Pretty sure romanians will not get added even if poland makes it.
1 Like
No. You yourself know that the new African civilizations do not bring anything new or valuable.
No. Read about the history and then write.
Really.
Woman leading armies and a full army of females are completely different.do you even bother to read stuff you quote.
1 Like
Canāt you just agree to disagree.
The importance of a civilisation is highly subjective. There is no absolute saying in which are more important.
You might be able to tell which one give more interesting gameplay, which one give more cultural diversity, which one interacted more with existing civilisations and so on but in the end it comes to personal preferences and experience.
I am for increasing the number of civilizations to 50. Once itās done, this should stop, but until then, why not? One can argue it could deliver a blow to the team, but I donāt think it would happen. On the contrary, more people would become interested in the game, of course, if the developers maintain a balance and manage to make those civilizations appealing.
Of the remaining slots, I think the majority should go to European ones. I support having African, Asians or North American ones, but we could do with 5-7 of the total. Not being ignorant at all, but Europe is where the main stuff happened during the Middle Ages and where the major improvements were recorded.
1 Like
Exactly as youāre saying.
Iām not ignorant either, but Iām interested in history.
Besides, the publishers themselves shot themselves in the foot by doing DLC, if it wasnāt for peace, and so everyone is expecting new civs.
More African and American civs make sense in AoE 3, as Europeans began to learn about those cultures.
Once, I even gave my ideas for new DLC - they were not page-specific and I included Americans and Africans each time.
I am not both a racist and an ignoarnt - I am for historical consistency.
Creating unexplored civs will make you feel like fantasy.
1 Like
This is not Age Of Europe, this is Age of Empires. Devs are supposed to add civ around the world, not the civs Europeans āexploredā. China was more advanced than any European civs and they knew about African cultures way before than Portuguese or Spanish.
Iām glad almost everyone disagrees with this comment. No European EMPIRES left, meanwhile:
Oyo Empire, Benin Empire
Adal Empire, Ajuran Empire
Songhai Empire
Kanem Empire, Bornu Empire
Mutapa Empire
Kilwa Empire
Ghurid Empire
Chola Empire
Pala Empire
Vijayanagar Empire
Tibetan Empire
Jin Empire
Liao Empire
Xi Xia Empire
Khazar Empire
Uyghur Empire
Tonga Empire etc are left,
5 Likes
Which region should AoE2 focus on the most in future DLCs
- Africa
- America
- Europa
- South/East Asia
- Middle East / Central Asia
0 voters
Iād love to see Georgians, 10 African, 15 Asian, 1-2 Oceanian and 10 American civs.
1 Like
The exact opposite for me. Europe is already represented in an extremely detailed way compared to any other world region. Iād prefer them to add anything else which isnāt European.
The Medieval world just doesnāt consist of Europe and the rest.
This is not being biased at all, itās just looking at the AOE2 world map.
Adding every small subfaction in Europe would feel more āunprofessionalā to me than adding Empires like Tibet, Kanem Bornu etc.
Iām definitely taking a break from those Forums until a major AOE related announcement. Iām talking about the same over and over again. Goodbye. See you in August/September probably.
9 Likes
Of course, why add Poles if they are boring. Blah blah blah only hussars and a general copy of the Slavs.
I am not talking about all of Europe, but about Eastern Europe, which is under-represented - and by no means boring. Buildings could differ after the emergence of two new architectural styles for Europe:
Byzantine
North European.
4-5 new civs for Europe - no more. Okay?
Best if they hadnāt done the Lord of the West DLC, and yes, these are the quarrelsome ones.
1 Like
We have Magyars, Liths, Slavs, Bulgars, Byzantines, Vikings, Huns and Goths. Itās more than whole Africa, India and America.
I support Black Sea Architecture for Georgians, Armenians, Bulgars and Byzantines, Northern European for Slavs and Vikings and Nomadic set for Huns.
1 Like
You do know that many of these were either Indian or Turkish at origin, right? Not to mention that if you really do some research youāll see a lot of similarities between them.
1 Like
There is no Indian Empire lol
1 Like
Indian origin. Or are you having again problems with the facts?
1 Like
Do elaborate how they are indian 
1 Like
Bulgarians are not a combination of Slavs and Turks. They are of a TURKIC origin. As it was already mentioned in a different threadā¦ It is a repeated mistake done by one guyā¦
I believe Western Slavs should be included at least with one civ to properly represent area to the east from Elbe. However, after reading this thread I also believe the whole case was lost by headless Polish propagation.
Nah, even if the Slavs only cover Rus, the heartland of the Ruthenian state wouldāve had a very different architecture than Scandinavia.
Iām not gonna wade into this whole Eastern European mess. I voted for S-E Asia, because I see potential for telling a lot more interesting stories that are far less widely known by breaking up the Indian umbrella.
1 Like