I don’t know how many DLC we can expect if any. But if I were a betting man I’d place my coin on these:
Persians
Siamese
Brazilians
South African umbrella civ
Polynesian umbrella civ
Looking at the world maps people have recently stuck together these would fill in the blanks of the world map quite well. Offering new maps besides new civs seems like something they’d be keen on.
I don’t think splitting any existing civ is probable, but I could see some sort of subculture civs like skin packs. Offering basically alternate flags and civ names for current civs. Perhaps minor alterations?
Quickly created example:
Prussians (Germans)
Prince electors only offers Hanover.
Chevauleger enabled by default.
Doppelsoldner disabled, but Giant Grenadier always available in the Tavern.
Some cards/techs renamed.
You’d just use the same HC and decks since youre in theory still the Germans/Indians etc but a little more themed towards your prefered “subculture”
Sure, 22 civs alone are not enough. We also need two Middle East DLC civs, Persia and Oman. After the release, there will be more Middle East maps and more indigenous peoples, all indigenous civilizations on the Asian map will be redone, and the architecture of the Ottoman civ will be redone into a unique Ottoman style (mosque redone). All portraits of Ottoman politicians will be redone (except for Imam and the Great Vizier). We also need Danish and Polish civ," More DLCs for indigenous Maori, Hawaiian, and African Zulu civ
The 9th largest country in the world is just a desert?.
The Commonwealth was a major player in Europe during their Golden Age, even when they had to fight several military powers of Europe at their respective peaks (Ottomans, Sweden, Russia, etc.)
And the Kazakhs also fought Russia, as well as China, which also is larger than pretty much all of Europe and Persia which too, well, you get the idea.
I’m legit beginning to believe people will nitpick anything that’s not in Europe just for the sake of not being in Europe, because this is ridiculous.
But understand that first you need the concept of Central Asian civs - unfortunately, there is no such thing on this forum yet. Since there are DLC concepts that add Maori and Hawaii, I think that even more Central Asian DLC would do a good job.
I myself came up with the concept of a Tatars civ that would represent the Turkic and Mongolic peoples - a huge umbrella, but at least it could provide representation for these people. Anyway, such a civ would not be inconsistent with history - after all, these peoples created states together and had similar nomadic traditions.
I think you’re overdoing it all. Most people on this forum say that non-European areas have priority. Middle Eastern Persians are always on the podium.
You are more critical of people talking about European civs than they are of you.
a desert is more of a comparison or figure of speech in this case.
you ever heard the saying “they left a desert and called it peace”? or some variation of it.
no, i know its mostly steps and mountains. parts of it is actually desert tho. and it is quiet desolate, with relatively few people living there, regardless of how physically big it is.
i feel you did the same, you attacked Poland seemingly ONLY because it was in Europe and then opened up an argument about rather weak faction suggestions in its stead. you know nobody knows of kazahkstan and it seems you try and force a narrative based on peoples ignorance of it. well im sorry its just not an important part of the world, and no words will change that.
no one will buy or be interested in kazahks, and like it or not this isn’t WOL where personal preference of a dev makes or break a faction addition, we wont get 50 factions, and in that view you have to take things that people are interested in and will buy. Italy wasn’t added because they were super important to the early modern era, they where added because most people wanted Italy and it was always the top 1 suggestion.
as Sandy said, really its a pop cultural depiction of history, and the potential audience matters, its why we got Germans and Aztec because they fit either of those logics. yeah its fun to sit and talk about kazahks but you wont find a single line about them if you open up a world history book, even on university level.
I’d be happy if they added Danes as a civ with Norway as a revolt (shared with swedes)… They are pretty much the last colonial power not represented in the game.
This map is a huge approximation (I know it’s not very accurate) shows a huge area where many civs are missing. I will only list potential new civs:
Asia
Arabians civ
Persians civ
Tatars civ
Dravidians civ
Bengalis civ
Burmese civ
Siamese civ
Vietnamese civ
Koreans civ
Optional civs:
Afghans civ / or Minor Civilization
Tibetans civ / or Minor Civilization
Africa
This map does not show all of Africa, only a small part of it. So I will only list the Somalis who fit on it - which doesn’t mean I don’t want other African civs (they just didn’t fit on this map).
