Then create the Age of India - there will be 39 civs only from the Indian succontinent. You will see that it won’t get any interest in the world. Only in India.
Pretty sure most people don’t care about being represented most people just care about if the game is fun
That’s the last excuse you can give?
Yes I am one of them, that’s why am been sticking to the game for so long.
But not everyone is me.
Instead of spoiling the topics of European civs all the time and instead of constantly provoking people, create a topic for yourself about your proposals for AoE 2.
Alternatively, create a survey:
How many new Indian civs do you want?
One is more than enough
2-3 new Indian civs
4-5 new Indian civs
5-7 new Indian civs
7+ new Indian civs
Then you will make sure how many Indian civs people want.
I don’t want any new Indian Civs. Atleast fix the problems with the civ that’s been pending for so long:
Even that won’t be done?
It’s been months everything ignored.
8 Indian Civs as Sandy Petersen (the Ensemble Studio developer) said. Would you be able to deliver?
Here you have given your game bugs in Indian civ. It has nothing to do with the new civs. Besides, you are complaining about font problems in your language, but my language is not in the game at all …
The last link to the topic “Why Indians is the worst civilization in AoE2?” did not gain popularity and was immediately explained. He was liked only by those who are loud about India - that is, the loud minority in this forum.
Sandy Petersen is also the guy that designed the mess that is the Mameluke, and took away Lances from the Knight line.
2 would be ideal like how Burma Khmer Malay represent SEA or China Korea Japan represent EA region.and it makes for an easy DLC just add wonders ui uu and maybe voices.Also india has lots of unique weapons for uu’s like the whip urumi sword gauntlet swords etc.
If there was a DLC about India with two civs, it should be - Bengals and Dravidians. If three civs in the DLC then the third civ should be - Punjabis.
Another DLC on Asia could add Asian civs from different regions - Tibetans, Khitans, Siberians, Siamese and Khazars (Asian Forgotten Empires).
The third Indian civ should be Kannada or Oriya, definitely not Punjabi. Punjabis were irrelevant.
And many other inaccuracies or blunders i saw in his iinterview vid haha
Achievements based on what?
Far easier to just add civs based on power and time lasted, and population is power at some point
Influence on science, discoveries, technology, culture - general factors that influenced humanity.
I dont think that your concept of achievements really applies well to this game tbh for multiple reasons.
Its a factor, sure, but at the end of the day its not a very fitting with the current civs either
The USSR won the defensive war with the Third Reich thanks to the fact that it had more soldiers than the enemy of cartridges - of course this is a joke;)
The great population is mostly weak undeveloped masses - a living shield. They simply flood the opponent with their numbers. This is their advantage. But most often they are technologically backward.
So from what you said, these civs will be primitive, but they would be predominant in numbers - cheap, weak, consuming a smaller number of populations. Probably these civs would have more variants of the Elephant unit; maybe one would be infantry…
My concept of achievement means influencing the history of mankind through civ.
Again: influencing mankind based on what? If you mean impacting humanity to this day I think your idea is flawed and honestly I think it is stupid since it will favour Europe and the near states only because of the British, the French, the Germans, the Americans and Russians doing so much stuff later, despite civs that influenced them more than for example Somalis being literal ants in the wider world.
If you want to look at influencing the history of mankind I think its a far smarter move to just focus on the influence on the period. Otherwise we wou
That goes for literally any country with farmer levies. Not even true for India since a large part if not most of the army were profesional soldiers.
Sorry, but I think this is an honestly dumb claim to make over India as a whole
Where are you getting the number 9 from?