Well, by “split” i mean to break its umbrella. They can stay obviously
1 Like
yes they can but do we really need to limit most of africa in to one country?
They already did that though with the additions of bohemians and Burgundians
4 Likes
The next DLC will most likely be an African DLC.
Kongo, Zimbabwe, Swahili, Hausa, Benin are the potential civs.
2 Likes
An East Asian DLC would make sense too, since 3 of those civs don’t have campaigns yet. Although if they add a Japanese campaign I hope it’s not the 1804th time we play the late Sengoku Period in a video game.
4 Likes
And Nubians. It is way too long we are not getting any foot archer civ.
1 Like
Congo would be a foot archer civ.
1 Like
I would welcome an Asian DLC which would include Tibetans, Jurche, Thai and Ghorids.
This got me thinking, someone once advocated that India needs 8 civs, and the DLC still did it decently and symbolically with 3 new civs.
Assuming that the African DLC will be a large-scale DLC with 4 new civs, which is even moer than the Indian one, considering the distribution of the number of civs and the richness of historical materials, it would be a very reasonable decision to cover the Kongolese, the Zimbabwe (Shona) and the Swahili with one Bantu civilization.
I am not a strong defender of a common Bantu civilization, but It is hard to deny that this is still an acceptable and valid practice. This way, the DLC could accommodate a civilization representing the Bantu peoples in the jungles south of the Sahel (it doesn’t have to be named “Bantu”), a civilization in the mid-west of the Sahel (Hausa or Kanembu or another name to represent both), a coastal East African Somalis and best known Nubians. In my opinion, that covers pretty much every African group the community wants, even though not so specific.
Unless developers are willing to develop several small DLCs and sell them separately to create more civilizations. But I rather doubt this.
1 Like
im honestly ok with just 2x African civs for now. with 4 I feel like many things will be neglected such as balance and other area will get sacrifised, ie. bugs overlooked and much more bugs introduced, less campaign quality, less units, custom buildings variation and more repeated/reused content.
4 Likes
Agreed, it’s only worth adding large numbers of new civs if they maintain a high level of quality. It would also be great if they focused on fixing more bugs, but I’m not going to get my hopes up.
4 Likes
Teutons are the HRE. If we add Bavarians and Saxons (who would also be similar to Teutons, but whatever I guess) Teutons would have to represent Swabia or something
1 Like
This got me thinking, someone once advocated that India needs 8 civs
That was me I think! 11
Whatever the case, having one civ for all Bantu peoples would be insanity. The Shona, Swahili and Kongolese had completely different cultures, different architectures and militaries and histories. They’re ethnically similar, sure, but that’s doesn’t make them cultural identical.
It would be deeply disrespectful and wrong to lump them all in together just because they’re all from the same (vast) region of Africa and the average player might not know better. But they must not be another ridiculous umbrella. It would be far, far better to just add only one Bantu civ and leave some people’s unrepresented than insultingly lump highly distinct people together. We wouldn’t treat European cultures and history this way, it cannot be how we treat Africans.
Also, in terms of gameplay possibilities, having a Bantu/Southern African regional group offers great possibilities! We could have a regional light cavalry replacement called the Mpombo Scout and/or a regional cavalry archer replacement called the Assegai Warrior. All southern African civs could have unique bonuses for these units. Think about the possibilities for civ design!
I’m not a fan of the Dravidians umbrella. But a Bantu one would be many times worse. At least the medieval Kannadas and Tamils both had powerful navies and used infantry. You can’t find those similarities with a Bantu civ. It’d have to be an aggressive Archer +infantry civ which relies on fast, fast training units but weak buildings (Kongolese) with great defences and economy (Shona) and also be one of the best navy civs (Swahili).
Now how on earth would that work? And why would you want to make it work? Much better to have a Bantu Expansion with many new gameplay possibilities!
9 Likes
Kongo culturally is big, you can make several civs out of that from Sudan to Namibia and Cameroon.
Teutons is way bigger than just Germany. That would be just as big as the Indian faction split up.
There’s The Teutonic Order / Prussia, Germany and its many regions, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg (used to be a lot bigger).
We already have Burgundians (Hapsburg), Bohemians and Poles now. And the whole east europe is also detailed with Hungary etc. I’d love to see a detailed split of the HRE with like 4 or more factions or something.
Swabia, Saxony, Bavaria, Utrecht, Lorraine, Prussia (Teutonic Order).
Americas can have so much more. North, Central, Caribbean, South. There is so much to cover!!
Then make a Viking split in Norway, Sweden, Denmark?
Oh i like the Mediterranean split!
3 Likes
Or a heavy infantry civ. I’d love to see heavy mace wielders, martial artists, etc
You can say this about many dozens of civs that will never be in the game. Not that you don’t have a point, but there’s something to be said for getting some level of coverage until an area can be revisited in further depth (like FE’s Slavs or Indians).
This kind of moralizing talk is just kind of silly, to say nothing of having been done with many civs before. I agree that there is room for differentiation, but I could also see them making an African DLC with 3+ umbrella civs.
Hell yes. All of these calls for micro-focusing on further European/Asian splits ring hollow when the vast majority of North America still has zero coverage (despite interactions with the Aztecs, Vikings, probably Chinese, and possibly others), and South America literally has 1 civ for the whole continent, despite there being easily 4-5 more civs they could add there.
2 Likes
Then i would want a Kunene civ from Angola/Namibia as rival to Congo and the Portuguese. But that would probably be a full infantry+archers civ with engolo unique units (capoeira priests). And a herdable economy. It would be a lot like the eco of Hausa and Ethiopia in AoE3 with the herdables being able to trade for gold.
So let’s look at a comparison map.
The blue area has like 20 civs in it. The other area is covered by… 1. It doesn’t even touch Ethiopia. Am I the only one seeing a problem?
1 Like
Tibet Nepal and Bhutan mountain kings dlc lets goooooo
2 Likes
When suggesting civis at least select once with an actual wonder and some kinda historical figure to make a campaign around.
3 Likes