But you want African civilizations where, outside of North Africa, only Ethiopians and Mali are a completely unique civilization - the rest are repeating tribes.
This game is about the Middle Ages, and we modern humans know the history of Europe best - anyway, it is the best researched. Do you want DLC with African civilizations that will be identical and in addition weak? We don’t know their history. Natives are more suited to AoE 3, in AoE 2 - empires, which is mainly Europe and Asia. African civs should be, if anything, a bonus to the DLC - not as one DLC.
It is stupid to talk about the fact that Poles will not bring anything new to the game. The Poles had not only winged hussars. Back then, historically, they were more suited to the Hungarians.
Lithuanians represent the Balts! - Lithuanians, Prussians and Latvians.
The Slavs present in the game are Ruthenians - the Russian culture is not at all similar to the culture of the rest of the Slavs. This is a sign of a lack of interest in history and cultures.
Bulgarians=First and Second Bulgarian Empire. Volga Bulgars are minority and it is shown in the tech tree. India doesn’t become Africa, because of the Siddi people.
Well, so what?
Since in your opinion Poles are only a combination of Hungarians, Lithuanians and Ruthenians, I can consider the Chams as Vietnamese.
What could they offer unique? And why do you think they are a better option than Poles. Use meaningful arguments. The earlier ones are stupid and untrue.
Bulgarians are Turks mixed with Slavs. A typical Bulgarian looks different from the rest of the Slavs. Their language and culture contain numerous traces of the Proto-Bulgarians. This is a very unique civ - you can say that it is a phenomenon in those days (invaders adopted the culture of the conquered). Besides, the very name of their nation shows their heritage.
Why are my arguements untrue? There is nothing unique to cover with Poles: All the possible bonuses are used by Lithuanians, Slavs and Magyars. Eastern Europe is similarly overpopulated to Western Europe if u see all the other civs around the world.
Chams would give us another water civ, which the game really lacks, considering all the water civs and how boring water is. Water also lacks units, Chams could get a Naval UU. Naval combining with Siege could make them a landing civ, also there is no civ with Navy+Siege combo especially a Southeast Asian one. Another thing the game lacks is Siege UUs, so Chams sounds even better.
representation of each of the three groups of Slavs (the current Slavs represent eastern Slavs: Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Ruthenians) - two are missing: one from the South Slavs and one from the Western Slavs
Romanians (or another name - Wallachians)
civ representing the Caucasus - Georgians and Armenians
I can agree with Burgundians being an alternate Franks, but in no WAY are the Sicilians an alternative Italians.
Yes, culturally they are the same. But the Sicilians in the game are a more infantry based with their Serjeants, and they fact that they have access to Halberdier, while Italians do not. Furthermore, the Italians are a better archer civ compared to Sicilians: the latter lacks Ring Archer Armor, while the former has a unique unit who is archer, the Genoese Crossbow, plus a unique tech that boosts their archers even further.
Not to mention, that the Italians are much better on water than Sicilians, with navy tech discount bonuses that make the Italians really perform over many other civs, even giving the Vikings a run for their money.
The Sicilians I would say are a well-rounded civ that leans slightly more to infantry, while Italians are naval and archer/gunpowder focused.
My thoughts on new civs: yes, add them. *But only as long as they make sense in a medieval setting, and that they fit into Age of Empires 2
The devs cannot–and should not-- make “imaginary civs” just to fulfill a “we got to represent the whole globe and all continents” agenda. I admit, that the Mississippian peoples of North America are the closest thing to adding as North American civ in medieval videogame, Age of Empires 2. But the history record about them is so meager, that there might simply not be enough archeological or literary evidence to warrant their inclusion into the game.
Same thing with African peoples not already represented: we CAN see maybe the Nubian people getting their own civ, as they were well established as a sophisticated civilization stretching back into the time of Ancient Egypt’s era of the Pharaohs … but the Zulu and Bantu peoples of Central Africa are much less-well known, and–more importantly–did not create much great cities and “empires” like many of the other African civs that already ARE in the game: Ethiopians, Berbers, Malians.
Intriguing idea, a medieval Swiss civ. Though…they are pretty much covered by the Teutons and the Burgundians civ already in the game.
As much as it would be nice to have a Polish civ in the game, I’m afraid that the Lithuanians/Slavs already represent them. The Lithuanians, due to their piety and cavalry bonuses (i.e. faster working Monasteries, and Relics boosting Knight-line and Letis), and the fact that Lithuanians get Paladin is supposed to refer to the Polish-Lithuanian union.
But also: if we were to add a Polish civ, then there would be arguments to add a Russian civ, and a Ukrainian civ (Slavs civ already represent them) and a Scottish civ, and a Welsh civ (Celts civ covers them).
This game may already be too saturated with so many civs.
