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

Gonna have to agree with @YolkyPage166 this. Some of the civ suggestions are just wild. Like yes, Polynesians, Mutapans, Iroquois and co. existed and are fascinating to read about, but just don’t make any sense in the time-frame and structure of AoE2. Many of these suggestions just suffer from insufficient recorded history for AoE2 time period, and/or plain isolation from every other civ currently in game, making it pretty hard to add a Campaign about them.

Whereas the Cumans did actually leave recorded traces of their history, as well as had many interactions with civs already in game, ones that also had recorded traces of Cumans history.

3 Likes

Mutapans (a.k.a. Zimbabweans)make more or less sense honestly. THey fit the game as well as Aztecs do (not to say theres any urgence at adding them as much as I love them though)

2 Likes

First, I didn’t mention anything about adding the Bavarians, but nice strawman argument you’re using there. Second, “recording in a non written” manner isn’t really recording now is it?

1 Like

Just add 4 of them at the same interacting with each other like they did in Rise of the Rajas and The African Kingdoms, the last expansions to really add something new to the table with new Feudal Naval units and the first time seeing unique buildings and a new unit line being introduced.

1 Like

What do you want as new civ?

It is, or how do you think did the Malian campaign get recorded? A considerable amount of precolonial African history got recorded that way. This is why Western historians struggle with precolonial African history, they don’t see it as stringent as something somebody wrote down on a paper sheet

2 Likes

I don’t think we’re going to get a DLC as big as that (4 civs) anymore. With less and less civ slots available, I’d think they’ll want to spread it out. I imagine any future DLC’s will be just to polish areas up a bit.

I also disagree that nothing interesting has been added since African Kingdoms. For example the Donjon/Serjeant mechanic is pretty much completely new to the game, only similar thing would be the Norse from Age of Mythology. We also have things like the Coustillier charge mechanic, also new to the game completely, and really can throw people off.

2 Likes

I honestly don’t like this small tidbit DLC model for the same prize as the old ones. I expect more for my money and to be honest, they just seem like fan service and not real expansions.

Where are the new architecture sets? Where are the new unit lines for every civ? Where are the new generic technologies like Arrow Slits?

LOTW just comes off as lazy.

1 Like

I have to agree with you. So far in AoE 2 we only have highly developed civs. Adding tribes will open Pandora’s box - why are there Iroquois and no Cree? Why are there Polynesians and not Maori?
We have to decide if we want to create another problem of civilizations in the game.

From the American civs we can add Muisca, possibly also Missipians and Pueblo. Then we would have two civs from North, Central and South America. In the case of Africa, I think it is easier to find civs to match AoE 2 - Congolese, Somalis, Moroccans, Ghanaians, Kanem-Bornu, Zimbabwe, and maybe even a Saracen civ smash of an umbrella - into Mamluks and Abbasids.

2 Likes

Pretty sure Maori are Polynesians (tbh I dont have much need for them but it may be a fun addition)

Cant agree about the language. Modern Serbian and Bulagrian are 80% the same. Meanwhile Medieval Bulgarian and Serbian were 95% the same. It only came down to local dialects but the literacy and writen language was the same - Old church slavonic (old Bulgarian as the used form in both states was the one developed in medieval Bulgaria and spread across different slavic peoples (South and East Slavs). The Bulgarian units in the game do not speak modern Bulgarian but exactly this old version thats , almost identical to what the slavs units use. In the middle ages the differences between the different slavic peoples speach was way less than in modern times as nowadays the languages evolved in different directions. Funny enouth in this process some languages as Russian are more close to the original than Modern Bulgarian where it dates back to. Thats why many ppl think Slav units speak Russian but they dont they speak the same language as the Bulgarian units in the game.

The Turk influence of the Medieval Bulgarian is completelly wrong assumption. Both modern Bulgarian and modern Serbian have Turkish influence for the Ottoman period and some words getting adopted. But medieval times the language used is completely slavic as the glagolic and later cyrillic thanslations of different text were completely slavic in nature. Thats is why this script spread so easily oltside of Bulgaria once developed. The whole Slavisation of the “Turkic Bulgarians” is a proces that took place for a long time and by the end of 9th century when the christianisation and development of literature took place is almost completed. These “bulghars” were always a minority despite a ruling class in the state and have mixed with the slavs by this time. The whole development of the literature project was a state policy to increase Bulgaria`s influance among the slavic peoples and claim legitimacy as ruling slavic state while also deny further influence of the Bysantines among slavs on the Balkans.

5 Likes

I think we’re starting to see the point where it’s difficult to add new things that the game just doesn’t already have. For example there’s already a cavalry line unit for almost everything, except for an archer counter. [generic unit: knight, anti-siege/monk: light cav + magyar huszar, anti-melee: boyar, anti-cav: camel, meatshield: battle elephant, siege/meatshield: war elephant, anti-infantry: cataphract, anti-building: tarkan, etc.]

