I also wonder why did they add Maltese with Flaming Hoops! and Hand Missile! in AoE3.
Just because some wrong decisions were taken in the past by devs doesn’t mean we should start suggesting irrational decisions only. If you want to do so, sure go ahead. It’s your personal choice.
We (me and szaladon) on the other hand will prefer to remain rational and suggest reasonable decisions only.
Adding the Maltese was questionable, indeed, but at least they tried to make something unique with them (whether that worked out is a different thing). I may be hanged by aoe3 players for saying this, but even I originally didn’t want that civ, I actually have grown to like the Maltese and I prefer that civ over any potential German or Italians split 
Of course, the fact that this civ was added before Persia should be considered a crime.
These are based on weapons used by the knights during the Great Siege of Malta.
Because some people spammed various AOE2 forums with their Poles civ request and Bohemians were pretty much the only civ which could fit within the theme of a Poland centered expansion.
And if you’re asking why we got Burgundians/Sicilians, it was AOK nostalgia bait and testing the waters for new post DE expansions. Also apparently where the devs are from is now relevant for the civ selection of DE DLCs (that’s what I’ve heard, not sure on that). This is why we got also Burgundians because Cysion if I correctly is Belgian.
What are you referring to as a wrong decision? What do you think is an irrational decision?
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
I think it was because Bohemians were popular in polls as well.
Anyhow, both the Dawn of the Dukes and the Lords of the West did well as DLCs.
Could you show me a poll where:
a) Bohemians are included.
b) They’re a popular addition.
I really can’t find any just with quick search here in the forums. From what I can gather, they’ve been just added because Poles were added, not because they were popular, which makes sense IMO.
I remember Georgia and Armenia not being that popular in polls and yet here we are.
Market works in misterious ways, as someone said above
Some scholars in the field debate whether the Wari communities can be deemed an “empire”. For instance, the archaeologist Ruth Shady has suggested the society could better be considered a loose economic network of Wari centres. 
Research suggests that labelling Tiwanaku as an empire or even different varieties of a state may even be misleading. Tiwanaku is missing a number of features used to define these types of polities: there is no defensive architecture at any Tiwanaku site or changes in weapon technology, there are no princely burials or other evidence of a ruling dynasty or a formal social hierarchy, no evidence of state-maintained roads or outposts, and no markets.
Scholars contend that the Moche were not politically organized as a monolithic empire or state. Rather, they were likely a group of autonomous polities that shared a common culture.
Chimor was the political grouping of the Chimú culture. According to Chimú oral history, the history of Chimor began with the arrival of Tacaynamo circa 1300.
For some archaeologists, the Chanka society is a step backwards from the point of view of urban progression, as compared with the Wari culture. Their settlement pattern was the most widespread of small villages (about 100 houses). Other scholars believe, however, that the Chankas had large populations.
Ancient Diaguitas were not a unified people; the language or dialects used by them seems to have varied from valley to valley and they were politically fragmented into several chiefdoms.
The Purépecha Empire was constituted of a network of tributary systems and gradually became increasingly centralized, under the control of the ruler of the empire called the Irecha or Cazonci.
So you lied about everything 
not only these weren’t empires, they weren’t even centralized (with exception to Chimor and Purepeche which only in later stages became centralized) just loose federations of ethnic groups. Then why don’t you look at European peoples the same way?
And to be clear, i am not against adding these, just please don’t crap on ‘‘small European duchies’’ and tell lies.
Thank you.
Fun fact central european building set has not had any new civis added since the original conquerors expansion.
Please show me where I said this.
Who are you referring to here?
Nice wikipedia copy/paste.
But you know what? I actually made the effort to read the sources from all the american civ suggetions posted here and on reddit because I used to be against them and wanted to counter-argument them:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/pol-for-the-last-9-civs-devs-should-introduce-into-the-game/131734/191?u=xpizzasamuraixd
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/pol-for-the-last-9-civs-devs-should-introduce-into-the-game/131734/195?u=xpizzasamuraixd
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/pol-for-the-last-9-civs-devs-should-introduce-into-the-game/131734/193?u=xpizzasamuraixd
Which leads to this thing: ignorance is being blind, but keeping yourself ignorant on purpose is just dumb.
With new info, people change opinions.
For example:
Kinda funny how you nitpick that part, when right below there is this:
“The political relationship between the Wari and Tiwanaku has been compared by archaeologist Joyce Marcus to that of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War: the two empires did not go to war with one another for fear of mutual destruction. The two empires met at Moquegua, where the Wari and Tiwanaku populations co-existed without conflicts.”
Wari Empire - Wikipedia
Once again, kinda funny how you copy/paste this wikipedia quote about archeologist groups clashing their opinions and suggesting if they should use a term or not, when the unesco officially labels tiwanaku as an empire.
Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Sure, the terms may change overtime as more studies in the field progress, but should I remind you that the term empire (imperium) was initially used for Rome only academically. In contrast to how small principalities and duchies used to call themselves empires just to increase their political importance.
