Persian, Durrani and Kazakhs Empires don’t have much overlaping terrain. Sikh and Durrani at first glance could be problematic BUT we have Byzantines and Turks, and Goths and Spanish in Age 2.
1 Like
Absolutely. Persia was possibly the most powerful and recognisable so I completely agree with the overlap more Central Asian civs would bring (plus they would certainly have to be rather distinct from one another to even be considered alongside Persia).
Well yes… which therein led to the slow decline of that region as the Euros found better ways to bypass those trade routes, rendering those empires/kingdoms to either be disintegrated by the Russians or Qing Dynasty, or face multiple civil wars. Also not sure on the correlation of the British defeat in Afghanistan? The British have been defeated by supposedly ‘worse’ soldiers than themselves many times. The Durani Empire is fairly interesting (and probably one of the stronger ones behind Persia) however if we already have (Mughal) India and if we see a Persian civ (which seems to have more power behind it), Afghanistan would really not bring a great deal to the table (most of their ‘units’ are essentially derived from Mughal/Persian types…).
I’m not snubbing the Central Asian empires - The Khanate of Bukhoro, Zunghar Khanate, Kazakh Khanate, Khoqand Khanate - they were all massively wealthy, but I’m not sure what they would bring as new, unique civs? I’d love to see them as minor civs with a twist - maybe providing their own ‘shipments’ (Papal-style) of unique cavalry forces or Madrasa wagons which can building knowledge-generating (Experience) Madrasa (educational institutes).
6 Likes
I want Madrasas to be a second Islamic holy site along with Sufis, not just another building. Madrasas could replace Sufi Mosques in all the regions outside Southeast Asia and retain the current units and techs.
A reworked version of the Sufi Mosque could represent Southeast Asia with new technologies and a local Moro Swordsman military unit.
2 Likes
Everybody in Europe has more overlap both thematically, culturally and territorially than those five Central Asian civs you just mentioned.
The Durani Empire is fairly interesting (and probably one of the stronger ones behind Persia) however if we already have (Mughal) India and if we see a Persian civ (which seems to have more power behind it), Afghanistan would really not bring a great deal to the table (most of their ‘units’ are essentially derived from Mughal/Persian types…).
Everybody in Europe used the same Regimented system of Line Infantry and Cavalry, with all units even being called the same and I don’t see people using that as an excuse of them not bringing much to the table.
1 Like
I’ve said Denmark and Poland shouldn’t be a priority for this reason. And Prussia would only be interesting if it was a federal age up civ.
Adding Persia along with a cavalry focused central Asian civ like Uzbeks or Kazakhs would be good. But beyond that, it would be ridiculous to not split up India before adding a bunch of civs like Durrani or Sikhs. That and the fact that both of those were quite short lived empires.
Another cool feature they could have is Clam Gardens instead of Farms. They were a form of mariculture among the natives of the Pacific Northwest that consisted of a walled off section of ponds where clams were cultivated.
Villagers could gather from them just like Farms, but if built along the coast, they could also be gathered from by Fishing Boats.
2 Likes
Not only Clam Gardens, they also raised dogs… for wool!
Imagine having an unique herdable that you could use for coin and it’s a freaking dog.
Only challenge here is that getting Haida voice acting is a royal pain.
4 Likes
Afghanistan was not short-lived. It has existed for almost 300 years at this point. And they were probably the second most important islamic empires during the 18th Century and ome of few states in the world that survived European colonization.
I don’t think their inclusion is ridiculous at all.
Even their military had significant differences from neighbour ones like the Persians. Their army was just focused on gunpowder cavalry and didnt’t even need to use artillery often.
I think it’s a far better civ candidate than any polynesian people. And so would it be splitting India (but we’ve been told that won’t happen). The only mayor Polynesian state was Hawaii, and it didnt’t last long either. Its population also decreased so fast that only a few years after the creation of the kingdom there were fewer people that even in Malta.
Although I could concede the Uzbeks would have less similarities to any other civ.
i would also love to see civs from South-East Asia (Burmese, Siamese and Vietnamese). They all had some similarities (like using elephants) but they still had many differences.
1 Like
Absolutely - you won’t have me denying that 
The original scope of the game though was Euros in the Amercas, so having less-known Central Asian civs would probably have gone down like a lead balloon with the typical American and European players (and customers ultimately).
Things of course have widened in scope since the Definitive Edition and newer civs such as the Hausa and Ethiopians (of which I’d hope for more African civs - I’d be more in favor of, over Koreas and more Euros), so you never know in the future - however ‘brand recognition’ is a thing so it would probably be Persia being the sole cherry-picked civ to cover Middle-East and Central Asia, rather than Persia + a number of C.A Empires/Khanates full civs.
Ultimately, I’d be happy for there to be *any new civs in expansion packs - as a sign that AoEIII is still being worked on and cared for!
*Exception - no morefederal state civs (other than Brazil at a pinch - just to round-out the Anglo/Spanish/Portuguese speakers as well as covering the Americas, roughly) - they’re fun, but always feel a little ‘out of place’ but this may be due to me being an original AoEIII player where Age I was the 1500s and Age II was around the 1600s!
