[Poll](Updated) Which civs would you like to see in the game? (All popularly requested civs included)

[Parthnan]

@MatCauthon3

why were Lithuanians and Bulgarians chosen?

They were chosen only for 1 reason : to fit the Battle of the Kalka river theme of The Last Khans.
It is completely because that region was not well represented.

Before we had only Slavs and Mongols even though Liths, Cumans, Tatars and Bulgs are significant entities.

Similarly, now, there are two regions , Africa and India that are poorly (if at all) represented

Which is why I ask for only these 2 regions to be filled in the same fashion, after these are filled, I have no issue with Aruacans and Mapuche.

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

One is a country

we are talking about the S U B C O N T I N E N T

Indian subcontinent

modern borders don’t make civs in aoe2.

there is really no point in arguing with you.

[Parthnan]

(I chose EU because Russia and other polar regions are far too scarcely populated)

So all factors point in favour of filling out Indian and African civilizations

Area, Population, GDP, Political system, Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Ethnicities etcetera.

Also, every area in the South asian landmass is populated, unlike for EU(Scandanavia, Iceland, Greenland was hardly populated)

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

Lithuanians and Bulgarians

to divide slavs into it’s three regions: East West and South.

[MatCauthon3]

@Parthnan

They were chosen only for 1 reason : to fit the Battle of the Kalka river theme of The Last Khans.
It is completely because that region was not well represented.

so clearly then, the devs put more interest in representing underrepresented areas, over population and GDP.

@Parthnan

Similarly, now, there are two regions , Africa and India that are poorly (if at all) represented

three. north america

@Juggernaut8704

we are talking about the S U B C O N T I N E N T

and has representation in and around it.

and i’m still waiting for an answer to this question

@MatCauthon3

and what if they decide on only 4 new civs?

that i asked.

@Parthnan

So all factors point in favour of filling out Indian and African civilizations

Area, Population, GDP, Political system, Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Ethnicities etc etc.

@Juggernaut8704

to divide slavs into it’s three regions: East West and South.

which just goes to show that population and gdp clearly isn’t as important as you two are making it out to be.

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

which just goes to show that population and gdp clearly isn’t as important

then what matters? area?
here you have it:

[Poll](Updated) Which civs would you like to see in the game? (All popularly requested civs included)

[image] [image] (I chose EU because Russia and other polar regions are far too scarcely populated) So all factors point in favour of filling out Indian and African civilizations Area, Population, GDP, Political system, Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Ethnicities etcetera. Also, every area in the South asian landmass is populated, unlike for EU(Scandanavia, Iceland, Greenland was hardly populated)

[Parthnan]

@MatCauthon3

which just goes to show that population and gdp clearly isn’t as important as you two are making it out to be.

It’s not just Landmass and Population
It’s also Net GDP, Political system, Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Cultural differences, Agrarian output, Population distribution and Ethnicities

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

and what if they decide on only 4 new civs?

Dravidians
Tibetans
Bantu
Iroquois

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

i’m still waiting for an answer to this question

what will be your answer to the same question?

[Parthnan]

Iroquios was never a major civilization in terms of
Population (only 12,000!), Net GDP,(not even on the scale) Political system(mainly tribal), Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Agrarian output, and Population distribution

So I would replace Iroquois with Bengalis, who are by far the most populous of all the Indian civs, and whose armies were in the millions.

Bengalis(Palas) were 40 million strong with 10% of world GDP alone (similar to Dravidians)

[MatCauthon3]

@Juggernaut8704

then what matters? area?
here you have it:

no. clearly area doesn’t matter either. i don’t know how they decide, but my point being, that nothing they have done to this point shows that this huge onus that is put on population or GDP is accurate at all.

@Parthnan

It’s also Net GDP, Political system, Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Cultural differences, Agrarian output, Population distribution and Ethnicities

none of which helped India get split in the most recent expac did they?

@Juggernaut8704

Dravidians
Tibetans
Bantu
Iroquois

i’d love that honestly.

@Juggernaut8704

what will be your answer to the same question?

i’d probably have done something similar to yours.

I know for a fact i wouldn’t have chosen anything EU though.
Tamils or Dravidians for India area.
Kongo and Zimbabwe
and i don’t know for the 4th. Tibet could make a good choice, but at the same time I’d like to see at least one more Native American. maybe Mapuche?

