Needs more options, don’t see Finns, Vandals, Dutch, Armenians…
1 Like
an above post talked about it, the reason they were excluded was because of possibility of overlapping with DotD civs
4 Likes
We definitely need more Europeans civs.
P.S. I’m not being sarcastic.
4 Likes
So muisca vs muisca. Gotcha.
Caribs? Panche? 11
At least after tupi tribes banded together and formed the tupi confederation, they fought regional powers like guaranis and portuguese.
1 Like
Finns are pointless, Armenians arent her because hes not including east euro or caucassian civs and Dutch are represented by Burgundians
4 Likes
Well, your opinion sucks honestly
At least it sucks until we get the rest of the world covered
2 Likes
The Muisca fought regional powers. The Caribs and the Spanish (since you mentioned Portuguese).
Caribs were as advanced as Guaranis and Tupis. Muiscans were the most advanced among them.
2 Likes
And for how long they fought the Spanish I wonder. How many decades, I wonder. At least.
1 Like
I think my opinions speak for all the people who hate history but love AoE.
That people should love fun civs eithet way
4 Likes
i dont think that correlates, as if you hate history, you wouldn’t care what civ gets added at all, in fact, you might not want any new civs
you’d only care about the concept behind those civs anyways, and euro civs can get repetitive
7 Likes
Finns did not do much in the Middkle Ages, Vandals are an offshoot of the Visigoths that was relevant for close to100 years, and since Georgians are rumoured to be in DotD, I refrained from adding them and Bohemians, while Armenians would be too much like teh Georgians and Byzantines, so there is little design space there.
1 Like
More than the Portuguese fought the Tupis.
By that logic no Native civs should be added because most of them were conqered by the Spanish in a short time.
1 Like
Maybe I’m just anti-non-European-civilisations.
Im sick of this comment, Im just pro-representation.
Europe already has a great representation
3 Likes
Surely you know the tupi confederation was destroyed. Ok. But the founding tupi tribes weren’t defeated, even today brazil still tries to subjugate them.
Except aztecs, mayans and incas were VERY relevant in the history of the whole continent.
It was a terrible argument so please ignore it.
Only the Incas were relevant across South America.
Mayans and Aztecs fought neighbour tribes. Just like Muisca. Aztecs even failed to conquer most of them.
Portuguese destroyed the Tupis without any losses.
2 Likes
First: would you mind backing up your claim in saying that the Tarascans were more advanced that the Aztecs and Mayans? I am a historian, but even historians miss some important parts of history that can be insightful. But from all my own Meso-American research and study into those cultures, has taught me that the Central Americans (Mexica-Azteca and Mayan-Guatamalan peoples) and the South American Andean-Incans were significantly more advanced than any other peoples living in the two continents of North and South America. Tarascans were living on the fringes of the Aztec Empire, and I find if very difficult to believe you that they were MORE advanced than the very Aztecs themselves, or perhaps the history books are wrong and should be covering more about the Tarascans and NOT the Aztecs? 
And second, why would the fact that one American civilization who held out longer against the Spanish conquistadores make them BETTER than the Aztecs and Mayans and Incans?
The Western Roman Empire lasted in only ~500 years, and yet the tiny state the Republic of Venice lasted a stunning 1100 years (!) before falling to Napoleon Bonaparte’s soldiers in 1797 (Venice was an independent state since 697 AD), but many scholars would declare that the Western Roman Empire was more impactful to human history in culture, politics, and society than the Venetian state was to history.
2 Likes
You just conceded that you have no valid arguments, and your reasoning is “I want more euro civs”.
Should have quit before that.
3 Likes