Can we PLEASE keep small political factions out of the game. Especially ones that are liked by horrible people.
OP asked for likely additions. This ain’t it.
i find it interesting that “covers this area” is used in this forum, as if all areas need to be covered.
I think areas that did not have major medieval powers, do not need coverage in the first place.
I think most people will agree that antarctica doesn’t need a civ, and the same is true for the oceans (except for this one guy who keeps promoting his polynesian civ). So the same should apply to other areas that did not have major, organized and centralized states: North America, most of Siberia etc
But yeah, two civs covering the same area (and time period) are redundant and water down civ identity even more.
Why cant we have them if luxembourg can be a civi?
Tbh I’m not horribly against Outremarins as a civ and I don’t think everyone wanting them is a fascist, but if I made a list of my “20 must-have civs” they probably wouldn’t qualify
I think the problem is associating it with such a thing in a deep antagonist calling just because of people having a different perspectival look on the game.
Crusaders could be added to the game. It was a real thing, similar to vikings, huns or other nomadic stuff that was often just military action. There were robber barons aswell.
I don’t advocate for this. But I don’t think the antagonisation is right here.It’s a medieval game, and some people to get in the real feeling for it want also have the real threats of that time. For their immersion. Acting as if something like this never existed is also in my either neither necessary nor right. It was a real thing.
And I don’t think you should call people who want the full medieval immersion certain things.
The game already has a lot of Crusades content since the beginning, adding more is not going to fill the community with fascists
The crusades are already part of the game. However crusaders were not a people or civilization. There is little continuity between the different cursades, so I don’t think they fit the (admittedly loose) definition of civ in aoe2.
I think the concern is somewhat justified. BibelLesenGibtLeben, has in recent days:
- proposed a HRE split DLC named “das erste Reich”. Which is nazi propaganda
- proposed naming a Sahel DLC the “Rommel DLC” after a Nazi general
- (let’s ignore their username for now)
so I understand the concern.
5 Likes
What concern? Racists are already among us. Try to play us against each other. Just open your eyes.
Assuming there would be no racists here is absurd. And careless.
And do you know, there is also stuff like inverted racism and so? Trying to assess normal people to be racist whilst using that to induce other compromitted content?
There is a report function for racism. Use that, that’s the ONLY right way to handle it.
1 Like
I have reported it. But he’s still here.
I find it insulting those who want to talk civ futures or designs seriously get ignored or forgotten while the trolls get to garner all the attention and… an almost inverse respect
2 Likes
You’re one of the old folks here. I just looked up your name in the hub. Found 6 civ concept pages from you.
Man do you also miss the old times of this Forum? Maybe we could make a “huns war” song singing from how the forum was ages ago.
kind of miss those days
To think the thing that reigned them in wasn’t a direct nerf to anything they had (although the change in Ca discount from 25/30 to 10/20 is significant) but just a 5 wood house cost reduction
But no I’m not a hun wars miser. I miss the days when ideas were made with gumption and wit and folks didn’t decide to give a robo lobotomy and non engage
Definitly going to happen someday. And they will probably be released with Austria and Venice.
Irish can be a thing.
Venice can be a civ, others are more “part of italy”. Venice & Milan could be both blended into a northern italy civ easily.
Romania eventually.
Yeah Seljuk themed civ can definitly be a thing.
Probably paired with Swiss release
Frisen (middle age dutch) can be a thing.
Savoy can be a sub-french civ too.
2 Likes
This.
If we want to be realistic
2 Likes
To clarify: Gökturks were Turks who lived in East Asia. While Seljuks can feel off when represented with Ottoman janissaries, Buddhist/shamanistic Gökturks would look even less fitting.
If we need a separate Seljuk-based civ (i’m not convinced), Turcomans might be a better name.
1 Like
May you elaborate?
Precisely why I discarded them. About 15-18 years ago, in our middle school, we have read Ghaznavid (and Ghourid) are Pashtuns/Afghans. So I always wanted them as a Hindustanis split. Since an year or so, I knew they were Turkic. So I left them for Hephthalites.
Devs - Hold my Austrians, Swabians, Bavarians, Swiss, Franconia.
Not necessarily. Byzantines and Turks have very distinct civ identity.
Oh, come on. The civs names must need to be Kingdom of Jerusalem, Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli.
This list + Nubians tbh
1 Like
I wrote “unique AND fun”. they either felt like copies of existing civs, or had cringy gimmicks that are meant to separate them.
I don’t want to play with or against shwarma riders with magic shields.
you know what i meant, right? Byzantines and Turks cover two factions fighting over the same area. Examples like Burgundians and Franks are more what I had in mind. Similar civs that represent the same people (or a people and a subfaction) and have very similar gameplay.
no.
we should never use the names of kingdoms.
All the civ names are demonyms. eg Britons not Britain, Franks not France. Armenians not Armenia. Romans not Rome.
For all the damage the new DLCs have done, this is the one thing they have respected. Every civ is referred to by its people, not by its state name.
So if anything the civ should be called “Crusaders” or “Antioachians” or “Jerusalemites” (no idea what the inhabitants of Jersualem are called), “Tripolitans (Triplets?)”
1 Like
They would suffice as editor units but done properly. Add knight of Calatrava as well. And Turcopoles as an editor unit too.
2 Likes
I think that the opposite is true. They choose a civ, and then make whatever might feel like good gameplay along the way.
Which is why some civ like Armenians doesn’t follow its proper historical cavalry focus. Because the devs decided that they don’t want three cav civs for that DLC focus, once you add in Persians.
In truth, the selection of civ is only marginally affecting the gameplay. Outside of something major like Native Americans (mostly) not having cavalry, it’s really a free-for-all on how they balance civs and what gameplay they develop.
But I think it would also be an issue if they made gameplay and just stuck whatever civ name they felt putting on that. Because it will make some random civ get added, which could be something like Polynesians for instance, or they won’t bother being accurate and just stick that gameplay to a civ that doesn’t fit the civ, just to fit the narrative/campaign focus they choose, which leads to stuff like Armenians.