[Parthnan]

@MatCauthon3

and i don’t know for the 4th. Tibet could make a good choice, but at the same time I’d like to see at least one more Native American. maybe Mapuche?

I have got nothing more to say to you.
They numbered literally just 12,000 people at their height, which was in 17th century.

While every single Indian civilization had >10 million independently(Afghans, Punjabis, Rajputs, Oriya, Tamils, Kannads, Maratha, Palas) with Plate mail infantry armies millions strong and thousands of ships (granted these didnt fare well during the “colonization”)

and controlled a landmass largen than the EU combined. With a near-uniformly distributed population.

[Juggernaut8704]

all of us have similar choices there is really no point of unnecessarily fighting.

just share knowledge with each other and state your opinions rather than pulling each others leg.

[MatCauthon3]

@Parthnan

They numbered literally just 12,000 people at their height, which was in 17th centure.

if population mattered as much as you claim it did, India would have received more representation by now.

@Juggernaut8704

all of us have similar choices there is really no point of unnecessarily fighting.

my whole point was to point out that you can’t just operate under idealistic best case scenario. you ca hope and dream for it, but the old saying goes “hope for the best, but expect/plan for the worst”.
thus it makes sense to operate under the assumption if we do get more civs, and the goal is to include as many as people, targeting India with so many picks so early would not be a good idea.

[Parthnan]

@MatCauthon3

@Parthnan

They numbered literally just 12,000 people at their height, which was in 17th centure.

if population mattered as much as you claim it did, India would have received more representation by now.

@MatCauthon3

no. clearly area doesn’t matter either.

@MatCauthon3

@Parthnan

It’s also Net GDP, Political system, Technology level, Army size, Navy Size, Cultural differences, Agrarian output, Population distribution and Ethnicities

none of which helped India get split in the most recent expac

Then what matters? Tell me NOW.

According to you,

Landmass Area doesnt matter
Population doesnt matter,
GDP doesnt matter,
Political system doesnt matter,
Technology level doesnt matter,
Army size doesnt matter,
Navy Size doesnt matter,
History before 12th century doesnt matter,
Percentage of GDP of World doesnt matter,
Percentage of Population of World doesnt matter,
Number of Ethnicities doesnt matter
for a civilization.

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

expect/plan for the worst

also we need to take into account that there might not be any new architecture sets if they just want to include a few new civs. in that case we may need to actually put two civs into indian architecture set to prevent overcrowding the other sets.

[Juggernaut8704]

@MatCauthon3

India would have received more representation by now.

forgotten empires was actually a mod, they included many such big umbrellas such as the indians, slavs. they didn’t expected to grow into an official dlc. that’s where it went wrong.

[MatCauthon3]

@Parthnan

Then what matters? Tell me NOW.

i don’t know how they decide what matters most for inclusion. but if it was population, area, and production, India would have been sure fire hit for more civs, way back after forgotten.

@Juggernaut8704

also we need to take into account that there might not be any new architecture sets if they just want to include a few new civs. in that case we may need to actually put two civs into indian architecture set to prevent overcrowding the other sets.

Tamils and Bengalis?

@Juggernaut8704

forgotten empires was actually a mod, they included many such big umbrellas such as the indians, slavs. they didn’t expected to grow into an official dlc. that’s where it went wrong.

which could have been fixed with the next DLC. i agree umbrella civs definitely suck, i just don’t want that whole all eggs in one basket.

it would really suck for Africa and other areas if we did a purely new India DLC and then nothing else came after that.

[Parthnan]

@MatCauthon3

the devs put more interest in representing underrepresented areas, over population and GDP.

Exactly, till now devs have done that recently.

So now the under- represented areas (can be determined by the factors I have stated) are in Africa and India first and foremost.

Because

Landmass Area matters
Population matters,
GDP matters,
Political system matters,
Technology level matters,
Army size matters,
Navy Size matters,
History before 12th century matters,
Percentage of GDP of World matters,
Percentage of Population of World matters,
Number of Ethnicities matters

[MatCauthon3]

@Parthnan

So now the under- represented areas (can be determined by the factors I have stated) are in Africa and India first and foremost.

I’d still put Africa and South America ahead of the Indian Subcontinent.