I figured you won’t be able to understand. Don’t want to waste more effort talking in circles.
1 Like
I’d figured you’d have no arguments when we get to the bottom of it. Didn’t take much for you to be unable to explain yourself.
[quote=“CoffeeKitten305, post:125, topic:245797, full:true”]
Europe needs a break. For at least 10 ############## [/quote]
10 DLCs might be a bit much, but i’ll agree i’d rather see at least 1 for E. Asia and 1 for Africa as the next two DLCs we get.
Residing in Europe doesn’t necessitate only being interested in Euro civs…If it did then I, living in the USA, would never buy a DLC because there aren’t any for this area of the world; but i’ve still bought all of them.
Yeah and that idea failed miserably, as did including Lac Viet in ROR to attract the Vietnamese fanbase. That logic probably isn’t going to have as much sway after failing twice.
I mean yeah i’m of Euro descent but I still would love to see Mississippians in the game to represent my physical corner of the world…
Something about Americans, most of them don’t give a darn about the “mother country”; they’re Americans and they view themselves as Americans and nothing more. I’m a bit of an oddity in that I do actually care a decent bit about my heritage (Ukrainian) but even then I don’t go around introducing myself as a Ukrainian-American, i’m still just an American dude.
3 Likes
And most of them are already represented in game one way or another. Not everyone in Europe or North America feel the need to be represented by twenty different civs, one is usually enough. I think the Romanians should be in game sooner or later, but I don’t see why they should necessarily come before the Siamese or the Somalis for instance.
4 Likes
They should fix the game first before adding anymore new broken civs -_-
Yes, but it’s still not bad, because they were already there since AoE 1…the Japanese in 1598 wanted to conquer Korea…the Spanish the Aztec Empire in 1521, Attila the Roman Empire in 451 and so on…
Good point…that’s true…
Ah, ok, I think I got it now. No, I mean another user, not you.
And Im as eager as you for Africa and America DLCs, but from your ping it seemed to me somehow I looked like someone against them (⊙_⊙;)
1 Like
In the next European DLC, I wish it to be a split of Britons and Celts within new civs and Hindustanis-like renamed versions of the existing ones.
Britons would be split into English (the renamed and overhauled version of the current Britons), Welsh, and Bretons; Celts, into Irish (the renamed and overhauled version of the current Celts), Scots, and Picts or Strathclydeans.
1 Like
Is there a punchline? Hurry up and reach it so the joke can be funny
2 Likes
Are you bored?
I may want non-European civs but not agree with people who hate Europe with all their might.
4 Likes
What if I do it with only half my might?
4 Likes
This further proves that you hate. Lol
1 Like
It’s just a strong annoyance at worst, and not with every part of Europe. I was neutral to Caucasus, as in, I really didn’t care. I don’t care for a Slav split, either. I’d rather not have a Spanish or Celt split, but if it happens it would be like ‘whatevs’. Vandals I wouldn’t like, in a slightly stronger fashion, except if they come with a Roman or Vandal campaign.
Teutons and Italians split is not that I hate but I really believe that Lotharingia is a Frankish kingdom, Venetians are covered by Italians and Teutons is not just Teutonic Order but the whole Germanic core of the HRGE, including Saxons, so I would strongly dislike an split like that, but again, it’s not that I hate
3 Likes
Thank you for your substantive and calm criticism (which is rare on the other side of the barricade). Everyone has their own dreams regarding the list of new civs for AoE 2. Some want to add civs only to Europe, others everywhere outside of it, and there are also those who do not care about any senseless statistics (from the perspective of an RTS game) regarding population or territorial size and want sustainable addition of civs from around the world. Both those who only want European civs and those who do not want European civs at all costs have one thing in common: absurdity. Both of them can present the strangest things - but they also blame their opponents for outrages they invented themselves.
I want to add civs from all over the world, but also to break up the old umbrella civs, which since the release of AoE 2 DE do not fit these newer civs - the old ones are too much stereotypical-memic generalities compared to the new civs, more precise with their own identity. DoI did it with the Indians civ, TMR did it with the Persians civ - now it’s the turn of the rest of the old umbrella civs.
I have my opinion, you have your opinion, EVERYONE has their own opinion. But we are not in charge of making decisions, but WE CAN suggest new things.
7 Likes
when there are 70+ civs in this game I will finally be semi satisfied
1 Like
Gargarensis again
2 Likes
I just find it funny that people look at things like italians or spanish and want them to split them in like 3 or 4 different civs and then look at the Sarracens, which is a really weird term to begin with, and go “yup, that totally makes sense as a single civ, just all the vaguely Middle Eastern muslim peoples under the same civ, I see no fault in that!”
2 Likes
Dont you think you want too much from others asking them to know history beyond their country and its neighborhood?
Disclaimer: before anyone agrees with what I said, its irony
1 Like
I agree because because even though you were ironic, you are non-ironically correct.
Most people I know don’t have a Ph.D in history.
For example, there are people in this forum who said that “the Romanians are slavs”.
Spoiler alert: they aren’t.
Romanians are the colonists from the Roman Empire after 106 AD mixed with the Dacians who were conquered by the Romans and later mixed with the Slavs who stayed north of the Danube on their way towards the rich regions of Moesia. Basically, what become of the colonists with a mix between the Romans, Dacians and Slavs. So it has slavic influence but it’s mostly non-slavic. It’s the equivalent of saying that the Spanish are Germanic because they had Gothic influence, and they had more Gothic influence than the Romanians slavic.
There are people on this forum saying that Romania did not exist before 1877 and it was called Wallachia and the people Vlachs.
Spoiler alert: they weren’t.
“Romanians” is not a modern term, it’s an endonym. The Romanians have always called themselves Romanians since they were first mentioned. And Wallachia was called in romanian “Tara Romaneasca” meaning “The Romanian Land”. Wallachians/Vlachs is an exonym. They were called as such by other people, but that’s not what they called themselves. It comes from a proto-Germanic word that means “stranger” and was generally used for romance-speakers. The Hungarians used to call the Italians olasz, and the Slovenians used to call the Italians Lahi, both having the same root as Vlachs. Other nations also started to user the term Romanian to refer to Romanians since 1859 when the little union happened and few years after became independent from the Ottoman Empire (this time for good), but it’s not like Romanians suddenly started to call themselves Romanians in 1859 out of nowhere.
What most people know about Romania is Dracula and that’s about it.
Who isn’t even the most successful Romanian commander, he is only popular because of the vampire fan fiction.
Both were better military commanders than Vlad the Impaler, but they didn’t impale people so no popularity. Michael the Brave almost united the 3 principalities and Stephen the Great won 44 battles out of 46 battles in his lifetime.
Should I expect anyone to naturally know all of this?
Or do I think you want too much from others asking them to know history beyond their country and its neighborhood?
6 Likes