Adding stuff from europe will sell well and it will unite the forums again in being upset over a common thing.
4 Likes
The fact that this would definitely be true both makes me laugh and feel slightly melancholic…
2 Likes
I voted for medieval China. I’d like a DLC that splits off Tanguts from Khitans, adds campaigns for the east Asian civs that don’t have them, and unlocks Jurchens and Khitans for players who don’t have the Three Kingdoms DLC.
That said, I feel less enthusiastic about the prospect of new civs than I used to. I’m not keen on many of the recently added civs, due to gimmicky mechanics, auras, and a few other things that are less easy to summarise briefly, while the historical influences haven’t improved since 1999 despite much easier access to information nowadays.
By the way, @PersiasRerising, you really should have included an “other” option for people who want something else more than the things on your list. Probably too late now though.
1 Like
I think that the civs are enough. I would hope for new architecture and more unit/buildings reskins.
But I would focus on changing existing civ names that doesn’t sound correct:
Teutons ------ Holy Roman Empire
Italians ------- Lombards/Venetians(more towards the Lombards)
Sicilians ------ Normans
Byzantines ------ Roman Empire/Kingdom of Greeks(I know there are already Romans as a civ in game, but it’s not my fault)
Slavs ---- Ruthenians/Kievan Rus/Rus
Turks ------ Seljuk Turks
Saracens ------ Arabs(Although Saracens was more widely used, it included other ethnicities too, like Turks etc..)
Also if there is going to be a DLC and eventually more civs, I would prefer to be individual civs, like one from europe, one from africa, one from china etc. Not a pack of a certain region. That would provide more flexibility to the devs.
Dude, how can the Turks be the Seljuks if they have the Janissaries and they are one of the best gunpowder civilizations in the game? The Ottomans make more sense. As for the Italians, you do realize the unit is called the “Genoese” Crossbowman, right? Even their wonder is at Genoa, the capital of the Genoese, and their flag is similar to the Republic of Genoa’s flag as well. If anything, they represent the Genoese more than the others.
1 Like
I wouldn’t mind Ottomans too, I suggested Seljuks because the majority of the middle ages were known as such. Ottomans is a very late name, hardly medieval, but again I wouldn’t mind it.
As for the Italians, you do realize the unit is called the “Genoese” Crossbowman, right? Even their wonder is at Genoa, the capital of the Genoese, and their flag is similar to the Republic of Genoa’s flag as well. If anything, they represent the Genoese more than the others.
So let’s call them Genoese. Why Italians? If I am not mistaken, Genoese were Lombards that formed their own kingdom. They were Germanic tribes, not Italians.
Not exactly, mate. You’re right about the Lombards, they were Germanic. However, after their kingdom fell, they just mixed with the locals. Btw, the Republic of Genoa was some centuries later than the Lombards. Besides, modern-day Lombardy is where the city of Milano is located, and Lombardy shares a border with Switzerland, so it’s one of the northernmost regions of Italy. Genoa, on the other hand, is in Liguria, which shares a border with Monaco and southern France. All that being said, the Genoese should definitely be their name. That one, I agree. Aren’t u the Greek YouTuber fellow, btw? Keep up the good stuff, mate. I like your videos.
1 Like
Without America as one of acailable options this poll isn’t complete.
1 Like
There is no harm in renaming them to lombards.
The campaign and the UI represent the Duchy of Milan, and the symbol, the cross of St. George, is the same for the two cities. And more generally, is the symbol of the Guelphs and pro-papal.
The only thing Germanic in Italy is the Lombard law that replaced Roman law from the 6th-7th centuries for many centuries to come.
That was the original idea, later discarded during development. Probably on the gameplay side they are difficult to separate from other Germanic peoples of that period.
Creating an infinity of civilisations for each local identity would be fundamentally excessive
2 Likes
Missing European options like more Germanic civs or Migration period would be great in your poll.
lmao (20 characters)
I don’t think we should move on from the 3K issue at all.
The Devs have been studying the Chinese history for this DLC so they could stay on the subjects and release some proper Civs from the area, in Q4 2025. But they still have to fix the 3K debacle beforehand.
That said I would look at individual Civs rather than regions, so not-that-relevant polities are not included just to make numbers. Although I may be partial on what is relevant enough.
I still ask for tying up the loose ends, normalise some old umbrella Civs with splits or reworks. That should be a thing as well, among the others.
3 Likes
WW2 era with USA, Soviets and N__i Germany. Why? Because it is ‘popular’.
3 Likes
Wait what the hell
(20 characters)
Given the studio’s direction , a Euro expansion would just be an Italians “split” where there are three new “civs” where each one is a carbon copy of the Italians lead by a different anti-pope from the ~35 year long Western Schism.
1 Like
Yep. And Mediterranean architecture set shouldn’t lose to East Asian Architecture in terms of number of civs.