Yes, I agree but there are some holes that would need to be patched first. I think they should have gone the route of Medieval Total War and included all the major European powers and then added some Asian and African civs which had some form of interaction with the Europeans. But expansions sort of took a strange turn and now we have Inca and Mali but lack the Bohemians…
So while Venetians would be nice I think the Normans are a lot more important.
Honestly, do you think the Sicilians left any big mark on Europe or the world? More then the empire which made Rome crumble? It isnt just my impression, just in general when you compare the two, that you very quickly notice Sicilians arent an important one.
Those who wants more civs are the same ones that doesn’t care about bugs, crashes, freezes and inconsistency to play 4 vs 4. They dont care that every time it is more and more difficult to learn to play this game thanks on having almost 40 civs, they dont care about bad map generation, they dont care about bringing new players, they just want to have more civs as this game was something like pokemon, were you have to catch em all.
It is unfortunate that FE devs decided to care more about the szaldons of this games instead of TG and Ranked players. Every time that a new patch is released, and pathing its not fixed, old feature doesn’t come back and new bugs are introduce, i remember that most of the users in this forum doesn’t care, beacause to them its more important to have ridiculous new civs like missisipians and kongoles (cringe).
If DE was realesed in the same conditions as warcraft 3: reforged but with 250 new civs, most of you wouldn’t care.
I don’t think that there are more and less important civs to include, all are worth in the end…
I would have preferred the venetians (I also provided a civ design for them) but sicilians too have their importance.
And that is for every region and colture of the rest of Europe or the world.
And you know it for sure right. Because they elected you president of the fan base and so you know what everyone thinks and can speak for everyone behalf…
I’m personally waiting to play both single player and online until they fix most of the bugs and stability, but I think that it’ll worth in the end if we will have a richer game overall.
Most of the problems are already fixed 2 days after the release, give them time and they’ll fix the remaining.
Also bear in mind that usually incouragements usually works better than rants…
Yes probably you are right on this, but almost every single post that its made in this forums its about either balance or adding a new civs.
How can we have a proper game when every single suggestion of the community (they only read this forum and sometimes reddit) its about adding civs that they dont fit in the game and most importantly WE DONT NEED?
Here we talk about balance, history, and a lot of theory crafting, yes… and that’s is because there is proper space in the forum for report errors and bugs, there is little point to talking about it in here, it just make confusion.
Of course there are more and less important civilizations, you have to rank them according to their impact on the period in question. Should we toss a coin between including the Germans or the Finns? Imagine how the game would look like… Not all nations had an equal presence in the period, portraying every people would not only be impossible but destroy immersion.
Considering that those players (Ranked and TG players) don’t make up the majority and are the ones which demand stuff without giving something back in return, it’s not surprising.
You get Hotfixes, bug fixes, events, gameplay improvements and officially sponsored tournaments with a higher prize pool than ever and the only thing I see about the so called “AOE MP fans” are complaints over complaints and how better it was with Userpatch AOC.
Just go back playing that if you prefer lesser civs, a stagnant game and older graphics. Nobody will hold you back.
Just go read a history book and inform yourself. Not my fault you’re lacking knowledge in the Medieval/Renaissance Africa/America department.
The Ensemble devs wanted to cover the world. They didn’t want to remain only in Europe.
(Posted by ES_Sandyman in our forums.)
We could afford to do one new architecture set, but we could also do civs in the old architecture sets. "The game as it now stands has 3 western european civs, 3 eastern european civs, 3 oriental civs, and 4 middle-east civs. The obvious thing for us to do (and we did it) was to add one western, one eastern, and one oriental civ each, to balance the architecture sets, then add as many civs as we could in the new architecture set. We felt that we could safely add 2 civs in the new category, for a total of 5 civs. The next step was which nation for which architecture type?
THE NEW ARCHITECTURE SET: the possibilities were New World, India, or Africa. Frankly, we thought the New World civs were the most exciting. Don’t waste your time flaming us about how they were stone-age savages. All you do is show your ignorance. Go read a book or something. We knew that the Aztecs were cool, had name recognition, and were defeated by a concatenation of lucky flukes. Maybe we’ll do India and Africa another day."
http://aok.heavengames.com/gameinfo/conquerors-expansion
I agree completely with Sandy Petersen that compared to Aztecs, Malians, Indians or any other Forgotten Empires expansion civ Bohemians aren’t that exciting. Ensemble Studios always wanted to expand around the world.
