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

[MUTYLATOR5553]

I would love to see such a comparison

[MUTYLATOR5553]

@Redstar819

There is plenty of written history outside of Europe, in fact written history goes back much farther in Asia and Africa than in Europe.

@MUTYLATOR5553

I don’t want to say anything, but Europe is the most “medieval” along with Asia and North Africa. The rest of the globe was not that important at the time. Only Mesoamerican cultures can match the Old World.

Have I only written about Europe ??? Read with understanding…

[TungstenBoar]

@MUTYLATOR5553

Get over yourself. Did I just write about adding only European or only Slavic civs to this game? NO!

You just don’t want new European civs and you talk about it all the time.

Why go into the East European DLC topic (which has been confirmed by the developers!) And complain and not be mad about the topic.

You dont have to agree with an understandable choice (including Poles, Bohemians who are a part of history, Burgandians, Sicilians, and Bulgarians). I am still annoyed when theres three DLCs in a row that are partly or entirely Europe based because Europe is overrepresented, and the other parts of the world are more on need of new civs.

These five civs shouldnt be included in the 48 or 50 final civs in the game imo. A civ based on the historical civs I mentioned just isnt diferent enough to the civs that can represent them currently in the case of everyone but Sicilians and Bohemians and even those have an okay representation gameplaywise by Teutons, Slavs, Vikings and Franks as well as being closely related to those. And imo they arent nearly as long lasting, influential or were powerful enough to be added anyway which is the fairly bland excuse that Portuguese had to be added anyway despite not being anymore diferent than Spain than the other kingdoms included under the Spanish civ currently.

Basically the thing going on for Poles and Lithuania is like if Aragón was added before Castilla and Aragon in-game had good gunpowder, navy, cavalry, defenses, monks. Tecnically yes it makes sense to add them but gameplaywise and even history wise the reasons to add them are much smaller than before

[MUTYLATOR5553]

From what I noticed here on the forum, some people are very disturbed by Slavic civs, they are very disturbing …

If you want to add Poles, Czechs, Serbs and Croats it means you are a Slavic fanatic, but if you want 100 Indian civs then that’s okay. Where did these double standards come from?

Is it jealousy or is it hate?
Is it lack of knowledge or reluctance?

My opinion is that the first thing to do is to break the umbrella civs that don’t fit in this game anymore. This game already represents specific nations and even states. Since the release of DE, the civs policy has changed in this game. Well, you can even say that since the release of Rise of Rajas - they created 4 civs representing 4 nations from one region, in Forgotten Empires there would be only one SEA civ representing this region.

So if the developers changed the definition of civ, they would have to adapt all previous civs to that. 99% of the Civ Slavs are based on Rus (1% are the names of the rulers with Polish and Czech rulers), the Indians are based on the Mughals, Teutons are based on the Knights’ Orders.

The mess that’s already in the game has to be dealt with first, and then completely new stuff from the rest of the globe should be added.

If you think there shouldn’t be more Slavic civs, then don’t want more Indian civs - just for the fair. And if umbrella civs are to remain, then only 5 new civs would be added - completely based only on world regions.

Either we destroy the umbrellas or we make more.
Either we add new Slavic civs, or we add no new civs from the current umbrellas.

[TungstenBoar]

@MUTYLATOR5553

Either we add new Slavic civs, or we add no new civs from the current umbrellas.

That way of thinking is deeply flawed because of the current civs we have representing the Slavic kingdoms. If those civs were slightly diferently named or designed adding more Slavic civs would make more sense but as it is… its complicated

[MUTYLATOR5553]

@TungstenBoar

You dont have to agree with an understandable choice (including Poles, Bohemians who are a part of history, Burgandians, Sicilians, and Bulgarians). I am still annoyed when the last three DLCs are partly or entirely Europe based because Europe is overrepresented, and the other parts of the world are more on need of new civs.

Last three DLCs:
Rise of the Rajas - South-Eastern Asia
The Last Khans - 2 Central Asian civs, 1 Eastern European civ and Bulgarians (Slavs with Turkic origin)
Lords of the West - Western Europe

[TungstenBoar]

Im already counting on Dawn of the Dukes

And Bulgarians are European. Bulgars are turks that ruled over Slavs. Bulgarians are Slavs

[MUTYLATOR5553]

This is an upcoming DLC, not the last one.

[TungstenBoar]

Does it really matter in what Im saying? Its still 3 Euro DLC in a row

[MUTYLATOR5553]

Yes, because you must write correctly. You cannot write about something that still does not exist as the last thing.