On the other hand, more architecture sets is something I can agree with you on, that should be not too hard to add. Or at least a unique castle design for each civ. :slight_smile: (I really liked the unique castle designs for Burgundians and Sicilians)

2 Likes

Tribe:

a group of people, often of related families, who live in the same area and share the same language, culture, and history:

The game is full of tribes, just saying. There’s the Slavic Tribe, the Frankish Tribe, the Aztec Tribe etc.

That’s why I see a lot of potential in terms of the Eagle Warrior line and the Battle Elephant line. There’s still some design space left there, though I honestly can’t see yet another Light Cav, Heavy Cav or Cav Archer civ.

Especially with the Meta favourising Cav civs, the Sicilian Serjeant was kinda a neat idea design wise, though Sicilians don’t even seem to go aside the First Crusade push much often into a Serjeant Donjon push from what I’ve seen so far.

You just wrote that we don’t really know anything about them. Oral history is not entirely valuable as it may have changed and embellished over hundreds of years. I would like to see, for example, the Iroquois, but adding them may mean opening a Pandora’s box. The DLC will give 4-5 new Native civs from the Americas, then people will want 20 new civs. And so on forever…

1 Like

Why is it opening Pandora’s box when it’s Native American First Nations but not European Duchies? You seem to have two different standards here.

There’s for example a large discussion on what to do with the Steppe Lancer already, because it’s pretty much not got a role in the game right now. Of course new additions don’t have to be cavalry, but just was an example.

I like the Serjeants too. Pretty tough unit, the civ is not too shabby after the recent buff.

Just business sense. I would guess that a lot more people are fascinated by 100 years war than by… some obscure tribe they’ve never heard of. Easier to sell.

With that being said, there are still obvious holes to fill, e.g. baltics/eastern europe, caucasus, China/India could do with a civ split.

3 Likes

The Steppe Lancer is a mess. I hope they’ll fix it one day.

I don’t know to be honest. I’ve seen quite a lot people requesting Native American civs and it seems to be a pretty popular thing within the community as civ request. The Iroquois/Haudenosaunee score pretty high in various polls.

Last Khans already did that, Dawn of the Dukes will.

2 Likes

May I remind you which civ is in the seventh place of the poll?

1 Like

That is also true for me. I too don’t know. Just speculating based on anecdotal things I know. I personally enjoy history a lot. The middle ages, knights, chivalry, all that good stuff fascinated me, besides antiquity (ancient Egypt, Greece, China, Rome etc) when I first got into it. From others that also like history, the medieval ages seemed to be popular, and I think the 100 years war (and the events leading up to it) seemed to be a big recurring thing that people liked to learn about, and I think that’s why the Burgundians got added, just because of how easily relatable they are for people who casually like History. But I don’t have a sample size or anything, just anecdotal observations.

As for my opinion, I was extremely pleased with the civ picks and designs of LotW. Cool story choices, entertaining and engaging maps for the Campaigns.

2 Likes

This is just an example that people will always be dissatisfied and unfulfilled with the number of civs in the game.

They both belong to South Slavic languages, but in reality have some differences;

  • Serbian has noun declension - Bulgarian doesn’t
  • Serbian has tonal stress in words - Bulgarian doesn’t
  • Bulgarian has definite article - Serbian doesn’t
  • Bulgarian has no infinitive forms of verbs - Serbian still has them
  • Bulgarian uses more verb tenses than Serbian (modern spoken Serbian has almost adopted the most common modern Slavic tense system: one present, one past and one future tense. Bulgarian still uses older Slavic tense system including aorist, past imperfect, past perfect, past pluperfect)
  • Bulgarian has inferential mood for verbs, absent in other Slavic languages, Serbian included
  • Bulgarian vocabulary was heavily influenced by Russian and has a lot of Russian loan words, whereas Serbian developed quite independently and didn’t have a lot of Russian influence

So overall the two languages are not very similar, I don’t think they are even mutually intelligible. Below are some phrase examples to illustrate:

  • ‘My name is…’ - Srb. ‘Ja se zovem…’ - Blg. ‘Az se kazvam…’

  • ‘I live in the country’ - Srb. ‘Ja živim na selu’ - Blg. ‘Az zhiveya v provintsiyata’

  • ‘He didn’t sleep all night’ - Srb. ‘Nije spavao celu noć’ - Blg. ‘Toĭ ne spa tsyala nosht’

Clever, but that’s not it :wink:

Compare the level of technological development of Europeans, Asians, Mesoamerican and Arabs with the Polynesians, Indian tribes of the Americas and the tribes of non-Islamic Africa.

You’re right. If the creators were to create civs solely on the basis of cultural groups, there would be no problem. Due to the fact that civs concerning specific nations and even states were created, it created chaos. The addition of new tribal civs would only aggravate this problem.

First, the developers should cover the regions that we already have in the game. Later, when everything is fine, you can start adding new civs from completely new regions of the world.

Cental Asia yes, Eastern Europe definitely no…

Tamils ​​and?

2 Likes