New Dlc Options

To be clear, I don’t think we need 16. I picked a number that was both larger than what I think is needed, and what I think the devs will ever do to illustrate the point that, even if the devs go super tryhard on African and American civs, Europe is still not in danger of losing its status as best-represented.

Surely the old world includes Africa as well as Asia and Europe. And of course I am open to more civilizations even from Europe (I think Georgians or Armenians make one of the best cases for viable civs that are not yet covered), but there is no reason to prioritize them at this time.

3 Likes

Gaelic would be a nice addition to Western Europe.

Not sure what you mean: we already have Celts and they even speak (a form of) Gaelic. Do you mean it would be nice to have a more historically accurate Celts civ?

1 Like

Sorry. I wrote in a hurry. I edited there.

I admit that I exaggerated. In fact, no civ is isolated in the real world, but it sounded like I wanted to make aoe2 a simulation game, which really doesn’t fit.

However, I must say that the game doesn’t serve very well as a criterion for isolation either: what connection did the Japanese have with the Vikings or Bohemians during the Middle Ages, poor example? None, unless we consider connection as a line of indirect contact (ie, Japanese → Chinese → Tatars → Cumans → Slavs → Poles → Bohemians; depending on the game). But in this way, Polynesians and Mississippians could also have connection with other civs indirectly through Malays and Aztecs (in case we don’t add any other civs between them), respectively. Aboriginals* are not worth answering because no one has ever seriously suggested them.

How about we both stop exaggerating things? We both agree that the proposed civs must have had kingdoms/empires, and as far as I’ve seen most of them fit that.

Unfortunately yes for the larger audience that doesn’t like/know history so much. A few years ago there were still people on YouTube, Reddit and other places on the web claiming that the natives were wild and there was nothing in Africa.

I don’t think the average player should be worried. The question of the limit has always been uncertain and could be argued at any time, whether in the past or in the future.

And please don’t be offended, I’m not trying to distort your opinion. I know you’re also in favor of these additions, and your only concern is wasting slots with civs that don’t fit either, it makes sense. And I know most would prefer other civs, but LotW and DotD already comprise the European share (4 more civs for a region that has always had the majority) of post-DE additions. I really can’t see how the game ending (in the most extreme case scenario) with 4 more civs for Africa and 4 more for the Americas could be so problematic.

*Fixed mistranslation

Agree.but having a kingdom/empire will leave out mississippians or any other NA faction.which is what im saying all along they dont fit the game time frame.

Several existing civs did not have empires of any note AFAIK. Regarding “kingdoms,” once a certain threshold of power and relevance is met, being exclusive based on the technicalities of government seems pretty arbitrary. Technically the Mississippian government was a Complex Chiefdom, but the actual difference between that and Medieval European style Monarchial systems for purposes of this game is insignificant. (BTW the iconic Absolute Monarchs of Europe were mostly post-Medieval) Adding Burgundy because it was technically ruled by someone with the title “king,” but excluding a civ that was more powerful within its sphere is dumb IMO. And frankly the Europeans didn’t really have any kind of consistent standards as to whether they considered Native rulers “kings” or “chiefs.” Yes I know the game’s tagline is “Age of Kings,” but most of the civs people are asking for have, shall we say, a regional variant, or someone who essentially had the same role as a Medieval European king.

I think “Civilization” is a better designation frankly, and it’s also the one used most commonly, both in the game’s naming conventions and by people coming up with ideas for potential new…wait for it…civilizations.

3 Likes

What really brings people into contact with local history is the campaigns.
So it even takes just one civilization, and you can tell a story.
A few more civilizations can help make the campaign more exciting, but too many civilizations are quite detrimental to other regions.

4 for Africa, not a problem. Also 4 for America to reach totally 8, not sure.
At least I will definitely compare them with the potential civilizations in Asia.

When the consensus of the community has clearly moved towards non-European DLC, the main competitors are potential Asian civilizations rather than European civilizations. So please, don’t try to use the number of existing European civilizations as an excuse. It doesn’t make the demand for more civilizations for Africa/America any more imperative in this way. Rather, it’s a lot like an attempt to use this game to pursue the ideal of fairness of the modern real world, but the game has no obligation to do so.

As a conclusion, for the new civilization in Africa, I still think 4 is the most efficient, but I think the development team may release 5, and hope not to exceed 6.

I wouldn’t mind 8 African civs, but at this point the civ design becomes a question as well. I think they could keep things relatively fresh and less gimmicky if they did something similar to the Mesoamerican civs with lack of Stable and Eagle Warriors - as an example. But then the question would be lack of what. 11

I guess even India DLC had enough regional variety with the Elephant Archers (that could totally be added to more civs too!), so the possibilities are there to keep things fresh without resorting to gimmicks. Ironically, the only civs I’d consider gimmicky are Lords of the West civs, and most of the playerbase also seems to agree that one-time use techs like First Crusade/Flemish Revolution aren’t a good design, so… :person_shrugging:

I’m not doing this, don’t worry. I even wrote “4 Asians” too, but I remembered DOI and removed it.

I know, that’s why I never stated that either.

True. And as said above, the devs can end the additions this year, without even reaching the supposed limit.

I personally would like the 6 drawn on the map (Swahilis incorporated into Somalis), but I have no problem with 4: imo Kanembu, Somalis, Kongo and Benin, with campaigns for Somalis (Ahmad Ibrahim conquering Ethiopia) and Kongo (Afonso Nzinga Mbemba rising to power) and Historical Battles for Kanembu and Benin.

Completely different peoples one is a bantu group other is not.

I wish to see the Nubians and Georgians in the game.
A potential DLC could be called something with King David.
There was a Nubian king named David and some Georgian kings by that name.

Yes I know. I mean the gameplay; they would have the same to offer (ships and gunpowder), with the Somalis imo having a little more (horses, camels and monks).