long as the priority bugs are sorted out.
7 Likes
You could easily do the same thing with Africa and America but well, I like the civs we got so far. I always wanted African and South East Asian civ after AoC and so far, I like what we got. This doesnât prevent me from wishing some North American, South American and Central African civs though 
South Asian civs would be welcome too but Iâd prefer North American ones first.
Love that an interview istantly become a nonsense when it doesnât tell you what you want 11
"At this point, I think weâre done adding civilisations to Age II. I do not foresee us adding any more civs to the game. I think weâll add more content, campaigns, new game modes â all those kinds of things weâll explore, but even our pro players are kind of saying âweâre done, we have enough civs at this point to last us foreverâ.
Itâs a lot to hold in your head, and I think that they would love to get comfortable with the game rather than trying to push into even more civs. There comes a saturation point, and I think weâre there"
I completely agree with what was stated here: we are at a saturation point with civs. 35 civs a lot and itâs already hard to balance the game as it is.
They donât need to state one more time what it has already been stated
2 Likes
Itâs not decisive. It suggests that they wonât add any more civs but only time will tell if they really wonât.
I disagree with @Soldeo that this was a nonsense interview. Thatâs what the vision of AOE2 is from Adam Isgreen. I hope though that theyâll consider adding new civs.
I donât think civ suggestion/request threads will stop anytime soon, especially from the Singleplayer community which is tendencially more Pro-civ than the multiplayer scene.
It wouldnât surprise me to see an expansion pack in 1-2 years Ă la Rise of the Rajas or Last Khans. They know that so far AOE2 is the most popular title in the franchise.
2 Likes
Most people want new civs, however.
35 is not that great a number for a game built like AoE1 or 2.
50 would be a far more reasonable number.
2 Likes
50 is a more desirable number for the casual Singleplayer base.To be honest though, I do think that 35 civs is already hard to keep track of on a reasonable level, especially for the more competitive side of the community.
7 Likes
50 civs is way too much, itâs already hard to balance the game with 35.
I get that thereâs a portion of the player base (mostly single player guys) who wants more civs, but you have to consider also the competitive aspect of the game