Somalis civ
Arabians civ is also dealing with Africa
Europe
Prussians civ
Danes civ
Ukrainians / or Ruthenians civ
Poles civ
Caucassus - special area
I don’t know if it would be possible to create Caucasian civs, e.g. Georgians and Armenians civs. But I certainly think the Caucasus deserves more maps and its own Minor Civilizations. Because of that, I will mention exceptionally (only for the Caucasus) candidates Caucasian Minor Civilizations:
Watch those words. Almost all of my suggestions have been of non-European civs.
In this thread alone I’ve said half a dozen times Central Asia is one the more interesting parts of the world to add new civs (I suggested the Uzbeks and Afghans)
Just because I said one of major power at the time, which was Poland, should be in the game I am supposed to be an eurocentric or something? This is TRULY ridiculous.
Because people want to split Germans instead of adding new areas to the game. The history of SouthAm, Central Asia and South Asia are exciting and filled with new possible game mechanics and new possible units but people want to make yet another German speaking civ.
A few months ago I wouldn’t have cared about adding a Prussia civ, but now I LOATHE the idea, just because of the amount of Eurocentrism it takes to look an area of millions of people who fought against Empires inmensensly more powerful than them for centuries, the Kazakhs, and say ‘let’s split this personal union instead’.
I completely agree with you. I would be prefer to have something a bit more different like the Siamese, Afghans, Shona the Kazakhs or even the Brazilians than yet another German civ.
Despite what hoopthrower said, I think Europe is almost done. I would only add the Poles and maybe the Danes
All new civs should be from other continents.
Poles and some revs maybe. Greek rev, for example.
I would forsake the slightest chance of Chile as a civ in a heartbeat if it would mean stopping a German split and adding civs from other continents.
That can be said about the US, too
Mexico can revolt to Mayans because there was a Maya rebellion in 1847. It doesn’t have to do with the preConquest Maya Empire.
Edit: I posted a link to wikipedia’s Caste War of Yucatán, but it got censored
First, the Prussians created one of the most important empires in the world - the German Empire - an empire that could only be rivaled by the world’s greatest powers.
The Prussians as well as the unified German Empire is not represented by the present Germans civ. Germans civ is based on the Austrian Empire, which was a multi-ethnic state where German-speaking Austrians themselves were a minority within their own empire. The Prussians, on the other hand, united the German states, which were overwhelmingly German.
There is no eurocentrism in anyone wanting to add civ Prussians to the game. They were one of the greatest empires in the world at that time and are not represented in the game.
XDDDDD
And what if they fought? Everyone was fighting someone.
What matters is the fact of being an empire.
I’m all for adding civs from around the world.
I don’t understand why all eurosceptics think that if someone wants something from Europe, they are against other civs xDDD
BTW. Brazilians civs, you are well aware that they would only be a substitution of the Portuguese civs - just like the British USA and Spanish Mexico - not that I’m against adding them, but it’s obvious. Every postcolonial civ worked like that.
Poles are not that interesting and I say that as a Pole. PLC was a backwater on the borders of Europe, where civilization had not reached. The internal practice of order and the sick system contributed to the self-destruction of this state. Then the stronger neighbors shared a piece of the PLC pie. The wiser, better and stronger ones were, among others, Prussia and Austria.
Yeah. I don’t get it either. You can see my history of comments. How I am always suggesting non-European civs and just because I also suggested the Poles now I am an Eurocentric that is against adding non-Europeans
I actually agree with you, but since I like USA and Mexico I have now warmed to the idea of adding post-colonical civs.
Sounds a lot like another civ we hace already have called Russia. Xd
Anyway, I think even as a Pole you are underestimating the role of the PLC in several major wars for the control of Eastern Europe, especially the Great Turkish War, which basically started the downfall of the Ottomans.
Besides, it would be a cavalry civ, which is not common in the European civs. So it could bring some variety.
It’s not that they fought, but that they fought bigger dogs and won.
They weren’t particularly strong. The UK had a better navy and the French had a comparable army
That again raises the issue. What happens to Brandenburg. I’m not even talking about the rest of the HRGE, just Brandenburg
Maybe. I don’t actually mind. It’s just that SouthAm histories are super intertwined. Adding one would be like having Brits in the game and not the French or the Germans. But then, even von Clausewitz said that most Euro armies fought the same so that would not be that far fetched…
