[quote=“xPizzaSamuraixD, post:60, topic:245797”]
Oh? wait a minute… You know, like they did with TLK, LOTW, DOTD, DOI, ROR and TMR. Actually all the recent ############## [/quote]
Most of those are cavalry related things so theres that.
This paranoid sensor is now cutting out quotes.
That’s why I’m saying they could do something like that but with a different target in mind.
Btw, that wasn’t really the case with DOI and their weird stables. And somewhat ROR; except centurion. Also sicilians were tower oriented before they got changed. So there is that.
DoI added elephants for ram and ca line replacement they too are counted as cavalry.
I don’t particularly think “representation” is the sole reason why a civ should be added. Early germanic peoples were all very important in their own right but they are already represented by the Goths, and if we’re gonna add one of them, we should also add more. Swiss, on the other hand, represent more interesting ways to implement a civ that differ from the one that currently represent them (Teutons); not to mention they are one of the most requested.
Speaking of which, I forgot to include the Vandals.
You keep posting this representation tables as if AOE2 is some sort of equal opportunities government program.
AOE2 is not that. It’s a false argument. The devs need to sell marketable products.
AoE2 has players worldwide and so it has to cater to everybody.
Also covering a diverse group of civilizations rather than concentrating in one place alone gives the opportunity to create more “exotic” civilizations that makes the product marketable.
You can sell the product in Germany alone by create a dozen German Civs. Or sell your product worldwide by choosing civilizations worldwide.
How is that wrong? Remove the word “government” which is intentionally put for creating ecological fallacy (judgement on the basis of where it comes from) and re-read the sentence. You state this as if it is a wrong thing. Politics is now associated with a pool of corruptions and undesirable activities. But it is an unfortunate image. You do realise that government is an integral part of society.
And to answer to the question of the topic:
In my humble opinion we do not need many more European civs.
I would only add:
They could be bundled into one last European DLC.
Do you have a breakdown of AOE2’s revenue by geographic area? Because devs will create products that would sell in their main markets. They do not have to cater to everybody globally. They can’t make everyone happy with their products.
They imported AOE1 to AOE2 with a Vietnamese civ to attract its biggest player basis. But the attempt was largely a failure.
AOE2 has not focused on one place. Content has been released for almost all the major regions of the planet. An exotic product does not mean it’s automatically marketable. That’s a false assumption.
How do we know how well a product focused on Germany will sell? Perhaps if they create a DLC with a host of Germanic factions it will sell a lot in Germany to a degree that would match the sales of past DLC that focused on let’s say Central Asia.
Yes your argument is wrong. I did not say that government programs are wrong. Nor did I say that having a government is wrong. This is a classical example of a red herring. What I am saying is that you are making a logical fallacy by trying to impose criteria on a commercial product that are used for socio-political goals. They are two different things.
In business you make what sells. End of story.
Then there is no point of discussion because we cannot say anything. Market is mysterious. Only Economists can understand it. Devs will cater to their main markets automatically. Why are we discussing anything here then?
Glad we agree.
Feel free to discuss the topic of the thread.
Why are you trying to suppress the discussion?
Everybody has his own way to put arguments. Someone can post data and facts in the form of table. Another person can put a wall of text about his opinions.
Everyone is just expressing in their own way.
Then be open to being challenged on your opinion and arguments. Thank you for your time.
I love how fast comments, in general, go from “there is no eurocentric bias in this game/cvis must be added by their importance, not for the sake of inclusion” to “if civs outside Europe are added, the DLC will sell less than a European focused one, even if they are about tiny, ephemeral and pretty much local kingdoms” ¯\(ツ)/¯
Disclaimer: I’m not talking about any of you above directly, as I dont have time to check in which side each of you all are. That’s just an observation.
The one thing I also like in this comments is how some people automatically put “European civ” → must be important.
I’d argue that we’re still missing a lot of civs which had drastically more impact in their region and worldwide than some of the latest Euro DLC additions.
The argument about connections with other civs is also stupid if you never give a region the chance to feature new civs and only focus on very selected areas.
The problem being that this is not the argument. I never said that European focused DLC will sell more. It’s a red herring.
The argument here is that the devs should not be focusing on producing content based on representation. They are producing content based on what they will think will sell.
I honestly do not know why this is difficult to understand. ¯*(ツ)*/¯
Who said this?
The people arguing for a distinct Venetians civ because they’re relevant for the 4th crusade when there’s already Italians. This is one of the main arguments I saw for the inclusions of Venetians on the AOE Wiki btw recently.
Also one notorious ban evader who shall not be named here uses this argument a lot for his incessant suggestions of adding Balkan civs over African/Asian/American empires.
I don’t agree with this either.
I think there is only a handful of more European civs that can be justified in the game and Venetians is not one of them. The Italians are sufficient enough. But that’s just my humble opinion.
Also I like how population, area and cultural distinctiveness stop mattering when some people are talking about minor remaining European Kingdoms and Duchies but suddenly matter a lot when we’re outside.
Like, be consistent at least. We could split India also into 15 civs at least if Croatia/Bohemia/Switzerland and literally any other minor (Eastern) European country is a legible civ for AOE2.
Mississippian culture e.g. is widespread in North America, built cities, had theocratic kingdoms/chiefdoms and are distinct from anything else already covered in the Americas but apparently for some people they’re less necessary than some random European split civ?
Well Bohemians were added. 
Why do think they did it?