Perhaps, but it’s not there.
Yes, for me they are simply going to finish adding the missing AoE 1 campaigns to RoR and also make a DLC with Siam/Thai, Jurchens and Tibetans and then add some Chinese campaign and that’s it…
Yes, just like Palmyrans are in AoE 1… in addition with Croatia you can cover the Kingdom of Croatia (925-1100) and the Republic of Ragusa (1328-1808)…
Technically the Gauls are from Antiquity, so I would see them more likely in RoR… the Franks settled in France in the 5th century, which I see as fine as it is…
Yes, but we already had the Bulgarians and the Poles who were separated, now it would simply be a matter of including Croats, Serbs and Vlacs and renaming the Slavs as Ruthenians or Rus…
Well, but for the time of Bayinnaung it makes sense, because it was the middle of the 16th century, even late 16th century… at that time the SEA was already more or less unified, Burma and Siam fought each other until Burma conquered Siam in 1563, becoming the largest empire in the history of the SEA (Siam would regain its independence through Naresuan in 1584, after the death of Bayinnaung) (I see a SEA DLC in AoE 3 that starts with this and lasts until the British conquest of Burma in 1885 or the conflict of Siam with France in 1893), then Vietnam had periods of civil war a century after the death of Le Loi and until the arrival of the Nguyen in the 19th century… and the Malays were conquered by the Portuguese in 1511 and already during the colonial period of AoE 3 they would belong to the Dutch until then of WWII…
Yes, for me his campaigns of the Kings of Africa and Old Cambodia must be saved for another DLC…
Yes, at least the Mon could fit in… I’m reading that between the 6th and 13th centuries they maintained a certain independence until they came under nominal control of the Burmese (Pagan Empire) and Siamese (Sukhotai Kingdom)… then Hanthawaddy was the only one that continued to exist until the mid-16th century (and could even briefly regain its independence in the mid-18th century, so it could be a minor civ in AoE 3 too)…
Honestly, I’d even be OK with it
Essentially, yes. I think there is a broad consensus on better specifying the actual Slavs in the game.
And probably also do something on the Goths although I’m not sure what yet.
Teutons are already all Germans, there is no need for Saxons.
8 Likes
Indians were all habitants of India, why did we need DoI?
2 Likes
Because India has a population many multiple times higher than Germany had at any point in the Middle Ages. The landscape is far more diverse, leading to wildly different militaries. The land-mass itself is as large as half of Europe.
The links people try to draw between their favoured European state and India is always a poor comparison and feels more like trying to wriggle any excuse possible for a tiny variant of an already-existing civ.
We have 3(!!!) Italian civs already. So many eastern European and Mediterranean civs that their architecture sets are several times more common than others. Let’s leave Europe alone for 5 minutes.
Perhaps, but it won’t happen. We have already had Eastern Europe featured as a DLC, and the geopolitical situation there makes it a touchy subject.
2 Likes
I’m not buying anymore European DLCs for 3 years at least…
2 Likes
11
I may be biased, but I would buy a DLC with several unique sets for the Mediterranean civilisations.
Yeah, absolutely.
1 Like
Just a reminder. “build_nightly” is an automatic thing done to save changes made. Means nothing really.
1 Like
Who did previous updates?
Various. It says on the depot in short-hand. Forgotten Empires, Microsoft, Tantalus, even Capture Age. Although the latter might just be them making adjustments to their stuff to accept the new DLC changes.
German is an ethnicity while India is a subcontinent. Your argument makes as much sense as saying Central Americans or West Europeans should be one civ.
Ya those are already waste of civ slots, Romans are ancient and Sicilians don’t bring any value to the game.
2 Likes
Sorry, I know it does not fit the current narrative as in “politically correct” but these “tiny euro states” have been to a large degree more influential in world history than a large quantity of larger groups of people. Advancements and innovation of humanity has predominantly sprung out of the areas of the world where there is dense population historically, such as the great European plain, the med, Indian subcontinent, SEA, Sinosphere. These are facts.
It is a game of course and not historically accurate in so many ways but advocating for a larger representation of various peoples highly relevant during the time frame of the game (roughly 500 AD-1500AD) is completely valid. I am not advocating however for every historical people existing at the time but the more influential ones - that is all.
6 Likes
My point is that Europe is already very well represented.
But other parts of the world are not. And I’m not talking of adding Polynesians or anything. But places like the Sino-sphere, India, the Middle-East, Central Asia and Africa are woefully under-represented for their influence on history.
9 Likes
European expansion
Indeed, there are many and rich materials
but i’m tired of it
1 Like
Well, if we must worry about the bickering between Serbs and Croats then lets advocate for the Albanians and have a glorious campaign of Skanderbeg.
Concerning the Normans - yes a few thousand in number but administrative masterminds fusing together cultural and societal elements of the Catholic world and islamic and greek heritage in creating the first melting pot society in the west. Beyond this, the Normans were a martial people who shaped to a large degree the medieval western world and the predominant reason why the first crusade was a success. Being Sicilian from my paternal lineage I feel the current Sicilian civ is lacking, and if they wish to present it more as a Norman faction - then at least do it properly.
Beyond this - those who argue against the idea of having Gauls as a civ, well then why do we have the Huns, Goths, and Romans who were essentially extinguished as representative civs by the 600s?
Maybe I am wrong, Maybe I am right. It is just my opinions. Other than that I am highly supportive of having a few more civs representing horn Africa and west Africa, the Americas, splitting the Saracens etc.
Currently 45 civs in game. Let us play with the idea of the game expanding to 60 civs. Well 1-2 more from Indian subcontinent, Siamese, 3-4 from the Sinosphere.3-4 more from Europe and rebranding of some current civs, another 2-3 from middle east, 2-3 from Africa, 1-2 more from the Americas. Game is good.
Why does Europe need 4 more civs when Asia was more relevant in the Middle Ages and the game has more European civs than Asian? You can argue Europe was also very influental, but Asia is soo much bigger so it should have more civs by nature.
There aren’t even that many civs to add from Europe. The only relevant with enough influence are Serbs and Vlachs.
4 Likes
As a compromise - I would not mind seeing a new building available to each regional civ group, as in those who share similar architecture. A mercenary shop where one can buy high gold cost units. For example for the western Europe one it can be like longbowmen, swiss pikemen, genoese crossbowmen, catalan company and for other regional civ groups the units that were historically relevant for them.
1 Like
It is not about size. The vast majority of what we know as Asian landmass is, and has been, uninhabited or scarcely such. Have to think in terms of smaller regions, Europe has always been densely populated with its peninsulas, the competition between these various tribes have led to immense innovation (and wars). The areas in Asia that have had similar circumstances are Indian subcontinent, the levant, SEA, Sinosphere. That is it. The steppe peoples of Central Asia already very well represented.
Up until our modern age, Africa was not this super populated place besides certain regions. And just like with “Asians”, Africa is not one homogenous group of race / peoples but vastly different, and within each smaller region already enormous diversity of culture and ethnicities.
2 Likes