3 Likes
I think they might have meant Aboriginals.
That a definitely a thing to consider. Asian civs beyond what we already have in aoe3 are not very known in the Western World (99% of the people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan), so that would unfortunately mean lower sales.
However, I think that at least creating a DLC with Persians and Uzbeks would still perfectly work and this kind of DLCs could lead a lot of players to become interested in or other parts of the world, which is literally what happened to people to like me (for example, thanks to Rise of the Rajas I started to become quite interested in the History of South East Asia) .
Actually, the Central Asian civs I suggested are umbrellas themselves. For example, the Uzbeks wouldn’t just cover the Khanate of Bukhara, but also many other Uzbeks polities that have existed from 1428 to 1920, which had their differences and could be reflected with a rich and varied deck.
I agree, civs like the Shona or the Kongolese would be great additions for the game. There’s also the Omani, which could be a hybrid civ, with both Arab and African features. That could be fun to play.
I wouldn’t go as far as to exclude them, especially since I’m having a blast with Mexico and USA, but yeah, civs from other parts of the world should have a higher priority.
2 Likes
I suppose there should be a market studies on how different DLC’s from AoE2 HD sold. The same for AoE2 DE. Which were the ones who sold more: Euro DLC’s or DoI? Maybe an AoE3 DE Central Asia DLC won’t be an instant success but it could become a long term one. But that’s why market studies are for.
2 Likes
I’m preeetty sure most people on the western world have heard about Afghanistan though. Not for the best reasons, but it’s definitely a name on people’s heads.
6 Likes
Yeah, true. And if they were accurate with the depiction of the Afghans, it could subvert many people’s expectations
2 Likes
Ah yes, I’d love to see the Omani make it into an expansion.
2 Likes
Yes, I think they will eventually get civs of Polynesia taking advantage of a dlc about Cook’s travels…
They have already said that they will not divide the Germans, as they symbolize the Holy Roman Empire…
Persia would be better off with Oman and the Uzbeks with the Tatars of the Volga-Crimea or the Afghans in a Central Asian DLC…
Maori would be fine too, they appear between 1500 and 1840 in New Zealand…
Burmese and Siamese will eventually appear (perhaps in the next dlc if it is not from the Middle East by African expansion and then of SEA, as happened in AoE 2 HD) for all the wars that both civs had during the modern/early modern era (XVI-XIX centuries) and well the Vietnamese would go better with the Koreans to encourage the competitive of the game and for their conflicts they had with their neighbors: Vietnamese with the Chinese and Siamese and Koreans with the Japanese and the Manchu Chinese…
Sure, I wouldn’t have said it better… I agree on everything…
The U.S. military must be traumatized with them as they were with the Vietnamese in the '60s…xd
Of course, by the way you would see maps of East Africa south of the horn of Africa, opening the possibilities of putting the Zulu and the kingdom of Merina in the future…What an emotion that this may be a possibility…
2 Likes
For me Europe is almost done. I would only add the Poles and maybe the Danes.
Yes. Ideally I think there should be both a Middle East DLC with Persians and Omani and a central Asia DLC with the Uzbeks, Afghans and maybe the Kazakhs too. The Tatars (Volga, Crimea and Siberia) unfortunatelly didn’t do much in comparison during the Early Modern Era, since they were either conquered or were just satellites of Russia or the Ottomans. They would work better as natives though. For example, the Crimean House of Giray could be added as a new royal house.
They didn’t form any advanced or unified political ent__ity (yeah, this word seems to be offensive or something 
) at least not to the same level as Hawaii as far as I know. But they would still be a great candidate for a native settlement.
Yeah, hopefully. Those civs could be great additions to the game.
They would be a cool civ, especially with their turtle ships. However, the problem with Korea is that apart from the Japanese invasion shown in aoe2 and a conflict with the Manchu, they didn’t have any war and had almost no contact with the rest of the world until the late 19th Century. So I am not sure about adding them.
Merina/Malagasy is actually a very good suggestion. However, I am not really sold on the Zulus, their empire wasn’t that big or lasted much time. I think the Shona, the Kongolese or the Merina would be better options. But to be honest, the Zulus are so well-known in pop culture that could probably become a new civ for the game in the future even despite the fact that I think there are at least a dozen civs just in Africa that would be better candidates
2 Likes
You mean the era of breechloaders?
Yep, this is my main bugbear with the Zulus. They would be a fantastic minor Civ, however other than a relevance for a very small period within AoE3’s Industrial Age, they are purely riding on the pop culture, whereas Shona were far more rich in history (kingdoms/empires) and military and it would actually be a bit of a disservice to avoid them in favour of the Assegai and shield warriors from Battle of Isandlwana/Rorke’s Drift (which Shona used way before them anyway).
2 Likes
The Maori Kingites did unify in response to British encroachment. And Maori wouldn’t be a great candidate for a minor civ since they’d be restricted to only a few maps. A Polynesian holy site would be much more broadly applicable than picking peoples that were confined to only a few local islands.
If we got Shona they could modify them into Zulu for a few historical battles.
2 Likes