Just look at this video if you’re interested into further details:
Sure, there’s no denying they wanted to go a bit crazy with Conquerors. I don’t remember if Petersen took over after AoK but the tone changes a lot from AoK which is thematically consistent, I don’t think the expansion was in the right direction. It’s fun to push the limits a bit with but it also made the game more cartoonish and lose its original focus. This recent expansion is going back to the roots of AoK, with Campaigns mirroring Williams Wallace’s, Joan D’Arc’s, Saladin’s and Barbarossa’s and is all the better for it in my view.
To be honest, I find the theme of the latest expansion to be kinda boring, especially considering that it didn’t come with any new architecture set at all.
Even in AOK, you have Chinese fighting against Goths which makes zero sense for several reasons. It was always supposed to be historical fantasy. Hell, even the civ designs in AOK is weird and quite comical if you think about it. You have Woad Raiders from the early Dark Ages next to Paladins (of those actually only 12 existed at the same time and would be a Franks only thing). Also Goths with Gunpowder cracks me up too.
Europe is pretty much done after LOTW. The only expansion pack I could maybe see work is a Slavic one but you can clearly see in this forum as well as on Steam that the opposition to yet another European expansion is huge, considering also that “The Last Khans” was kinda an European expansion too. Considering that Forgotten Empires is hiring architecture concept artists, I think the next expansion pack is going to feature a new architecture set, probably with some new civs too and probably also outside of Europe.
Well on the one hand the wanted to be very historical, almost making it an educational tool with the large encyclopedia. On the other hand they added in silly things like the Celts. But at that time they thought they were making a childrens game but since then its become far more historically accurate…
People want to take the game in different directions which is only natural, I can only say for my part I enjoyed the Last Khans and LOTW the most for the exact reason you didn’t, because they brought back the focus to Europe and the Holy Land. Honestly I think most people enjoy this focus as well, everytime you ask people what’s there favorite civilization, it’s “Teutons”, “Britons”, “Celts”… There might be some very vocal people on reddit who are passionate about the inuits or polynesians but I doubt it would be popular at all, 99% of people don’t write on the forums.
All I need to say. With the exception of Eastern Europe, the rest of Europe is pretty low.
Like I said, very few people are on any forums in the first place so you have a lot of activist types posting dissertations on “obscure civ x”, these people are not necessarily representative of the millions of people who play the game.
It would be quite surprising if this poll which has nevertheless more than 200 votes would not show at least a certain tendency. I know if it would be official and if it had 10k votes it would be better, though it’s better than nothing.
Ngl I’ve seen a lot more threads asking for Eastern European, Indian, Sino, African and American civs than anything else.
Going the microscope approach for Europe and leaving the rest of the world uncovered or in huge blobs seems weird. You’ll end up with Savoyards fighting against Indians.
To be honest, that’s why purely from a civ picking point of view I’m not the biggest fan of the latest addition. They seem a bit too specific for my taste, even though they’re fun to play.
I wasn’ familiar with the Norman Kingdom over Sicily before that expansion pack. Being an European civ doesn’t make it automatically familiar. A Tibetans civ would probably have been a more recognizable addition than the Sicilian civ we got.
Maybe someday i will inform my self and i will read some books or some papers or even some random wikipedia links that you upload on this forums that show that once upon a time there was a community over north america that discovered fire there so they should be added to the game.
This is not a history simulator, this is a game, and it is not getting better with the addition of the “mapuches”.
If this game keeps improving and keeps getting better its mainly because UP features and MP community who ask for them.
Dang I didn’t know you only needed to have discovered fire to resist both the Incas and the Spanish.
More seriously if you want people to take your opinion seriously don’t come out of your way to make yourself look dumb.
It doesnt matter if they didnt discovered fire or if they invented calculus, i dont care, new civs are totally unnecessary.
Then just say this, and if it’s not enough, there are tons of actual arguments. Balance, design space, and probs more.
You do you. I could live without any tournaments too.
MP has always been a secondary aspect of this game IMO. Nice to have, but not really necessary.
Considering the toxicity I’ve seen on AOCZone, I’m glad I don’t touch it.
Woad Raiders are actually from the time of the Roman invasion, before Christ.
They are not even Medieval, at all, not even the Dark Ages, they are from the Iron Ages and Antiquity.