Again, the Bohemians are already shown through the Teutons and the Slavs: the former has strong defensive building bonuses (higher ranged Castles, higher number of troops to garrison towers/town centers, access to Bombard Tower and Keep) and fantastic siege (Bohemia was known to be a region experiencing many siege battles, and Teutons civ have great siege, plus Ironclad Unique tech. Spirit of the Law even mentioned the fact that Teutons siege represent the Medieval Bohemians in his Teutons overview history video: The Teutons - AoE2 vs History - YouTube
And the former, the Slavs, represent ethnically, the Bohemians as the Bohemian/Czech peoples are classified as Western Slavs.
This civ I can see happening. My biggest reason for this, is because the Indian civ is the ONLY civ to have the South Asian architecture design. Having 1 more civ added also with the South Asian architecture would be nice to see.
Absolutely not. If such a civ were added, what are we going to call the regular Chinese? “North Chinese”? “Han Chinese”? Again, some civs are nice in that they represent whole swaths of people and regions.
You do not want to split the Mongols civ into all the various Mongol tribes do you? You are not going to split the Turks civ into Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Ghaznavid Turks are you?
Holy smokes…you really suggest this? The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 AD. The medieval ages began in 500 AD (officially), and the remnants of the WRE were absorbed by the various successor European kingdoms.
The Byzantines civ ALREADY covers any medieval Romans during the medieval age period. The Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire) were the true descendants of the Romans. Any Romans in the WRE would later become the Britons, Franks, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italians.
Let’s keep AoE2 within historical truth for the most part, please. No “what if” history.
My Conclusion:
Sure. I can get on board with adding new civs, but they must make sense, and must be unique enough from all other civs that are already in the game.
The Burgundians while, yes being in many ways an “alternate Franks civ” are not quite like the Franks. The Burgundian Knights strategy is center around making powerful cavaliers/paladins fast to overwhelm opponents in early Castle Age or early Imperial Age. Frankish Paladins are better for more post-game environments, and Burgundians Paladins are not: Burgundians LACK Bloodlines. That makes their Paladins the weakest, along with Byzantine and Celtic Paladins.
The Sicilians are not related to the Italians in terms of gameplay (culturally and linguistically-wise, yes, they are VERY related).
And, I think that only some of your civ suggestions will really be feasible enough to be added into the game. I gave you my honest opinion.
This game is a great game…but it can be a victim of its own excess. TOO many civs can make the game TOO complicated over balance concerns and bug issues, etc. etc.
EDIT: I will add that I think that the more LIKELY civs to be added, are 1 more African civ (perhaps Nubians i.e. Medieval Sudanese), 1 more Indian civ (Muguals maybe, or a southern Dravidian Indian civ) and the Georgians. I think it unlikely any more European civs will be added, as the whole continent is very VERY represented with the current civs we got.
To be frankly honest, a LOT has gone on in Europe, historically speaking.
Not to disrespect the other continents, but Europe greatly benefit from the Afro-Asia-European trade of ideas and goods via the Mediterranean Sea’s close proximity to the Cradle of Civilization: the Middle East, where the first human cities were founded (Ancient Mesopotamia) and many important technologies and scientific innovation took place.
The Story of Europe: Series 1 - DocuWiki This documentary does a good job in highlighting Europe’s importance in history. Australian Prof. Christopher Clark does a good job in objectively and fairly accessing Europe.
Russian civ, and a Ukrainian civ represent a cuerently Slavs (Anyway, there were no such civilizations at that time.) They were Rus, the division into smaller nations arose later. It is enough to change the name of the present Slavs to Rus.
And not! Present Slavs do not have any right to represent both Poles and other Slavs …
Again, no!
This name is just misinformation. People think that all Slavs are Orthodox and their nobility were boyars …
Wallachians should be one of the new civilizations, if and when they decide to include new ones. I mean, they should have been selected since 20 years ago, when the original game was launched, especially as they aren’t represented in the game, not by Slavs, Magyars, Turks, or whatever.
They are a distinct civilization, with a great history, and one that can bring a lot to the game for that matter: Wallachia - Wikipedia
Did I say that I thought all Slavs are Orthodox? No, I did not.
I was speaking in ethnic terms. The Bohemian peoples are classified as West Slavs, but their religion was Catholicism during much of the medieval ages. I know that, because I have read about them.
When I say that Slavs represent the Bohemians, I mean by association by ethnic group. The “Celts” are a once large ethnic group, and in the videogame, are to represent the Scots, Irish, Welsh, and Bretons because those people are the closest descendants to the Ancient Celtic tribes of Europe.
The only question I have is: are they ethnically and culturally different enough from Slavs to warrant their own civ?
If I had to answer my own question right now…I would say the answer is: no. Especially since in the Vlad Dracula AoE2 campaign, Dracula is the Lord of Wallachia, and in that campaign you play as Slavs.
But…I am willing enough to hear any of you or others’ arguments on why the Wallachians deserve their own AoE2 civ.
