Not exactly on-topic, but all things considered this community is still 1000x healthier than some others I’ve been in.
2 Likes
lmao, you guys are crazy
3 Likes
Yeah I’ve exaggerated a bit with that statement but honestly I can’t see a bright future for this game if the usual “DON’T ADD THIS CIV! MY CIV IS SUPERIOR!” attitude continues.
1 Like
I actually think the “coverage” argument is somewhat valid. It doesn’t mean that every possible civ should be considered regardless of tech level/relevance, but having to use Aztec architecture and Eagle Warriors to represent every new world people from the Inuit to the Tierra del Fuegans is an unfortunate limitation. So I have a bit of sympathy for people who are disappointed when Europe or Asia gets another DLC while the Americas and Africa don’t.
But yeah, the arguments are silly. While I certainly wouldn’t prefer a Euro/Asian DLC for a while, I would still buy it if that’s what they made. By all means advocate for your favored regions (mine being America and Africa for now), but no need to be childish about it.
6 Likes
Considering what people expected the DoI civs to be and what they actually ended up being, I’m not too bothered by it; much more by arguments that don’t make sense. That might be a weird way to order bothersomeness, but hey.
Thanks for the response, this is one of the most mature comments.
1 Like
buh buh buh mah europe!
That said the regional units kinda just exist and only have 3 or 4 civs a piece and that just feels like wasted potential.
Dude, not cool. I would HATE splitting Italians before other areas are visited first, but this is not the way.
2 Likes
Didnt i read somewhere that the Game is capped at 48 civs?
Im not sure If its right but If thats the case it seems better to me to have some umbrella civs, than having to leave out some regions completely.
Again thats just your personal preference over the other persons one.
3 Likes
You dont see people complaining about having to use european units for every none european civis.
3 Likes
Obviously italy is fine as is as most of italy is represented with sicilly aswell
Well i honestly would say since there is a coding limit as it stands (but not confirmed) for 48 civs then umbrella civ for africa and one idependent african state or tribe would be fine for a africaan dlc
@Mahazona you been also allready disproven by facts in a different topic that there is no need to split italy
Africans are not all tribal people they had kingdoms empire city states and were not isolated technologically inferior hunter gatherer people.
Regarding an Italians civi split it was never disproven by anyone if sicilians/naples can be a faction so can venice papacy and others.Again its just personal preference.
1 Like
I named multiple since i dont know whats more common in african civilisation
Eventho it seems to be personal preference there is still alot of denial of proof as how italy was concepted and eventho it might be your personal preference to disprove it eventho alot of claims been made well thats your thing
…That’s because you’ll always use the closest civ (Ethiopians or Malians for Africans further south, or yes, Aztecs for most new-world civs), not Europeans for non European civs.
I’m not sure the “civ cap” is real TBH, and if it is its likely higher than 48. Even so, there will come a point at which, for logistical or whatever reasons they will stop making civs. That’s why I’m okay with some umbrella civs for partial coverage of areas that will otherwise get no representation.
yes, but how many of those were really important enough to deserve a specific civilization on AoE? in short, I will certainly have exaggerated to say (which however was only a question asked in good faith and with no intention of belittling anyone) that only one civilization was enough, but even those who come up with the names of dozens of potential African civilizations are quite exaggerated … . I would say that they included the Shona (who left us the so-called Great Zimbabwe) and the Congolese (who had the Kingdom of Congo in the 14th century) are more than enough by AoE standards
2 Likes
That “civilization proposal” was just a thing to pass the time, I don’t expect them to really put it in the game, otherwise I make scenes as a kid … then if you don’t like it there’s no need to insult! Here, on the other hand, there are people who get angry and come up with stories about an alleged Eurocentrism … what a toxic community …
this is rich coming from you.
you - shoots down african civs for minor reasons and says we can lump them altogether to be enough by aoe standards and how others are exaggerating African civs that could be included.
also you - proposes adding the swiss to the game.
you’re being very insulting and biased about your standards, which is probably why you see stuff like this
If the swiss did enough by your standards to make it into an AoE2 game, Then some of the civs you are all for shooting down in Africa should definitely be included. The only reason you can support one, and not the others, is if you’re inherently biased towards Europe.
and if you think this community is toxic, you should see other communities.
2 Likes