Map updated again based on the feedbacks:
1 Like
Can you change yellow into some brighter color? Really hard to read.
Awesome work, btw.
Didnāt everyone just complain about using Anasazi instead of Puebloans?
They could just talk to the Chinese Ministry of Culture or their liaison office.
When someone uses a map for their own arguments they decide that they agree with it. If I use data from a source saying 90% of Germany is illiterate, which it obviously isnt, I have the right to get critiqued, together with the source.
For you maybe, but how unique would Swiss really be?
Do you mean in-game or for your map?
Because if in-game there are many good reasons, first of all it takes up a dlc civ slot for a region which is arguable already too much represented.
Second of all the Swiss are Germans, so already in the game. I rather not have every Italian and German ācountryā (its still HRE) in the game. I can make up bonusses for Florence, Pisa, Siena, but that doesnt mean they should be added.
1 Like
Who said I agreed with the Sicilians? I have critiqued the discission to add them, as among other things Italians are already in the game.
You could argue for Celts that Brittany, Ireland, Whales and Scotland are represented by them and those were atleast somewhat relevant during middle ages. Atleas they contain multiple regions/countries which are not really represented by others. Swiss are already represented by Teutons.
Just because we already have 1-2 civs with questionable importance why should we want more? I dont atleast. 1-2 bad descissisions in the past doesnt jsutify making another. Besides any Euro civ right now is poor descission making as there are so many more regions which are barely in the game and the past 2 dlc I believe were Euro civs dlc.
This is just a map of a collection of civs that are not in the game, chosen based on a subjective criteria. In a situation where this quantity of civs are added, I would personally like to see Swiss, albeit on a lower level of priority than most other potential additions represented. I favour them because I personally think theyāre cool and could play in a unique way. This is subjective of course, and you clearly think differently, and thatās okay.
If you meant important civs then say so.
Iād say that this clearly implies of the poster some core responsibility for the civ choices. But thatās not entirely fair. They merely found something I made over a year, made some very minor changes, and posted it here, without knowing the subjective criteria behind the vast majority of civs chosen. Itās not the same as the false equivalence youāve come up with. You werenāt critiquing the poster along with the source, you were critiquing the criteria based upon which they created the source, even though they were almost entirely not responsible for itās production.
Also, there is no suggestion here that anyone thinks Florentines and Pisans should be added, so certainly stop worrying about that! Remember, this is just a fun resource for the community! This is not an official creation, so thereās no need to stress so much.
Can you add Moldavia as well?
This is my current āwish listā if we can have 6 new civilizations [+architecture] (for a total of 48 civs):
ā¢ Soninke (Ghanaians) [African]
ā¢ Hausa [African]
ā¢ ChimĆŗ [American]
ā¢ Siamese (Thai) [Southeast Asian]
ā¢ Uzbeks [Central Asian]
ā¢ Nubians [Middle Eastern]
Every civilization on my list already appears in one of the official campaigns (some of them even as the main enemy).
If the Persians switch to the Central Asian architecture, each architecture would be used by at least 4 civilizations.
1 Like
Awesome, itās nice to see that you updated the map based on peopleās opinions and feedback.
Again, Iāll throw in some of my opinions. For Central Asia I think we could add the Gokturks or the Oghuz and they would represent the various Turkic peoples on the Eurasian steppe (including Uyghurs), whereas the in-game Turks can be renamed as Seljuks and they would represent the Islamized Turks of West Asia.
For SE Asia, I kind of feel that both Sundanese and Javanese have been covered by the in-game Malays, so we could remove them and add in Acehnese and Moluccans as alternatives.
You should add Gokturks imo
1 Like
But as you said earlier, very little is known from this time so you canāt really say with certainty that Haudenosaunee had a cohesive identity and organization that early.
Algonquin is also both very specific and a huge umbrella. It can refer to a specific tribe on the northern shores of the St. Lawrence, or you can use it more broadly to refer to the Anishinaabe, or even the entire Algonquin language family. You also canāt really be too specific going back 1000 years when thereās so little information. The modern tribe that bears the name Algonquin maybe be the result of splitting off from or merging with other precursor tribes.
AoE2 civs are also very light on specific details so thereās not much room to distinguish between an Iroquois and Algonquin civ. It would be better to just pick one and Algonquin have a Viking connection in their favour. Iroquois also already features in AoE3 where they are a much better fit.
It could be interesting to have a tribe from different regions such as the Shoshone from the Great Basin or a west coast tribe instead of having Algonquins and Iroquois as extremely similar civs. But unfortunately thereās even less information on those areas than the east coast.
Eh, Iām all for a little creativity to fill in some of the unknowns, as long as the civs feel different. My interest in having both Algonquins and Iroquois is they could fight each other without having Vikings being the sole connection that establishes ārelevanceā (and could probably share an architecture set). Adding only 1 civ to an otherwise lonely part of the map so that they can fight a band of European explorers is better than nothing, but feels Incas man.
West coast, plains and other areas could have a couple editor units/buildings, but I donāt think they need civs. Same with Tupis and Caribs/Taino.
If Khitans are not on the map Serbians, Venetians and Swiss shouldnāt be either.
Assamese is not visible on the map
Yoruba was conquered in the Middle Ages by the Nupe Kingdom so it shouldnāt be added.
Mossi, Waris and Gokturks should be there.
Swahili controlled the Northern Coast of Madagascar
I guess Vandals also make sense.
Did i say empire? bozos
Please show me the Mississippian empire
1 Like
Croatia also had 600 years (I donāt think the union with hungary outruled this)
1 Like
If they are ok by your standards,pretty much everybody else should also be fine.
And another suggestion for Central Asia, I think Sogdians deserve to be added as well, representing the city-dwellers of the many oases of Central Asia.
1 Like
You didnāt say it. But the game does. Itās age of empires. Not age of tiny petty kingdoms. The place where Iām from is also a tiny petty kingdom. Lasted continuously for 800 years till 1949. We have almost exactly the same population as Croatia. You donāt see me recommending that it should be added.