[poll] Next DLC after Viking Sagas

[smiki5five]

Maybe if Saxons end up doing poorly on the ladder, the Devs will give them gunpowder when the Teuton Split DLC drops, so that they fit the late Saxons as well. But I have doubts, the fact that they were given a specifically British dragon as an emblem instead of the pan-Saxon white horse heavily suggests they were never considered as a civ that covers the continental half of the Saxons.

[throwawayacerola]

@WhiteMagick4

Serbs, Croats

I’d like a single Sclaveni civ that diverges as you age up.

[Mahazona]

@throwawayacerola

I’d like a single Sclaveni civ that diverges as you age up.

not aoe2 mechanics so such things should never be implemented ever.

[throwawayacerola]

They said the same about charged attacks.

[Mahazona]

Charged attacks was something planned in the betas but was scrapped.

[DynasticPlanet5]

You are talking to a 5 day old account telling you it’s a throw away account. Is it worth engaging with?

That said I agree that it’s a horrible mechanic of either or!

[throwawayacerola]

They were scrapped for a reason. Same with Habsburgs civ.

[throwawayacerola]

My candidates:

• North America DLC with a north american set for new civs
• Sahel/Horn of Africa DLC with an eastern african set for Ethiopians and new civs
• Balkans/MENA DLC with a southeastern european set for Byzantines, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians and maybe a new civ
• Central Asia DLC with an eurasian (nomadic) set for Huns, Cumans, maybe Mongols and new civs
• Oceania DLC with an oceanian set for new civs and maybe Malay

[Stelphy]

Sja for you people the Teutons probably represent Bommenberend (mister bombard Berend).

Greetings from Utrecht

[MatM1996]

@PersiasRerising

The Songhai, kanemburu and hausa would be the most relevant for a DLC because they had massive empires in terms of area and are connected historically for a campaign.

BUT!

They do fit the current architecture perfectly. I also don’t think they would make a new architecture just for the Ethiopians and not use it in the new campaign. That’s why I think we won’t get the Sahel empires but (if we stay in Africa) the East or the South.

If we get the East, it could expand to South Arabia. Yemen, Oman, Somalia And Swahili (Zanzibar). Have connected history and very special architecture. Not sure if Ethiopians would also receive it, because this would leave Mailand with a unique architecture.

South and tropical Africa would be completely independent of exis civs.

We could have a wide area covering architecture (Zimbabwe, Kongo, Swahili) like with the South American architecture or a tropical focus (Kongo, Benin, ingbo, oyo).

Yes, I would leave the current African architecture to all African civilizations from now on (since I don’t think they’ll include more than 10 African civilizations anyway)…

@AccidentalArcher

The problem with Africa right now is that the Malian campaign is six Malian mirror matchups. It is not very exciting. And the Ethiopian campaign is six Ethiopian mirror matches.

I think the next DLC should be middle eastern but eventually, I would like to see 3 West African civs (with 3 new campaigns) and to throw these civs into the Malian campaign to make it more interesting in terms of civ matchups. Six mirror matchups is so boring.

I say the same thing for the Yodit campaign. Fighting the Ethiopians as the Ethiopians gets boring.

The same can be said for the Sforza campaign where you only fight Italians (and the Venetians are represented by Portuguese for some reason). Sforza would greatly benefit from more Italian civs or if the Italians were given more unique units to add variety to the campaign.

Yes, it’s about time they included Africa…at least the Middle East DLC could bring in the Nubians…and regarding Sforza, yes, it desperately needs a division of the Italians…at least into Venetians, Genoese, and Papal States…

@Grep0sofHeckels

I just don’t think they really fit in the game. It’d make more sense to have like fringe split civs such as Aragornese/Catalans with a Catalan Company campaign and Almogavars UU. Then whatever you could do with like Samoans who mostly just chilled on their islands.

