you’re operating under the assumption that we get enough civs that you can have your cake (add Indian civs first) and eat it too (they still add more civs later, so we can add Africans and Native Americans).
this could very well not be the case.
what if we only get 4 or 5 civs?
btw southern tip of africa = zimbabwe only should be prioritised over all other civs?
He means Kongolese and Swahili too, they are also southern Africa
Those 3 should be added for sure
3 more for Africa, 3 more for India, is my compromise solution
Nat ams can definetly come after these 6 are added, I will have no issues then
stop the blame game again.
1 Like
except were still biased. were just biased in favor of bigger populations.
by south africa i’m referring to everything south of the sahara which has zero representation as is.
We need to cover the relevant sub-saharan civs.
2 Likes
i’m not blaming, merely pointing out that he’s operating under idealistic circumstances which may not happen.
the fact is we don’t even know if were getting new civs. let alone how many.
operating under those circumstances, if representation is what matters, then you should focus on expanding into areas of the world that don’t have representation.
does it suck for India and Chinese that under these circumstances they might have to take a back seat? sure.
would i absolutely be willing to talk further Indian Civs if we get more then 4-5 civs? absolutely.
1 Like
bigger population = more people that are being represented. how is it not relevant to picking the right civs. there are thousands of tribes around the world in old world as well, yet we are not picking them because we have to prioritize on the ones that are more influential.
1 Like
Not only that, in medieval agrarian times, more population also meant more GDP(=granary/lumber output) and more technology/science
(That changed completely with the industiral age)
i understand this, however i would also like to point out that, technically India is already represented. yes its a crappy umbrella civ concept which i absolutely hate, but represented none the less, just like China and the Slavs.
or could be the most fun or make a great story, or what appeals to people the most.
all i’m saying is let’s go hypothetical for a minute and say Microsoft announces and expac and more civs. and releases 4 new civs. and @Parthnan gets what he wants with all of them representing India.
and then leaves it at that. no more civs. no more expacs.
sure, the India fans would be massively happy. but what about South Africa? Natives? etc.
frankly, if they do decide to release a new expansion, with new civs, i hope they take some of the more popular options, and release a dev run poll to see who should be represented.
1 Like
Just told you that I have a special place for Kongolese and Swahili and just like I ask for Oriya, Bengalis and Tamils
Yet you don’t listen
I want the next 6 civs to be : Kongolese, Swahili, Zimbabweans, Oriya, Bengalis and Tamils
All the major Native civilizations are already there in AOE2 for now. When the time comes we will also go for the minor(in population, scale, technology and GDP) ones.
All of The Native americans’ wars after 1500s were very well covered in AOE3. I think you would love AOE3, because it is dedicated to this Age of Discovery and Native american settlement.
Not the Eastern and Southern Parts of India which covers a large area of people from the subcontinent.
By that logic North America is also already represented that too by two civilizations.
i believe every empire around the world has a story to tell.
don’t play blame game again.
we need to prioritise things one after other. just like the europeans are in the game and players are asking what about the others?
What you’re saying is akin to saying “Africa is already represented”.
Whereas the truth is much the opposite.
India population >= Africa population for all of history, also
India GDP >= Africa GDP for all of history, also
India has much fewer civilizations that are tribal or undeveloped compared to Africa
Only reason we’re not called a continent is we’ve had two very direct roads leading out of India,
one through Afghanistan (historically also a part of India and even today South Asia) into the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan),
and one through Burma(also a tributary of Bengalis) into SE Asia.
and what if they only add 4? or 5? and not 6?
youre telling me all those native civs didn’t have any wars before the 1500s?
again, i’m not blaming anyone. i’m talking about his argument.
and that is why i think areas that AREN’T Represented need to be brought into the fold before areas that are already in the fold.
show me the civ called “africa”
again, did population matter when they released civs before now? clearly not. after all one of the newest civs is Lithuania, who has 3 million people today.
The exact reason why there shouldn’t be a civ called “India”
3 new civs each for the poorly represented Africa and India
except India is a country. Africa is a continent.
and what if they decide on only 4 new civs?
But that is in the modern times.
This game is a game about the medieval times.
and India wasn’t a continent then either.
So? I just explained you
Indian civilizations combined population >= African civilizations combined population for all of history, also
Indian civilizations combined GDP >= African civilizations combined GDP for all of history, also
Indian civilizations combined 33% of ALL World civilizations combined population and 30%+ GDP
again, doesn’t matter. One is a country that is represented. if under a crappy umbrella civ.
and the other is a continent.
and again. if population and GDP mattered so much, why were Lithuanians and Bulgarians chosen?