It was thanks to browsing Internet forums that I learned how ignorant of history is among people. People who are not interested in something do not want to - they are not even willing to read about something unknown to them.
Boring why?
Because you don’t know it?
Do you think that all of Eastern Europe looks the same and is backward?
You’d be surprised if you compared its monuments with the monuments of “better” Western Europe.
Besides, these people are hypocritical, saying that Eastern Europe is boring and at the same time wanting to see some uncivilized tribes in the game that have contributed nothing to human history. Unfortunately, it is true. The sources and material achievements of those tribes have not survived. Don’t you realize that the natives only make more sense in the era of colonization, in AoE 3? In the Middle Ages, Europe, Asia and North Africa were the most important. I prefer well-made civilizations to forced civilizations in regions that are little known at the time.
There is no better representation of eastern Europe, the Caucasus was completely omitted. Better to add “New World” civilizations as a bonus civ to the DLC.
India (pre Vedic and Vedic) are really missing in the game.
How about:
Make AoE1 and AoE2 DLC.
Using the new AoE2 engine with all it’s improvements while keeping the AoE1 feel of the game (no Castles, no Unique Units etc.) but it can adopt some smaller AoE2 features like gates and all the AoE2 terrain, trees and animals.
The two games have separate matchmaking but if you want you can combine both games in a private lobby.
You get it all wrong. My reasoning has nothing to do at all with Eastern Europe looking all the same, it has more something to do with Forgotten Empires past approach.
You know, every single architecture set is represented usually by roughly 2-4 civs (with the notable exception of Indians but we’ll get later on that point). Adding more Eastern Europe or generally speaking additions in architecture sets with already 4 civs in it creates redundancy, especially considering that in the original game design Ensemble had, the civ names were rather vague and could encompass a lot of things. It has its downsides like you can see with the Indians civ but it’s definitely useful to design civs. Saracens could be a dozen civs too, you know?
Usually, DLCs are released around a theme (Africa for AOK, Central Asia for TLK, South East Asia for ROR). Adding more Eastern Europe would feel weird and to some extent even redundant. I’d say the same if they’d add more Vikings civ like Danes or Sweden which would be from my own POV pointless and redundant.
Yes, they added Burgundians which kinda is a Franks civ split and Sicilians (which I really don’t get as a civ pick (they’re basically Normans without being named Normans), but that’s the exception and not the rule.
Eastern Europe has a rich cultural history on its own (e.g. Corvinian Reforms, Slavic Mythology etc. to just name a few), though adding more of it IMO would feel as redundant and to some extent unnecessary like adding Danes, Swedes, Austrians, Bavarians, Swiss,. … when there’s still underused architecture sets like Indians which is like putting all Europe under Franks.
I should probably take a break until we know more about the two SteamDB DLCs I hinted at in another thread. We’re speculating in the void IMO. They’ll tell us soon enough if it’s an expansion.
At last they didn’t say no yet.
AoE1DE has quit some bugs that need to be fixed and the performance is a lot worse than AoE2DE that has many orders of magnitude more features.
Byzantines, Bulgarians and Georgians and Armenians proposed by me - Byzantine
Slavs (renamed to Rus) and Vikings - North European (wooden buildings)
Wends (umbrella civ for Western Slavs) and Serbo-Croatians (or another name for umbrella civ for South Slavs) and Romanians would have Eastern European (in place of Bulgarians and Slavs)
As if Czechs and Poles had arisen instead of one civ then:
Czechs - Central European (in place of Vikings)
Poles - Eastern European
2 new architectural styles for AoE 2 - Byzantine and Northern European
Yes, Incas were all alone. That’s why when the expac was originally released, we got a half-Spanish campaign, with Inca units fighting Amazon custom units in the Brazilian jungle for 2 scenarios. Which… wasn’t great.
Can’t speak for the current Inca campaign, as I haven’t gotten to it yet, but overall, Incas on their own wasn’t great. However, due to sharing an architecture set and Priest/Eagles with the other Meso civs, they were worked into it, since they basically end up playing as a Meso civ;
North American faction wouldn’t use the Meso set, though.Would they get Eagles, but with a diff architecture, making them “the Indians of the New World?” What unit line would they miss- the Militia?
Or do you do a group a of civs, that share a UU like the Rajas expac did with the Battle Elephant? which is preferrable?
What I really hope is the development team will consider including the Wallachians in the game at one point soon, either as a civilization, which I would love, or at least in a campaign just for themselves.
I just want to match the story in this game. This civilization cannot represent all the Slavs when it simply does not represent them. The name correction is not a difficult change, nor is it a drastic change. Anyway, there would be no need to make any other changes to this civ.
Hey forum mod what about if instead of censoring every post i make, why don’t don’t you merge all this topics and pin them, so instead of reading 20 civs suggestion per week, they get their massive topic, so they can have fun there and share their ideas.
