And the Bengalis had kingdoms before that, I dont know if you are aware. Representing them with the Mughals is absolutely stupid military wise (outside some gunpowder stuff they are NOTHING alike and the Indian civ isnt able to even represent the gunpowder aspect accurately).
If Bengalis are represented by the Mughals then Serbians are more than enough represented by BUlgarians and Vlachs are represented by Magyars. And at least Bengalis were far more powerful than those two.
And then you complain about Ghurids and Sogdians being pointless lol. We have had more than enough Euro civs in a row.
Finns would be great if we had any reason to add them beyond how interesting was their conquest, and we dont.
Also, the problem with adding a Viking subdivision is that all the Nordic people are fine being represented by Vikings from anything I saw. Thats not the case for the rest of the umbrellas
Well that area is not represented by anyone yet and I think it would make an interesting civi as they were pagan and primitive compared to the surrounding powers.we do have huns and cumans who dont even have proper wonder buildings and made up leader names(looking at you huns) so why not have an european civi which would be different from others?
P.S I also want albanians as they too are not covered by byzantines or slavs.
Yeah I did (and I dont think thats a good example to add a civ since I just want Ghurids, not Pashtuns, but still). Thats at least better than what Finns have going on for them.
I think Finland + Estonia could be a good DLC, more on the theme of the Christian crusades and expansions in the north. Since the part about the Holy Land is already very well covered.
Having civs added only because it was an achievement for other civs to conquest them seems like a waste of a civ slot (if we get this low of an standard we can keep adding African, Asian or even American civs for ages). At least until the rest of the world is covered, Finns and Estonians are pretty bad civ choices.
Not all civs became successful, but that’s fine. Cumans didn’t make it. Huns didn’t make it. Goths didn’t make it. None of the meso civs made it. So I think in itself, a civ being not successful is not a problem, as long as they had some importancy and/or an interesting story to them. (Cumans were influential until their downfall, and how they assimilated into Hungary and Bulgaria is an interesting story too, Huns were undeniably influential in accelerating the fall of Rome, Goths also played part in the fall or Rome, and their own downfall in Iberia is also an interesting story. I think also all the meso civs that are in the game have an interesting story to them).
So do the Mississippians and there’s nothing in North America right now contrary to the Finns or Estonians or whoever else and btw guys why are you talking about the addition of Euro civs in a thread which is exactly not about that
Create your own thread if you really want to add Estonians or any other civ you wish to see and if the thread gets a lot of traction and likes the devs might consider it.
We’ve got 7 Euro civs lately to 1 non-Euro one so I definitely think the next two ones at least should focus on something else.
But dude, two of these civs were two of the most influential civs of all time thanks to their conquests and all of them at least had an state. Finns and Estonians didnt even have a single impressive building as far as Im aware
Catalans / or Aragonese would be an interesting civ - it could also have a reference to the Basque, e.g. a Unique Unit or at least the name of a Unique Technology.
Venetians are also a very nice choice for civs. This civ could include Albanians in a similar way as mentioned above.
By adding these two civs, we already have DLC ready for the Mediterranean - one of its greatest powers. In addition, including the smaller nations that were part of these powers (Basque and Albanians) would be to roast 4 chickens on two fires - Aragonese including Basque, and Venetians including Albanians.
Wallachians / Romanians (Dracula’s campaign that does not have a civ) would eventually appear in this game to cover quite a large gap in Europe. They had three quite important countries - Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldova. Adding this civ makes perfect sense, and eventually the Dracula Campaign would stop being weird.
I think this civ could appear in one DLC along with the Finns (umbrella for Finns, Estonians, Karelians and Sami).
I think it would be easier to turn Goths into Danes (Huskarl is a Danish unit). Then the Vikings civ would represent Swedes and Norwegians (Icelanders etc too).
The same can be done with the Huns and rename them to some other civ (Mongolian, of course), which was longer relevant than the Huns.
Goths and Huns are too Dark Ages where the rest of the civs have more extended time frames.
It is worth noting that Venice has historically been separate from the rest of Northern Italy. It was in some ways the most powerful and unique of any other Italian nation (and had numerous non-Italian possessions as well). The addition of the Venetians civ makes perfect sense.
Then the Italians civ would represent Northern Italy, and the Sicilians would represent Southern Italy.
This map shows the Kingdom of Italy existing under the HRE (around 1000 AD).
It shows perfectly the separateness of Venice and even more clearly the separateness of Sicily.
It says here about the Kingdom of Italy - unfortunately it is not in English (I read it in Polish).
