I agree.
Yes, for some civs there is not much info accessible, but I think for the game there is enough online. And there are other African civs besides the Bantu; we don’t need to include all the Bantu at once. As I said, we can put a bantu civ together with others in an African dlc and maybe in the future add more.
If you mean the limit of 48 civs, then this is a big IF.
Not sure, aoe2 is not that demanding. It’s basically army composition, and economy and religion for the bonuses. Arts for the UI, units and building is the easiest.
As I said, we don’t need to place all the Bantu at once and not even now. I personally don’t see a problem if a dlc in Asia comes first.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Do you propose an umbrella bantu civ to guarantee a foothold for them first (and with the possibility of splitting later, like @SirWiedreich said)?
Well, I find it not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. Even if we’re close to the limit, I’d still prefer a specific bantu civ to an umbrella. A limited representation (in a specific Bantu civ) would be better than a bad representation (in an amalgamated civ that never really existed). And it would be easier for devs to add more of a Bantu civ naturally than “forced” by requests similar to Indians who are sure to come up with an amalgamated civ.
As for campaigns, if lack of sources is an issue, I would come up with extending the limit a bit to ~1650 in the case of Africans and Americans. I know, no one would like that. But I don’t see a problem because their warfare with the exception of the bombard cannons (which are already in the game) was medieval enough for the game: swords, shields and bows, pitched wars and sieges.
Really sad that you or anyone else has to say something like that here