Not Really. Frisians are e.g. much more dutch than any other. Anglos, from northeast germany, are in fact the tribe that formed england.
So you are saying england and germany are too close be separated, if you argue against Anglos. Thats stoopid. Also Bavarians or saxons, they are even completely different tribes. Allemans are only in the souht, saxons are different, and also formed England. You dont know history too much, thats okay, but then either inform yourself or dont argue that way
After this southamerica DLC I hope for
with a full round proper GuaranĂ civ, with Jesuit and Chiriguano influence, gunpowder weapons like wood-leather cannons and arquebus, fast canoes, cavalry takuara lancers, arrows with poison, and arrows that goes through coat of mail, man-at-arms armed with alfanjes, machetes and rodelas, shock troops with clubs, hatchets and shield, bolas throwers, slingers. Tall and thicc palisade walls, captured Inca fortres, powerful Ipaje monks that empower units at the cost of healing slower, good wood and food economy, gather small amounts of gold while gathering wood to reflect the kaâa (yerba mate) economy, Jesuit Missions as Marvel and much more
1 Like
which one of these would you call an empire? most of these arenât even kingdoms.
do you realise how long it takes for a handcannon to reload? Early guns were extremely bad, guns took over bows primarily because it was way easier to learn how to use one. Training an archer would take years, training a gunman weeks.
For lots of the middle ages a bowman (or even a skilled slinger) would beat a gunman any day
the british royal house is Windsor, formerly known as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
1 Like
I donât think we need a Western Euro DLC anytime soon, itâs already one of the densest areas civ-wise. Fill Eastern Europe and the rest of the world first, then we can talk.
Even then, however, making a civ for every major duchy would be an overkill, unless theyâd be singleplayer only like Sparta and Athens from Chronicles.
Some West Euro stuff I could see split/reworked reasonably without going full overkill:
- Britons: ATM they have a slight identity crisis in representing both Vortigernâs Brito-Romans and post-Norman 100 Years War England. Iâd argue that the latter could be represented by Normans, so that Britons could be primarily about Brito-Romans, Welsh, and Bretons. Then you could safely rename Celts into Gaels. Longbowman would become a regional unit shared by Britons and Normans.
- If the Normans get added, Sicilians would need a substantial rework so that they take more inspiration from their Byzantine and Muslim periods instead of focusing so much on their Norman and post-Norman period. The Normans would keep Serjeant as the unique unit, so youâd need to find something else for Sicilians.
- Teutons can be renamed Thuringians to represent central Germans and Teutonic Order (they were one of the major Germanic tribes, and later on they formed the bulk of colonizers in Brandenburg and Prussia). Then you can add Saxons to represent Low Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and Frisians, and Suebians, to represent Upper Germans such as Bavarians, Swabians, Austrians, and the Swiss.
2 Likes
so many issues with that.
I guess the Swiss could be separate.
I think I asked you this before in a different thread and you never answered: what part of the Britonsâ civ design do you think is based on Vortigernâs Brito-Romans?
(Not getting involved in the main topic of this thread, because I know from past experience that people suggesting more German civs exclusively focus on gameplay-irrelevant cultural details.)
2 Likes
My bad, I forgot to answer!
So itâs not so much gameplay reasons (I donât know much about pre-Anglo-Saxon warfare), more vibes-based. Vortigern scenario has his civilization as Britons instead of Celts, and the name itself evokes the legendary Arthurian vibe rather than Anglo-Norman. In AOE4 they are English instead, making it clearer what they are meant to represent.
1 Like
AOE2 is NOT a grand strategy game, civs arenât supposed to be independant realms (Ulm civ OP, please nerf they conquer half the HRE by the time some priest nails some paper on a church doorâŠ) but a culture group. Teutons are all of medieval Germans + their offshoots notably around the Baltic, not just the Teutonic Knights. Every german realm is already covered by Teutons.
The Low Countries are Burgundians however, as the civ covers the Etats de Bourgogne who quickly became centered not on Burgundy but on modern-day Belgium. Burgundians would also be an okay placeholder for the Swiss. Danemark = Vikings. For Angles Jutes Saxons⊠either Vikings or Goths would be placeholders too.
3 Likes
Why would burgundians be a replacemnet for them?They fought the swiss and loss right.Id argue celts are a better fit as helvertians were of celtic origin.
- Switzerland was part of the Kingdom of Burgundy, then Middle Francia
- gameplay-wise the flemish revolution, the population taking up arms, is quite similar to swiss militias. Flemish militia being broadly similar to swiss pikemen. While Teutons are a heavy and slow feudal army.
So you can make an argument to put Burgundians rather than Teutons for the Swiss.
2 Likes
Dude you are asking to add Hesse-Darmstadt as a civ. Your civ choices are absurdly granular and arbitrary
We already have an English civ, Germans and English are separated already
I know my history your choices are just bad
4 Likes
yes. Already 4 civs for such a tiny country and they want a dozen more apparently. What they donât realize is splitting tiny regions into a separate aoe 2 civ will most likely lead to terrible civs like Sicilians, Dravidians.
The problem is that adding like a lot of civs which are already covered by another civ is so reduntant and it basically increases the game size for nothing, like as everyone said Teutons is already representing Germany in that regard, even if there are multiple elements that differ from region to region.
Iâd rather see an African DLC at this point because thereâs untapped potential for a lot of cool Civs and if we have to limit ourselves to Europe, a Balkan DLC including Wallachians (which are not covered by Magyars, mind you) and Serbs could work. Or you know what could work? A North-American DLC.
1 Like
I wouldnât really call Dravidians âtinyâ⊠India looks small on Mercator projection, but their population numbered millions already in the middle ages.
Sicilians would be fine if they took more inspiration from other periods of southern Italian history than just the Norman and post-Norman period. They might be small, but their history is interesting enough. More interesting than Hesse-something anyways.
2 Likes
India is a subcontinent not a small area like normandy.
i think the issue isnât so much that Dravidians cover a small area or population, but that the civ isnât fun to play as or against. same goes for the majority of DLC civs
This guy has so often been a spammer a borderline troll and some sort of eurosupremisict and still gets to blather on
10 Likes
I wish I could like your post multiple times.
Wat�
Dravidians should be split even more.
India is nearly the size of Europe and it has 4 civs, Europe has 19.
4 Likes
Most of those civs it would split to would still be larger than Sicily and Burgundy combined! Nevermijd the fact Burgundy barely takes advantage of its Germanic roots the way Franks and Goths do
7 Likes