Once again, it boils down to opinions. Walter Alva considers Moche is the first phase and Chimu is the second phase. They are the same polity, just in different periods of time.
The legendary John Rowe went even beyond that and said both are the same empire that just changed their art and cultural expressions after fighting the Wari empire. Even pointing out parallelisms with the Roman empire, and saying Chimor was closer to the Roman empire than the Carolingian empire.
You really like wikipedia, huh? It tells me that you just went over there and copied whatever fits your narrative. Instead of trying to cross check the info; or trying to read the rest of the article at least. For example, that part was making the point that the chankas appeared AFTER the Wari empire, and obviously were a step backwards in development.
" Chanka Andahuaylas were close relatives of the other tribes that inhabited the province of ######### and as a nation were strengthened after the decline of the Wari expansion. According to Sarmiento de Gamboa, the Chanca territory was divided into three groups, known as Hanan Chanca (Parkos, Ayllus del Ancoyaco), Urin Chanka (Uranmarca, Andahuaylas) and villca or Rukanas (Vilcas). The Chanka nation was composed of the Ancoyaco, Andahuayla, Rucana and Sora tribes."
Chanka - Wikipedia
I mean, the article was trying to compare the kingdom to the previous empire that ruled the area. Of course it’s going to be less than the predecessor.
Well, no. So what? Vlachs weren’t unified people either. And if you want to count the most relevant polities, you only have the romanian kingdom, the principality of Moldavia, the principality of Wallachia. So they are even in a worse spot than Diaguitas.
And if we count them ETHNICALLY, then both diaguitas and vlachs are about the same in size and rule time. So what’s the point you are trying to make?
Yes, that’s literally what an empire is.
Once again, what’s the point you are trying to make?
Venice has always been the red headed stepchild of Italy; always being lumped in with the other city states, but not having as much in common with the rest of them as they do with each other beyond a couple of broad things at that point in time. I stand by the statement that they do not belong under the umbrella. It is the only state from Italy I believe needs to be split alongside a Balkan Slav split, with Serbs and Vlachs at minimum coming from that front. That way, Eastern Europe is actually finished.
Here’s one:
Bohemians included. Took most of the votes.
The DLC was popular as well:
I also noticed that you create a lot of polls!
Armenia came 3rd in this poll:
Caucasus DLC first in this poll:
I do want to see some Barbarian civs as well, as i’ve already outlined previously, but outside of a barbarian DLC I roughly agree (Not sure about Croats and Catalans, though myself personally I would love to see Catalans)
As someone opposed to splitting Italians, Venetians is the only one i’d even consider a tiny little bit, and even at that i’m still overall opposed to a Venetians civ; i’d rather they be left under the Italians umbrella.
As a fan of the Mississippians idea i’ll grant its a bit of a difficult one to implement given the lack of written history, but this isn’t an insurmountable hurdle; I like the idea of treating the campaign like the Bari campaign as the history of Cahokia instead of following a specific person.
Bohemians being added is kinda rough, but tbh its a far better addition than the Burgundians were IMO. Sicilians i’m actually ok with, and Poles I do think is a civ we needed in the game…and those are the only Euro civs we got (…well I guess Romans too)
Honestly I think they added Maltese solely because they already had resources and such for it from the original campaigns, so some of their work was done for them. It’s lazyness IMO. But that’s also a discussion for AoE3.
But Burgundians aren’t even really Belgian lol, they’re a French noble house that had some Belgian holdings. They do use Burgundians to represent the Low countries, and the Barbarian Burgundians in a couple campaigns to be fair. Tbh I still think Burgundians was the most questionable Euro civ addition we’ve had.
Yeah ngl the most recent DLC really caught me off guard; I wasn’t expecting we’d ever get those civs tbh.
I mean to be fair it is kinda just German, so its kinda hard to use outside of Germanic-influenced areas…though I would also contend there was an argument to give it to Bohemians when they were made, but that didn’t happen.
I sort of expected it based on these polls:
Honestly it should have. Yeah, the Bohemians are Slavic in culture, but they were influenced enough by the Germans to adopt their building styles by this point. Maybe they’ll be updated when they split the Slavs?
Those were discussed in late 2020 early 2021, and we got Armenians in late 2023…so if that holds we’ll get the Serbs and Vlachs we’ve been asking for in late 2026 roughly lol
Hahaha perhaps. I do expect the new DLCs to be about Africa or Asia. That would put us firmly in 2026 for Serbs and Vlachs 
Yes, in addition to the fact that several Amerindian civs had millions more inhabitants than European countries such as Spain and Portugal…
Yes, perhaps the Swiss and the civs of the Alps and the Balkans would be missing… but they can focus on other AoE 2 regions, even keep releasing dlcs for RoR…
Yes, they had the assests of the blood campaign and they said “that’s it, let’s launch Malta together with Italy” (because of the issue of being a dlc in the Mediterranean and it’s not bad either because Malta had colonies in the Caribbean)… they did the same with the United States in 2021…