Yes, there’s an interesting campaign by the Catalan company (it could end or begin at the historic battle of Bapheus)…

@Apocalypso4826

There should not be multiple granular Polynesian civs, but only a single umbrella civ covering all of them. Either way, the Samoans did have an empire, small as it was.

@RatcicleFan

But would they be a good representation of all different groups or would they be another case like pre-DoI Indians?

@Apocalypso4826

There are only two major Polynesian cultural groupings: Western Polynesia and Eastern Polynesia. Western had a largely unified culture despite large distance because of Samoa and later Tonga consolidating all islands under their control. Eastern Polynesia was more isolated and had more uniqueness among the different islands. I think it could work.

Yes, I at least would divide Polynesians into Tongans, Samoans, and Micronesians…

@Jasper

My suggestion to add the Dutch was mostly a joke (I said that they should be able to build on water ), they fit more in Age of Empires III. But it got a good discussion going, interesting points!
I would say that the Saxons have more potential. They are now based on Anglo-Saxon England, while the Saxons were also in north of the Netherlands and Germany. Specifically, the north of the Netherlands consisted of Frisians and Saxons, so not Burgundians.

Yes, with Saxons (high Middle Ages) and Burgundians (late Middle Ages) there is already sufficient representation for the Dutch…

@smiki5five

Maybe if Saxons end up doing poorly on the ladder, the Devs will give them gunpowder when the Teuton Split DLC drops, so that they fit the late Saxons as well. But I have doubts, the fact that they were given a specifically British dragon as an emblem instead of the pan-Saxon white horse heavily suggests they were never considered as a civ that covers the continental half of the Saxons.

Yes, I would rework the Saxons in a Teutonic dlc so that they have gunpowder (and Saxon AIs like):

1. Conrad the Salian (c. 990-1039): Holy Roman Emperor from 1027-1039; first emperor of the Salian House; grandson of Otto the Great. Notable for repressing rebellious factions of the Empire.

2. Henry III (1016-1056): Holy Roman Emperor from 1046-1056. Last of a succession of emperors who successfully dominated the Papacy. Son of Conrad the Salian.

3. Henry the Lion (c. 1130-1195): Duke of Saxony from 1142-1180 and of Bavaria from 1156-1180. He used his political and military acumen to gain control of large swaths of the Holy Roman Empire. Son of Lothair II.

4. King Heinrich (876-936): Heinrich der Vogler (or Henry the Fowler), Duke of Saxony from 912-936 and King of East France from 919-936. Defeated Magyars at the Battle of Riade, and successfully subdued various Slavic tribes. Father of Otto the Great.

5. Lothair II (1075-1137): Holy Roman Emperor from 1133-1137. Won a civil war against the House of Hohenstaufen and its supporters. Grandfather of Henry the Lion.

6. Otto the Great (912-973): Holy Roman Emperor from 962-973. Oversaw the consolidation of the Holy Roman Empire through the use of the Church and by the decisive defeat of the Magyars at the Battle of Lechfeld, ending their incursions into the empire. Son of King Heinrich (Henry the Fowler).

The rest of the AI ​​will depend on what new German civilizations they introduce…

@throwawayacerola

They were scrapped for a reason. Same with Habsburgs civ.

That means we might see the Habsburgs in an Alpine DLC with the Swiss…

@throwawayacerola

• North America DLC with a north american set for new civs
• Sahel/Horn of Africa DLC with an eastern african set for Ethiopians and new civs
• Balkans/MENA DLC with a southeastern european set for Byzantines, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians and maybe a new civ
• Central Asia DLC with an eurasian (nomadic) set for Huns, Cumans, maybe Mongols and new civs
• Oceania DLC with an oceanian set for new civs and maybe Malay

I like it, with that I would consider the game complete…

[Apocalypso4826]

@MatM1996

Yes, I at least would divide Polynesians into Tongans, Samoans, and Micronesians…

This totally contradicts what I said, and is also total nonsense. Micronesians are not Polynesians; they’re a separate group entirely. It would make the most sense to have the three regions of Oceania represented with umbrella civs.

