The civilizations in AoK are basically terribly stereotypical: the Vikings have Berserkers with horned helmets, the Celts are based on the movie and the Teutons are basically the Teutonic Order. Only after many years we see that creators are trying to improve old civs, for example the Persians civ recently and the Indians civ (with a large division into 3 completely brand new civs + Hindustanis).
I think that before discovering completely new regions of the world, we should tidy up those that have been around for a long time - I include North Sea, Balkans, Mesoamerica, Andes and Africa above all. Iām not calling for immediate development of DLCs dividing European umbrella civs, but Iām just stating facts - and itās not up to me and us.
Personally, I think the Sahara & Horn of Africa DLC should be released now (including the addition of the Kanem-Bornu, Mamluks, Morrocans and Somalians civs).
I will also add that the recently added DLC Icons may open the way to more interesting cosmetic DLCs, which could bring a lot of good: exclusive Architecture Sets (maybe even for individual civs) and even Unit Packs (so that each region can truly be itself).
And in the Conquerors, the Spanish unique is basically a meme, and not even medieval. Their unique unit should have been the Almogavar and/or the Genitours.
I also think itās better to change the old civs than to split them.
I agree with the Horn of Africa, I think itās one of the regions with the most potential right now. Although my prefered civs would be different.
Euro civs they should add? Serbs and Vlachs, Saxons, Vandals, Lombards, Moors/Caliphate of Cordobaā¦lets just leave it at that,
Serbs & Vlachs could be their own DLC with a rework of Slavs (renaming them Rus) and a new campaign for Slavs and Magyars (since Vlachs donāt need a new DLC made, they would just take Dracula)
the next three could be their own ābarbarian invasionā DLC (Ideally bringing a new Barbarian architecture set that the Goths would use too), Lombards and Saxons could be built sorta like Franks where they have aspects of their early history and late history represented) and a Romans campaign with Majorian defending the Western Roman Empire from Barbarians and trying to take chunks of the empire back.
and then Moors could be with an Africa DLC or a possible Saracens split, but I mention them here because their relevance is primarily in Iberia
Aside from that I donāt think Europe needs anything else, and as much as I want to see both of these, iād rather see at least one DLC in Africa or E. Asia first.
I just hope if the icons flops it doesnāt discourage them from doing architecture sets or unit packs, because thereās no way on earth iām paying for animated icons, but iād absolutely pay for architecture sets and unit packsā¦though iād rather they be included in civ DLCs
Splitting up the Spanish civ would also be useful, but thatās a low priority at the moment. This way, a non-medieval Conquistador (like Winged Hussar) could at least become a Regional Unit - which would be less egregious than being a UU.
In many cases, split is necessary - this was the case with the Indians civ.
I believe that the Ethiopians civ lack the Somalians civ as natural enemies - the Incas and Malians civs are also alone.
Note:
Considering only Old World because New World saw radical changes in Colonial Age with its people groups so we cannot correctly compare Modern Age data with Medieval Age. Old world on the other hand stayed fairly consistent.
I agree Indians needed split, and Slavs needed split (which has begun but I personally donāt consider finished until we get Serbs) but honestly iām not sure any other civs need split other than maybe Saracens. Sure the Teutons are kinda built around the Teutonic Order, but I donāt want us to see a hundred 10 square mile German city state civs, same with Italians, I donāt want a bunch of city-state civs split off of it. Celts I get why people want it split but I really donāt see it as necessary. And honestly some units are kinda staples of the game (Teutonic Knights, Persian War Elephants, Conqs, etc) and would risk alienating a section of the player base, including parts of the pro scene, if they removed or massively changed.
If you only look at two data points you might get that conclusion, what those two data point donāt show is the huge population boom happen in North America in 1050, between their ābig bangā and 1500 droughts and other change in climate made the population decline again.
āBarbariansā are needed more by the content of Return of Rome DLC than by AoE 2. If we add āBarbarianā civs to AoE 2, only those that would fit into the entire broadly understood Middle Ages, such as the Allemanians, Bavarians, Lotharingians, Saxons, Danes, Swedes, Vandals, Irish, Alans and Khazars - others could be the next unfortunate Huns.
[quote=āVelk413, post:24, topic:245797ā]
I just hope if the icons flops it doesnāt discourage them from doing architecture sets or unit packs, because thereās no way on earth iām paying for animated icons, but iād absolutely pay for architecture sets and unit packsā¦though iād rather they be included in civ ############# [/quote]
Me too.
But no one even suggests such a thing - at least not me. Adding Allemanians, Bavarians, Lotharingians and Saxons you would have 4 main groups of Germans that originated in antiquity and still influence modern German-speaking countries to this day - these are definitely not small city states, but areas larger than medieval Poland, Sicily or England.
There is no question of removing Teutonic Knight or Conquistador - Teutonic Knight would remain intact in Teutons civ (which would only have text changes + maybe an icon) and Conquistador could become a Regional Unit.
Well two of three I referenced are on your list (Saxons, Vandals) and Lombards I think still works because they were a force in Italy up to the Norman invasion of Sicily. In fact I kinda use Lombards as an overarching civ for the Germanic invaders of Italy for that very reason; they were involved in the Italian peninsula long past Romeās fall. Similarly the Saxons were involved in Britain long after Romeās fall, and the Vandals reputation kinda precedes them.
Training conqs out of a stable would be stupidly broken tbh.
Fair, by that logic you could probably even throw in Austrians (Though they could also fit under the Bavarian umbrella, or maybe even call the civ Austrians and put Bavarians under their umbrella), but iām not sure to what degree its really necessary tbh. I wouldnāt be rioting against it with torches and pitchforks or anything, but iād much rather see other non-European things first.
I would personnally gladly see an east Asia DLC, but I am always amazed to see some people raging against Europe being at the center of the game. Come one, it is a western product (and as such is not meant to represent democraticaly anyone) based on a european notion, the middle ages.
It was representing the middle ages in 1999. Since 2001 its not just that. The original devs even wanted to make The Conquerors be just India originally
And also, since the beggining the game was quite diverse, it should be even more diverse in the 2020s than it was in 1999
-the game still starts in the dark age (something that didnāt really exist outside of europe), then progresses into the feudal age (another european concept, although similar power structures existed elsewhere)
-all the generic units (except camels) are based on european weapons and armours
-most of the techs are based on european (especially monk techs which have christian symbols)
Yeah, it uses an European gameplay framework, but the timeline isnt really based on any āEuropean eraā anymore, since it goes from the 5th to 16th century
Also, not sure if that has to do with the focus of the game, it may have been done because of budget or technical reasons
I donāt mind more European civs at all, my interest is mostly centered around them. That being said, I never complain about more content anyways, as long as I find it fun.