If we only ever got DLCs from new world regions we’d run out of DLCs pretty fast. FE was about forgotten civs that didn’t make it into the original game but were contenders that could’ve been
1 Like
Leave you alone Bulgarians civ!
It represents only the Bulgarians - the Bulgarian language and even the rulers of this civ are from the times before the “Slavisation” Bulgars - the Turkish people who conquered the Slavs, but succumbed to their culture.
Serbs are a completely different nation and a completely different culture from the Bulgarians. Religion doesn’t matter. Even Serbian Orthodoxy is unique.
1 Like
Here are my proposals with no new architecture set:
The format is New Civ (Architecture set)
“Sultans of the South”"
- Kanembu (African)
- Swahili (African)
- Turkish Campaign
“Rise of the Rajas 2”
- Bengals (South Asian)
- Tamils (South Asian)
- Persian Campaign
“A New World”
- Chimu (American)
- Muisca (American)
- Maya campaign
“Khans and Kings”
- Ghurid (Central Asia)
- Manchu/Jurchen (Central Asian)
- Persian campaign
“Rajas & Kings”
- Bengal (South Asian)
- Tamil (South Asian)
- Ghurid (Central Asian)
- Thai (South East Asian)
With new architecture sets and more commitment:
“Heart of Africa”
- Kongolese (Central African)
- Zimbabweans (Central African)
- Kanembu (Sahel African)
- Swahili (Sahel African)
“A New World”
- Mississippians (Woodland American)
- Iroquois (Woodland American)
- Muisca (Mesoamerican)
- Either Chimu or Toltec (Mesoamerican)
“Celestial Empires”
- Nepalese (Himalayan)
- Tibetans (Himalayan)
- Jurchen (Far Eastern)
- Bengal (South Asian)
“Empires of the Sea”
- Tongans (Polynesian)
- Maori (Polynesian)
- Tamils (South Asian)
- Swahili (African)
@GusTank04 FE as in Forgotten Empires, the game studio, not the HD DLC.
5 Likes
When theres literally only two things you would have to change to make Slavs Bulgarians (the farming bonus and the imperial UT) theres no point at adding them when they are even related (and Bulgarians are 90% Slavs, Bulgars influence is there but its not that important). They have:
a. An barracks tech (or techs) for free
b. A siege related discount
c. A general military bonus
d. Bad archers, mediocre defenses, good infantry, cavalry and siege
e. THey both could have Orthodoxy as a UT and Boyars as a UU
Dont lie to me and tell me thats not enough to just put them togheter. They both even have an imperial age UT for their infantry
3 Likes
Ohh, my bad
Finns were pretty prevalent across North eastern Europe before the Mongol invasion. Ever look at a Crusader Kings map? Half of it is Finno-ugric…
1 Like
I mean dawn of the dukes would mean that a Grand duchy of Finland is possible but that wasn’t until the late 1500s. If a Swedish civ was created to umbrella the Finns that would be historical, leaving the Vikings civ to cover Norway/Denmark
That territory was under Sweden so it isnt really for a “Finn” civ
Don’t lie to me, you don’t want any new European civs in this game…
Your arguments are weak. Besides, I don’t know if you know, but Bulgarian units speak Bulgarian. It is a completely different language from Serbian. Many words in Bulgarian are of Turkish origin (from before “Slavisation” Bulgars). From what I understand you would change this civ’s symbol, single, rulers’ names, unit, technologies, and language spoken by individuals - that is, you would create a new civ in place of the old one … Waste of work and waste of time.
1 Like
This is more civs than there are civ slots left that can be added to the game.
There is also problem that some civs in the game that exist are already under-utilized. We have civs that are barely getting pick by 1% of people. I think it is not needed too many more civs to the game unfortunately. Even the current civs are in a state of mess.
Those are just ideas to counter the argument that there’s nothing left culturally speaking to represent around the world which isn’t yet another civ from a overcrowded region.
