Just one example but you know Ive brought up this pressing issue of underutilization of Eagles and other such units a whole bunch
1 Like
You cant expect people to respond to something you asked in a different topic here.
Saying no more european civis are bad because they cant have camels or eagles is silly logic.Someone else can say we dont need any meso civis because they lack all type of cavalry too.
They never gave me answers there either.
And thry can complain about Eagle civs being too few when their numbers become too plentiful
While im never a fan of adding units for the sake of diversity there can be civis with units you mentioned.
Vandals camels sl and dromons.
Veneti/venice dromons camels.
Alans kazars pecheneg or any other horse people who went through europe SL line.
1 Like
From most desirable to least desirable:
- Vlachs
- Scythians/Alans/Sarmatians (if you consider these to be european)
- Swiss
- Illyrians/Sclavenians
- Venetians
- Lombards
- Austrians
- (Anglo-)Saxons
- Moravians
5-9 are meme suggestions and should only be added if they run out of civs to add.
Also Slavs should be Ruthenians.
4 Likes
We can have 6 or 7 3 civ DCLās only from Africa and Asia.
I donāt know enough about preColumbian America outside Chile and Aztecs, Maya and Inca, to make an opinion.
5 Likes
Now that we got the caucasus as the last european dlc. Weād need at least 4 dlc for africa, 2 dlcs for north/meso america, 2 dlcs for south america, 2 dlcs for east asia, 2 dlcs for sea, and 2 dlcs for the indian peninsula (yes, again).
Which is unrealistic. Will never happen.
And this is just to get KINDA even with the number of dlcs. NOT the total number of civs.
The funny part? Even if all those dlcs become a reality, weād still be over saturated with european civs lmao.
6 Likes
Ngl I honestly donāt think we should be basing choices on what civs to add solely based on āI want more Eagle Civsā or āI want more Steppe Lancer civsā. If a civ addition gives that, cool, but that should be a second hand benefit of a civ addition, not the driving force behind it; if it is then additions feel forced.
Honestly I donāt think Saxons are a āmeme suggestionā they played a major role in the British Isles for a pretty extended period of time. I think Swiss are far more of a meme suggestion than Saxons, or Lombards for that matter. I do agree Slavs should be either Rus or Ruthenians though.
Yikes! Keep in mind the game name Age of Empires; civs should be at least moderately major players, not just random little groups. And yes I know we already have Burgundians and Bohemians that werenāt really major movers; letās not use that as carte blanche to just go nuts with a bunch of random cultures that didnāt really have major effects on the worldās stage.
2 Likes
So if No gets more votes, that indicates that there are no people wanting to see European civs?
Because those yes votes that lost clearly just donāt exist and/or are put there by people who donāt exist. shrugs
I donāt care, if they add more civs Iāll figure out more stuff with new civs, if they donāt Iāll play the civs that exist. Just coming in to argue semantics over silly things people say, a favorite pastime of those of European descent.
1 Like
Exactly my point:
Wari empire:
800, 000 km2
600 years (no interruptions).
Tiwanaku empire:
700, 000 - 1200, 000 km2
900-1000 years (no interruptions)
Moche kingdom-Chimu empire (both thoughout the years):
200, 000 - 570, 000 km2
800-1200 years (no interruptions).
Chanka kingdom:
120, 000 km2
350 years (no interruptions)
Diaguita kindom:
90, 000 - 110, 000 km2
210 years (no interruptions).
Purepecha empire:
75, 000 km2
330 years (no interruptions).
On the other hand, the civs you suggest:
Serbian empire (greatest extent):
250, 000 km2 
25 years (no interruptions).
Vlachs:
As the Romanian kingdom
30, 000 km2
80 years (no interruptions)
As an ethnic group
140, 000 - 160, 000 km2
600 years (with interruptions)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Btw maybe you should look at these:
4 Likes
A polityās longevity can play in to their relevance on the worldās stage but isnāt the only factor. Heck, the Hunnic āEmpireā lastedā¦what? 35 years? And their actions had quite a few far-reaching implications. Thatās something that is going to always hamstring South American civs not named Incas; the Spanish colonization pretty much wiped out a lot of that history. Iām not necesarily saying we shouldnāt add any South American civs (As far as the Americas go Mesoamerica and the Mississippians (Iāll grant iām a hypocrite in wanting the Mississippians, but its an exception lol) are more of a priority IMO) but I think 2 whole DLCs (anywhere between 4 & 8 civs) is overkill personally.
2 Likes
One major problem with this is due to the lack of units there will be overlap in tech tree with other civis.
No, it indicates that more people DONāT want Euro civs than people who want them.
Yes, that is exactly what my comment implies. Not
1 Like
Nah I disagree. I think this argument you always repeat is a bit silly
You just have to be a bit more imaginative
1 Like
Look at the current current meso civi archery range all three have the exact same units.
Im sorry you arent creative and are projecting your insecurities on others. After all with all your civ concā¦ oh!
I know right, this FU Aztec Thumbā¦ oh
1 Like
And why should it stay like that? You can design other civs without good eagle warriors or arbs if you are just a little bit creative
2 Likes
Yes I fully agree you are the most creative person on this planet please continue.
They can just add a new regional unit that replaces eagles for south america, new unit upgrades, new buildings, new technologies, new vill-like units, or even just remove units, technologies, buildings, etc to make them different.
Oh? wait a minuteā¦ You know, like they did with TLK, LOTW, DOTD, DOI, ROR and TMR. Actually all the recent dlcs.
3 Likes
Iām out there trying.Im not the best but Ive been giving it my all for years