[MatM1996]

Okay, so what would we call them?..

[Apocalypso4826]

Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians. Of the three, the Polynesians are the only ones that are lumped together based on ethnic and cultural ties rather than geography, but Micronesians and Melanesians still have some common elements amongst their different islands.

[MatM1996]

Yes, that could be it… anyway, I don’t think we’ll have more than 3 Pacific civs…

[Apocalypso4826]

That’s fine. We don’t need more than three. I just want to make sure they’re actually large enough to have feasible material for them. If Polynesia had multiple civs instead of just one, that might not be the case. This way, they can have a Rapa Nui Wonder and unique tech, Hawaiian unique unit and bonuses, Tongan campaign and dialogue, Maori Castle, and Samoan, Tongan, and Rapa Nui AI player names. If they were divided into, say, Samoans, Tongans, and Hawaiians, there would have to be a lot of extrapolation from scant data to make them work.

[Mahazona]

@MatM1996

Yes, with Saxons (high Middle Ages) and Burgundians (late Middle Ages) there is already sufficient representation for the Dutch…

@MatM1996

regarding Sforza, yes, it desperately needs a division of the Italians…at least into Venetians, Genoese, and Papal States…

Why would you want the game to have italian city states but not dutch?ideally both of these should be included ingame.

[DynasticPlanet5]

Sometimes I think Mat just over quotes too much that I cannot follow what might be good points. His words tends to sound very emotionless although maybe it’s the fact he quotes an entire post just to respond with 12 words and then repeats with another really making it hard to follow what exactly he is agreeing with in said post

Personally I really would want a crammed together Dutch/Guelders/Frisian/Flemish civ so the Flemish Milita could have another home

[WindwardHail620]

@Gaturro7777

if you had to pick 9 more to get 65 civs as a final number, wich ones would you pick?

My nine would be:
For East Africa, Nubian & Somalia.
For Mesoamerica, Purépecha, Mixtec & Zapotec.
Southeast Asian (missing from the poll), Thai, Mon & Champa.
And wild card Mississippians.

(Left out, Kanem, Hausa & Songhai for an other good Africa DLC).

[MatM1996]

@Mahazona

Why would you want the game to have italian city states but not dutch?ideally both of these should be included ingame.

Because the Dutch became independent in 1581 and their peak was in the 17th century, while the Italian city-states had their peak in the 15th century… besides, I don’t feel like I’m missing the Dutch, since the Burgundians are more or less similar to them (except that the Dutch are good at economics and naval warfare because of the fluyts, and the Burgundians at cavalry)…

@DynasticPlanet5

Sometimes I think Mat just over quotes too much that I cannot follow what might be good points. His words tends to sound very emotionless although maybe it’s the fact he quotes an entire post just to respond with 12 words and then repeats with another really making it hard to follow what exactly he is agreeing with in said post

Yes, sometimes there are many posts and I simply group them into a more general answer to reply faster…

[smiki5five]

@ÖmerBey

Azerbaijanians/Azeris could be in the Mountain Royals DLC. Let me guess. UU was Qizilbash, UT was Citadel, Campaign was Ismael. Ismael and his fallowers were Turcomans. Playing Ismael as Persians isn’t accurate. Moreover his Qizilbash ally is Tatars. I wonder why did they scrap.

@smiki5five

(…) the in-game Persians with elephants aren’t fit for his campaign. Turcomans/Azeris designed with the later period in mind would fit better.

Let’s say the Ismail campaign is given to a new Azeri / Turcoman civ – should a new Persian campaign cover the pre-Islamic period, or the Khwarezmian empire? The latter too was rules by a Persianized Turkic dynasty, but they are amongst the last prominent Persian(ate) powers to have employed War Elephants (IMHO the conquest of Khwarezm by Genghis Khan could be seen as the true end of the in-game Persian civ)