[MUTYLATOR5553]

2,5*

You are forgetting the Asian nomads.

[TungstenBoar]

I said partly or entirely Europe based

[MUTYLATOR5553]

If you don’t want European DLC then don’t buy it, LOL. Nobody is forcing anyone.

Now you have 3 DLCs in a row that contain European civs and then there will be 6 DLCs without European civs - would it be better for you then? In my opinion, you should be glad that the creators will leave Europe as soon as possible and that they will not return to it soon.

What is what, but the African DLC is for sure - we all know why. Asia is a certainty too, first because it will sell, second because there are a lot of RTS fans from Asia and third because there is a shortage of Siamese …
Tribes that were not highly developed are a moot point. It would be nice to see them, but it is not known if they fit this game and mechanic. Besides, it would create another problem of adding civs. If DLCs containing the Iroquois, Lakota, Huron, and Cree DLCs, people would like Comanche, Ojibwe, Klamath, and Apache to be added to the game as well. Same as it is with Europe now.

I guess you already know what I mean?

First, clean up the mess, and then take care of completely new things - after all, for the natives of America, the natives of Africa and for the Polynesians, it is better to create unique technology trees, mechanics architecture, etc. in the Middle Ages. It’s easier to find and hire a voice actor for Burgandians civ than for the Iroquois. It takes more time and work for a completely new type of civs than for other civs.
Would you rather play with African tribes who use European mechanics and units, or use their own mechanics? Even the African, Mesoamerican and Asian civs in the game use typically European units! First you have to correct the current problems, then you can start with completely new content.

[MUTYLATOR5553]

I am in favor of adding brand new default units for all Asian, Islamic, African and Mesoamerican civs.

4 new unique bases for tech trees. Instead of the boring and ahistorical current tech tree. The current one would be reserved for European civs. Each of the other regions of the globe would have a completely new technology tree.

A total of 5 mission trees + 2-3 new ones when expanding to American and African natives and Polynesians

[TungstenBoar]

@MUTYLATOR5553

If you don’t want European DLC then don’t buy it, LOL. Nobody is forcing anyone.

Im annoyed for other reasons not because I have to pay for it.

@MUTYLATOR5553

Now you have 3 DLCs in a row that contain European civs and then there will be 6 DLCs without European civs - would it be better for you then? In my opinion, you should be glad that the creators will leave Europe as soon as possible and that they will not return to it soon.

I should be happy that the civs for the underrepresented parts of the world are being left for later and they are adding civs that arent as necesary first? Is that really your argument? And what says you that the next DLC wont be Vandals, Serbians, Croats, Vlachs or Swiss beyond that being what you expect?

@MUTYLATOR5553

First, clean up the mess, and then take care of completely new things - after all, for the natives of America, the natives of Africa and for the Polynesians, it is better to create unique technology trees, mechanics architecture, etc. in the Middle Ages. It’s easier to find and hire a voice actor for Burgandians civ than for the Iroquois. It takes more time and work for a completely new type of civs than for other civs.

THats just not how the game works. The game is meant to be a symmetric RTS. A diferent aproach may be cool but thats not Aoe2 anymore.

@MUTYLATOR5553

Would you rather play with African tribes who use European mechanics and units, or use their own mechanics? Even the African, Mesoamerican and Asian civs in the game use typically European units! First you have to correct the current problems, then you can start with completely new content.

Eh, I can live with units just fitting a symbolic role. Knights as the heavy cavalry, arbalests as the good archers, champions as the field infantry, halbs as the cheap cav counters.

[Redstar819]

You were the one arguing that somehow, medieval European history is more meaningful than anywhere else, and later you justified that by implying that other places didn’t have enough written record, so that’s what I was trying to set straight.

BTW, you can also count the Cumans as an Eastern European civ, so Last Khans was certainly a East Europe expansion already. The Cumans territory included much of modern-day Ukraine and Moldova and part of the European portion of Russia, and the Kotyan Khan campaign takes place entirely in Eastern Europe.

In the abstract, I’m not opposed at all to including Eastern European civs, and I’m thankful for any new expansion, but I just find it strange that there’s an argument being made that this region is somehow underrepresented. By my count, there are already 6 civs that are firmly Eastern European (excluding “external” occupiers such as the Turks and Byzantines), as well as 3 campaigns that fully take place there and many others partially. Is this is underrepresentation, than how do we even talk about Africa, India and East Asia?

