The thing is these people assume that if they don’t know anything about something, it must be because there is nothing to know about.
E.g. “I’ve never heard anything about African history personally, therefore African history probably never existed”.
Some scientists suggest that the Iroquois League was founded as early as 1150. Regardless, if you see such a civ representing all Mohawk speaking people, they can trace their past even further. It’s not like we have the Portuguese either who where relevant mostly outside of the time frame of AOE2 too. The Burmese have a campaign completely set in the 16th century too if I recall correctly.
I would personally put Mississippians and Anasazi before Iroquois, but they’re not as recognizable admittedly.
To be honest, it’s quite stunning. Do they really think they didn’t do anything of importance just because they didn’t write it down because it wasn’t part of their culture?
Imagine another culture X completely disregarding culture Y, just because e.g. they record their history in knots instead of signs. It’s a quite narrow view on Human culture in my honest opinion.
I think a lot of people here need to be reminded that we already have 39 amazing civs in the game, each that are very unique and cover every single continent of the globe, save Antarctica, of the Medieval period.
Just because there were some like 500 separate human civilizations living in the medieval period, does not mean that we should turn Age of Empires 2 into the “United Nations medieval videogame”. Age2 already does a solid job in representing the medieval world.
Think of it this way:
→ When Age of Kings was first released, it only had 13 civs. There were no America civs, and only a few East Asian civs were present, and Europe still lacked Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, and Slavs. The Fredrick Barbarossa campaign even had to “make up” the “Italians” in Missions 3 and 4.
→ But when Age of Conquerors were released, Europe become more complete in representation, East Asia gained Koreans and the Meso-American civs Aztecs and Mayans were added!
→ Forgotten Empires added “Eastern Europe” civs Slavs and Magyars finally complete Europe (more or less) and Italians and Indians to represent the Subcontinent.
→ African Kingdoms also added African representation in Mailians and Ethiopians. Added Portuguese, further completing Europe, and Berbers, completing representation of the Arab-speaking world.
→ Rise of the Rajas brought in yet another wonderful corner of the world: Southeastern Asia, with new architecture design, another Elephant unit and more variety to the table of Age 2.
→ The Last Khans pretty much wrapped up all of Asia by filling in “Central Asian” civs Tartars and Cumans. Throwing in Bulgarians was good, especially as their arch-nemesis, the Byzantines, was among the first civs of Age2. And the addiiton of Lithuanians, more completed Eastern Europe.
And while *Dukes of the West" adds more European civs, it is only a DLC, and is completely optional for all players. Without them, one can safely regard Burgundians as “Franks” and Sicilians as “Italians”, given that Franks and Italians are already in the game.
Can we have a few more civs in Age2? Of course we can! I personally would not mind see a few more added. But I stress to you all that this is NOT a game that is designed to be a “Category of ALL peoples who lived in the Medieval era”. Even other prominent video game franchises with medievalism as a theme, like the Sid Meier’s Civilization 6 and Creative Assembly’s TOTAL WAR franchise does not cover every. single. civilization.
Videogames are out to make money…not become history documentaries. …and I say this as a historian who LOVES to watch documentaries and read up on ancient forgotten empires and cultures.
Technically speaking though, the Penguins unit does represent that continent as well in Age2. 
Brilliantly written we have enough and more civilizations to represent missing once.heck the campaigns even have renamed civilizations now.
same we dont must cover evry nomansland people and change em to fit castle,knights, Europaen style
I am definitely in favor of completely new styles of architecture:
Poles, Romanians and Serbs - Eastern European
Czechs - Central European
Croats - Mediterranean
Romanians and Serbs could potentially have a Byzantine style.
Eh, I disagree. The game can really serve to represent the powerful unrepresented empires of the middle ages (and I dont mean Mississippians or Mapuche or even Polys). They are going to add new civs anyways so lets use those slots well.
Tibetas/Tufans
Bengals
Swiss
Nubians
Tamils
Kongolese
Swahili
Serbs
Jurchen
Top 9 so far
I hope we get Tamils and Bengalis soon.
They seem to be fairly popular so even more reasons to get them
swiss so much votes i thiguht was same as teutons
i like to see serbia is high too in poll
Yeah true.
However I still dont think you can make anything really that diferent from Bulgarians from what I heard
Unlike Indian civs that can easily be made to be unique gameplaywise and are really separated and far more powerful
u say indias can becone unique i dont see this
i say give us romania or serbia and we can make em unique with gunpowder orthodoxy and more bulgarias dont hav
as long as its what players want developpers can make it work a ;D
You probably dont know about what Indians were doing in the middle ages.
Gameplaywise they would be extremely diferent
They already were orthodox. Gunpowder is nice but I dont think you can justify making it the main focus of the civ
I dont think so considering the devs track record with related civs
Lithuanians also North Euopean architecture?
but u have idea abot all balkans thats why u call bulgarians slav when then was turkic tribe not likee today
i dont say indias cant be more civs but npt 4 of THEM and 0 of balkan its not fair and devs would not letdown fans like this
No
North European style of architecture would be very “wooden”. Wooden buildings with numerous decorations.
Lithuanian architecture was very similar to Polish and Teutonic architecture. Lithuanian castles resemble Teutonic Order castles.