At least North American civs had big cities, controlled huge areas for a long time and were not a subfaction of another empire which is already in the game during the time frame of AOE2 like some other suggestions I’ve seen here.
4 Likes
why u compare to other civs sugestions every time when is unrelated??
their nativs who controled nomansland
You started with tents civs, I didn’t. And I just proved you how irrelevant it is if a civ is nomadic or not to be included in the game.
And I’m sorry, but if North America is No Mans Land for you, you’re insulting at least 300 million Americans right now.
3 Likes
it was nomansland UNTIL europe civilization entered
im sorry
1 Like
I recommend you this book which will probably completely blow you away considering how little you apparently now about the great feats of North American civilizations (not meant as an insult, just saying):
Also Britannica has a great article on it if you’re interested.
4 Likes
i respect ur friendlyness but the mounds dont interest me much
i can read more in wikipedia about em tommorrow who knows maybe i change my mind
2 Likes
I would love it if you would 
5 Likes
Point 1: I can get behind that. While, I do LOVE the Central European architecture, and I think it fits Vikings, I can see possibly giving them their own unique style. I think thought that the Slavs are already fine with the current Eastern European architecture set, historically speaking.
Point 2: YES! This is something that I have been asking of for months: Byzantines getting their own architecture style. Mind you, it would not be too dissimilar with the Mediterranean style that Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and Sicilians get–which is technically “Western Mediterranean”–but be more *Byzantine". My biggest reason for this is because the current Mediterranean set has white-washed walls, when the stone used in many Byzantine construction were decidedly brownish in color (as a consequence of land of Anatolia). Just look at the Hagia Sophia (Byzantine Wonder). In-game it is brown colored. But it just stands out too much from the white-washed stone appearance of the Mediterranean set. Ironically, the old Middle Eastern architecture set that the Byzantines used to have, matched more evenly with Hagia Sophia’s appearance in Age2.
As for the Bulgarians though…methinks that they already match well into their current Eastern European architecture. But I am prepared to be proven wrong on that. It is just me remembering seeing pictures of old Bulgarian buildings constructed during the Middle Ages, that they looked similar to the buildings of the Magyars (Hungarians) and the other Slavic peoples.
You are not correct. Technically speaking the old Turkic Bulgars that migrated into the Balkans became the predecessors to the Bulgarian peoples after they “Slavicized”. In other words, they were Turkic in the beginning, but intermingled and married into the Slavic gene pool becoming the Bulgarians. Go and read the historical summary of the Bulgarians that the Age2 developers have kindly laid out in the Menu screen. They say it all there.
The only Bulgars who remained “Turkic” were the ones who never migrated past the Volga River, and they were known as the “Volga Bulgars”. They would get absorbed by the Mongolian-Tartars of the Golden Horde and later by the rising Russian Empire of the 17th-18th century. The Bulgarians in-game though are all those Bulgars that migrated into Europe Proper, and morphed into the “Slavicized” Bulgarians that live in the modern day country of Bulgaria.
FUN FACT: Bulgarian Feta cheese is my favorite feta cheese. 
3 Likes
Technically this is correct, as the name “Bulgarians” did not come until much later after the Middle Ages have concluded. Methinks the devs just wanted to make the distinction between the “European Bulgars” who migrated from Asia and settled into Europe from the “Asian Bulgars” who stayed living in Asia, since the former are considered the “Bulgarians” today.
1 Like
in medievil times magyars and bulagrians were NOT slavic they just got influenced from them
both originated from probabl turkic tribes
2 Likes
Keep it civil
1 Like
That doesnt contradict what I said. Bulgarians are an slavic ethnic group at the end of the day and they adopted Slavic culture.
Also whats the point of limiting the extent of an umbrella for a civ we will never ger? I think the name was just changed because it was more recognizable.
Thats not being uncivil.
Saying something that is just untrue because you didnt look up for it is just not knowing abou whst you are talking about.
I dont know anything about medicine either
5 Likes
*Bulgarians were a turkic ethnic group which eventually adopted slavic culture. (i.e. in the Middle Ages)
They were more turkic than slavic at the start.
1 Like
Saying stuff that way can lead to arguments so it is best to just not say it
Thats the Bulgars, not the Bulgarians.
Bukgars were always the minority in Bulgaria from what it says on Wikipedia
5 Likes
True, I was thinking of the Bulgars who first organized the military and state of what would become Bulgaria. Looks like Bulgarians are a wild mix of them all that ended up slavicized.
So your definition of no man’s land is “a place not occupied by Europeans”?
Here I was, thinking it simply meant a place uninhabited by humans…
6 Likes
Lol didnt read that.
Thats a really really bad take honestly
4 Likes
no in medievil for me is to not occupied by african asian or europen civilizaton just native
but ok change it to anceint tribe land