[TungstenBoar]

I think that was other guy

[MUTYLATOR5553]

@TungstenBoar

I should be happy that the civs for the underrepresented parts of the world are being left for later and they are adding civs that arent as necesary first? Is that really your argument? And what says you that the next DLC wont be Vandals, Serbians, Croats, Vlachs or Swiss beyond that being what you expect?

First, they leave it for later because they may need more work and research. Secondly, it is easier to create a European civ from civs from other regions of the world.

I do not understand the second part of this answer. The potential civs you mentioned are civilizations that you think interest me or not?

@TungstenBoar

THats just not how the game works. The game is meant to be a symmetric RTS. A diferent aproach may be cool but thats not Aoe2 anymore.

New technology trees, or new Unit models adapted to each style of architecture.

@TungstenBoar

Eh, I can live with units just fitting a symbolic role. Knights as the heavy cavalry, arbalests as the good archers, champions as the field infantry, halbs as the cheap cav counters.

So you don’t want unique civs, you just want civs from a specific region. Creating any European civ is definitely easier, because the game mechanics and technology trees are designed for European civs.

I want high-quality civs, that is, it is better to give the creators time to present completely new technology trees adapted to each region of the world.

And who cares more about the good of the game?

[TungstenBoar]

@MUTYLATOR5553

First, they leave it for later because they may need more work and research. Secondly, it is easier to create a European civ from civs from other regions of the world.

I disagree. Making an African or Asian civ is the same as making a new european civ. It may need 15 minutes more of research but thats it. The campaigns are the tricky part, but even that would take just a fraction of the time it takes to make a new campaign in general.

@MUTYLATOR5553

I do not understand the second part of this answer. The potential civs you mentioned are civilizations that you think interest me or not?

No. I said that what you were saying about the devs exploring the rest of the world is speculation that will maybe not turn out to be true and we may get those civs before any african or asian DLC.

@MUTYLATOR5553

New technology trees, or new Unit models adapted to each style of architecture.

I love the idea dont get me wrong, I would maybe even consider making a mod with that but it will never will happen for the base game. At best we may get more monks and kings

@MUTYLATOR5553

So you don’t want unique civs, you just want civs from a specific region. Creating any European civ is definitely easier, because the game mechanics and technology trees are designed for European civs.

I disagree since the mechanics of the game are almost universal and so are the roles that the units we have in the game take. If theres anything that doesnt fit the current tech tree just add a regional unit.

[MUTYLATOR5553]

@Redstar819

You were the one arguing that somehow, medieval European history is more meaningful than anywhere else, and later you justified that by implying that other places didn’t have enough written record, so that’s what I was trying to set straight.

@MUTYLATOR5553

Europe is the most “medieval” along with Asia and North Africa

@MUTYLATOR5553

Is oral history, myths and legends a good argument for adding civ???

Better to add civs whose history is well known to us. By adding indigenous civs, we would probably hurt them by adding content that did not correspond to the historical fact. It’s like creating AoE 1 civilization of the Amazons because they were in the myths.

Read it again…

@Redstar819

BTW, you can also count the Cumans as an Eastern European civ, so Last Khans was certainly a East Europe expansion already. The Cumans territory included much of modern-day Ukraine and Moldova and part of the European portion of Russia, and the Kotyan Khan campaign takes place entirely in Eastern Europe.

The Cumans Were Not Europeans !!!

The fact that they have conquered a part of Europe does not automatically make them Europeans. Their language, culture, customs, worldview and religion were not European!

If the Cumans are Europeans, the Spanish and Portuguese were Native Americans after all, they owned land there or the British were the indigenous peoples of the entire globe, after all, their empire had possessions on every continent…

@Redstar819

In the abstract, I’m not opposed at all to including Eastern European civs, and I’m thankful for any new expansion, but I just find it strange that there’s an argument being made that this region is somehow underrepresented. By my count, there are already 6 civs that are firmly Eastern European (excluding “external” occupiers such as the Turks and Byzantines), as well as 3 campaigns that fully take place there and many others partially. Is this is underrepresentation, than how do we even talk about Africa, India and East Asia?

Since the Byzantines were “external” occupiers, we only have 4 Eastern European civs in this game (I will give you in chronological order - added first at the beginning):

1. Magyars
2. Slavs (it only represents the Ruthenians)
3. Bulgarians
4. Lithuanians

NO MORE, NO LESS THERE ARE CURRENTLY EASTERN EUROPEAN CIVS IN AOE2 DE

The same number of civs has the Southeast Asia region…