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?
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 doesnāt fit.
However, I must say that the game doesnāt 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 ā Chinese ā Tatars ā Cumans ā Slavs ā Poles ā 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 donāt 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 Iāve seen most of them fit that.
Unfortunately yes for the larger audience that doesnāt 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 donāt 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 donāt be offended, Iām not trying to distort your opinion. I know youāre also in favor of these additions, and your only concern is wasting slots with civs that donāt 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 canāt 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 ākingdoms,ā 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 āking,ā but excluding a civ that was more powerful within its sphere is dumb IMO. And frankly the Europeans didnāt really have any kind of consistent standards as to whether they considered Native rulers ākingsā or āchiefs.ā Yes I know the gameās tagline is āAge of Kings,ā 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 āCivilizationā is a better designation frankly, and itās also the one used most commonly, both in the gameās naming conventions and by people coming up with ideas for potential newā¦wait for itā¦civilizations.
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, donāt try to use the number of existing European civilizations as an excuse. It doesnāt make the demand for more civilizations for Africa/America any more imperative in this way. Rather, itās 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 wouldnāt 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 Iād 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 arenāt a good design, soā¦
Iām not doing this, donāt worry. I even wrote ā4 Asiansā too, but I remembered DOI and removed it.
I know, thatās 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).
Weāre
But he means the Kurdish civilization which would be good to see.
Kanembu, Somalis, Kongo and Benin
Whilst Iād love to see more African civs than this, I think if we were to only get four more, these are the perfect picks.
Nice geographical spread, theyād all specialise in different things, and you havenāt lumped all Bantu cultures into one umbrella! Realistically, Iād love it if the Devs went for these picks. (Again, Iād love to see more African civs further down the line as well).
Kongo and Benin could share a new architecture set, whereas the Kanembu and Somalis could use the existing one (maybe Ethiopians and Somalis could get a new shared architecture too).
In terms of campaigns I think your picks for Somalis and Kongolese are great, although thereās no need to limit ourselves to historical battles for Kanembu and Benin. We could easily have fully-fledged campaigns on Idris Alooma and Ewuare the Great, both of which would fit inside the timeline of the game.
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
A lack of mounted units would be suitable for any southern African/Bantu civilisations (though not necessarily a lack of gunpowder). In return they could have Assegai Warriors as a cavalry archer replacement and Mpombo Warriors or Lightning Warriors as a cavalry replacement, then the new civs could have bonuses for these units.
I think design-wise the only concern will be whether the new civs will feel too similar to the existing Meso civs, except better (if they get gunpowder and cav archer replacement as well). I guess itād depend on the stats of cavalry and cavalry archer replacements.
If theyāre heavy on food and gold unlike Eagles, and with different stats (less PA, more hp/melee armor?) it might be okay.
When I say cavalry I was thinking more of a lighter cavalry replacement, costing maybe 50 food 20 gold. Weaker than an Eagle, bonus against siege and Monks perhaps, there to give the civs melee mobility. I feel that they shouldnāt have a heavy cavalry replacement as the American civs do, because then they would just be better than American civilisations. In return for not having powerful, mobile melee options a cavalry archer replacement could be interesting.
Iāve seen someone on Reddit suggest a ranged infantry as scout for African civs, but Iām not sure how balanced it would be.
Yeah I donāt think they should have a ranged starting Scout, I think a melee infantry would be fitting (Lightning Scout ā Lightning Runner ā Heavy Lightning Runner). A fast Assegai thrower would be a cav archer replacement if I were making a civ concept