question is design space, need and reason from mechanics overload and choice perspective
Who said it should only apply to Europe?
Heck, the last DLC is technically doing that whole standard to “India”
2 Likes
Not even comparable.
The fact that dividing Asian civs the same way would lead to 100+ civilizations, each major Chinese dinasty getting their own civ, waaaaayyyy more Indian civs, including making the Hindustanis represent only the Mughals since its practically the same thing as dividing Spain in pre-Unification and post-unification, etc etc. And that would be a mess. Heck, if we were to represent Asia and Africa to the detail Europe currently has we will prob run out of viable bonuses before ending with them
3 Likes
More camel civs!
(Also: camel monk, worker camel, Greek fire camel, bombard camel, camel ship, camel tower, mangonel that shoots camels…)
Also we would have to add like 14 or such more HRE civs
Just to be clear, Aragon is fine, but dividing Castille would be kinda silly
1 Like
Castille isn’t even in the game
Yeah it is, its called Spanish. We cant have an Spanish civ appear out of nowhere, it has to be represented by one of the earlier civs
Ok, so let me get this
Aragon, ONE PART OF SPAIN, is fine
Castille, THE OTHER PART, is not
Is that what you are saying?
No. Im saying that you have to pick one and Castille fits the best with the focus in quickly built castle, the language, the coat of arms and the blacksmith bonus (I believe, not sure if Aragon also had an important iron production)
1 Like
Castillians and Aragonese do not deserve to be split.
4 Likes
Spain is only one!!!
IIRC that’s only half and a half (don’t quote me on this tho)
Despite its name, Castille didn’t have as many castles as Aragon or the Arabic kingdoms in the South
The language is a can of worms, it is Castillan, but is mostly the post-unification variant.
Coat of Arms is indeed Castilla (which is still wrong for Spain) and the Blacksmith bonus could be seen as Toledo Steel.
But then you have Genitour in another civilization
1 Like
Add Wallachians alongside a Georgian/Armenian merger and Europe will be fully covered as far as I’m concerned. Serbians would be my third choice being part of the Slavic umbrella but hardly represented by it.
That said, none of the above until we get an East Asian and African expansion beforehand.
6 Likes
Wow, someone got triggered…
Just because I suggest a list of European civs doesn’t prevent me from preordering a DLC set in India (outside Europe).
2 Likes
Camels make funny sounds, plus boy, they run fast!
I approve this. 
1 Like
I don’t care about the geographic location of a new civ as long as its a nice versatile and competitive civ like Lithuanians, Tatars, Burgundians, Sicilians, Bohemians, Poles. Considering the game balance, new interesting features and strategy aspect is more important than representing all regions and historical accuracy.
He never said don’t preorder the DLC… You got triggered and spoke irrelevant reply.
2 Likes
Wow. And African/Indian civs became pretty irrelevant because of colonization in the 19th century. Do you really want to go that route?
Not to mention that at the end of the day, what you consider relevant/unique or any other adjective you want to use is completelty subjective.
At the end of the day you can make as many arguments about population, battles, you want, you still want that civ because you like that civ, same goes for people who want more European nations.
According to the most voted poll on this forum so far:
54 people - don’t want new European civs.
67 people - want new European civs.
29 people - are irrelevant whether new civs are European or not.
This isn’t some math question where “2+2=4” is right and “2+2=5” is wrong. This is a preference question whether “I like vanilla” or “I like chocolate” are both correct as there’s no wrong answer.
You might as well have a discussion whether vanilla or chocolate is better. It’s perfectly like the pro-European or anti-European discussion.
By the way, vanilla rules. It’s far more tasty than chocolate and chocolate gets overused in a lot of products, vanilla is more unique and adds new flavors that don’t exist in other products.
TL;DR - it’s all about preference. Battles, population, uniqueness, etc; doesn’t matter. You’re trying to apply math to a non-mathmatical question.
That being said, let’s engage with your math for the sake of your argument.
Serbs? The Serbian Empire. The Bulgarians got in the game for having an Empire of their own too, and they didn’t have 5 million population together.
Venetians. Come on, you know they are significant. My only argumenet against them is that we already have the Italians.
Swiss. Have you heard of the Swiss merecenaries or their wars with the Burgundians?
Vlachs? Have you heard of Stephen the Great who won 46 out of 48 battles during his reign of 47 years while being outnumbered in all of his battles? No, that’s because he comes from a small country. But if he would come from France or England you would have heard of him. He essentially defeated all his neighbours: Ottomans, Wallachians, Hungarians, Poles and Tattars, only losing to the Ottomans twice.
Here are some ‘significant’ numbers: Battle of Vaslui: Moldavians - 40.000 ; Ottomans - 120.000 ; Casualities: Moldavians - 5.000 ; Ottomans - 40.000.
6 Likes
Stuff out of period doesnt matter for the porpuses of the game and wouldnt really make any favor for any of the civs you were defending in your post either.
6 Likes