I don’t know if this limit is really true and if Forgotten Empires could circumvent it (should we ever come near to the supposedly 48 civ limit).
You’re talking about which game mode exactly? I’m playing with all the civs all the time. Sure, the new civs are usually not as straightforward to play like the Franks and with 37 civs it’s not very surprising that some will not get picked that often.
3 Likes
1v1 ranked RM, 2v2 ranked RM, 3v3 ranked RM, 4v4 ranked RM
E.g. here is a civ that gets <1% usage
It would be nice to fix underutilized civs instead of adding 5 more DLC
Ranked is a completely different story. Some people will just play with the easiest civ to play they know from years of gameplay. Of course newer civs with weird unit combinations like the Monk, Elephant, Infantry focus of Burmese will not get played that often, especially considering their one strong suit, the Arambai, got nerfed heavily.
Most people don’t play multiplayer and they sure have something to say when it comes to the future of the game 
At the end of the day, as long as they sell, Microsoft will want to push FE for DLCs I guess. This might change with AOE4 or not, depending on how well it does.
2 Likes
I wanted Balts and Vlachs a lot back then (rn I dont care for Vlachs anymore but Im happy we have Liths in the game). I even made a civ concept for them.
However I think Europe is overrepresented, yes (they have more civs than Asia on an much smaller territory with smaller population).
My arguments are right (that Bulgarians are well represented with the current Slav civ I mean). Whether you like them or not Bulgarians as they are present in the game havent made a good case to why we should have them at all instead of representing them with Slavs. Adding a civ (Bulgarians) that can be practically exchange icon and language with a civ that used to represent them (Slavs) and still be a really accurate representation of that new civ you just added is just bad design.
And also you got what I was saying back then wrong. I said that Serbia would have been a far better choice than Bulgaria
(Btw I know that I sound arrogant but saying that Bulgarians could have the same design as Slavs isnt that much of a hot take I think)
2 Likes
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a campaign focussing on Lithuanian resistance to the Teutonic Knights and other crusaders would not require Finnic peoples.
Last khans added a odd set of civilizations and lotw added even more odd factions.the umbrella civilization naming was always a better choice than regional powers.
You can’t over represent something that has no representation to begin with. “World region” doesn’t make the cut. I prefer this thinking:
Franks represents Franks, is Burgundians an overrepresentation of Franks?
Britons represent English and Welsh, tick
Italians represent the kingdom of Italy, tick
Portuguese represent Portuguese, tick
The issue begins in the following,
Slavs represent Rus, why the name Slavs?
Indians represent Rajputs, why indians?
Your line of thinking is this:
Britons represent Europe
Spanish represent Europe
Franks represent Europe
Italians represent Europe
Indians represent Rajputs
Japanese represent Japanese
Burmese represent Burmese
See the issue?
1 Like
We have no civ in North America, no civ in Central Africa, no civ in South Africa, no civ in Southern India, no civ in the Himalaya etc. and we should yet add another civ in a densely packed region?
It’s insulting to go into details for one region and then be broad in the others just because they’re not European.
Might as well add Bavaria, Saxony, Vandals etc. just because one of the biggest part of the player base is German.
How stupid is it to have one very specific civ like Burgundians alongside a blob which basically represents a whole region of a bigger continent like Malians.
Those discussions always turn in the same circlejerk, I’ve made my point clear. Just hoping that the devs listen or else it’s sad into what AOE2 turned to.
4 Likes
I don’t know why people want Polynesian, North American and South African nations in the game… They left almost nothing recorded so we know very little from them besides some few archaeological evidence. How do you make a medieval era faction based in such little information? Besides, these factions would work amazingly well in AoE3, since we have far more information about them in that time period… Just food for thought.
6 Likes
Aside Southern India, did those civilizations you are talking about have technological level used in game?
I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just don’t know civilizations in those regions very well.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually like diversity and prefer many options in games, but my understanding is that AOE2 requires certain technological level in certain time period.
5 Likes