Considering we’re still waiting for any type of announcement with regards to Porto, I’ve decided to remake my poll I’ve made a while ago improving on its criticism (adding a Caucasus option, removing possibly confusing middle position with regards to new civs).
This poll is also post Lords of the West (introducing Burgundians and Sicilians) to the game as well as Dawn of the Dukes (introducing Bohemians and Poles).
I’ll copypaste mostly what I wrote in the last poll:
I’ve tried to be as unbiased as possible. There’s also an option for no more new civs for those who like to vote that way. I’ve written a civ next to a region which already features one so that people get an idea what I mean with each. Of course, some regions have vague borders and some people would argue differently if there’s already a civ in this region or not. I’ve just tried to pick one which clearly belongs to this region from my point of view and if there was not, I just simply omitted it.
Civs from which regions would you like to see?
We have enough civs
West Africa (Mali,…
North Africa (Berbers,…
East Africa (Ethiopians,…
Central Africa
South Africa
North America
Central America (Maya,…
South America (Inca,…
Central Asia (Tatars,…
Eastern Asia (Chinese,…
South East Asia (Khmer,…
South Asia (Indians,…
North Asia
Caucasus
Middle Eastern (Saracens,…
Western Europe (Franks,…
Eastern Europe (Slavs,…
Central Europe (Teutons,…
Southern Europe (Italians,…
South East Europe (Bulgarians,…
Northern Europe (Vikings,…
Oceania
0voters
Here’s an alternate version of the same thing based on architecture sets:
Which architecture set already ingame would you like new civs to use (considering all DE additions have used already existing sets)
Africa
Central Asian
Far Eastern Asian
South East Asian
Indian/South Asian
Western European
Central European
Eastern European
Mediterranean
Mesoamerican
Middle Eastern
I don’t care
0voters
Would you like to see new civs?
Yes
No
0voters
Questions about civ designs
Civ design should be bold (e.g. Cumans 2nd Feudal TC)
I like both conservative and bold civ design
Civ design should be rather conservative (e.g. Berries gather 20%)
0voters
Single use unique technologies are fine.
Single use unique technologies are lame.
I don’t care either
0voters
What type of civs is the game most missing of in your opinion? (Disregarding all combinations)
Infantry civs
Monk civs
Light Cavalry civs
Heavy Cavalry civs
Naval civs
Gunpowder civs
Foot archer civs
Cavalry archer civs
Steppe Lancer civs
Eagle Warrior civs
Battle Elephant civs
Defensive civs
Siege civs
Camel civs
I don’t care
0voters
The last one is in regards to graphics and audio of civs:
New civs should have new architecture sets
New civs don’t have to use new architecture sets
I don’t care either
0voters
New civs should have new voice lines
New civs don’t have to use new voice lines (Byzantines-Italians)
I don’t care either
0voters
Not really related to the main topic, but here’s another poll about Bohemian architecture.
Just as a quick addition, I’m fine with reusing already existing graphic assets like architecture sets if they’re not used that often. I really don’t want the game to get a prefabricated building in any flavour “charm” because one architecture set is overly used while others are completely missing out.
I would really not like it if Caucasian civs wouldn’t come with their own set. The options we have ingame aren’t really fitting for them.
I just want to mention that for me this is actually not that important.
For me in the end it’s only important that the new civs and campaigns are made with love.
I mean you can say what you want about the design of the new civs, but the campaigns are great. Ofc devs at some point have had very gimmicky ideas, but i’d rather have gimmicks that can be tuned down or taken out of the game if they don’t fit than completely flavourless civs.
I have preferences like I would like to see more civs from americas (but no more eagle civs) and also in asia. But if devs don’t “feel” it they should focus on content they have intrinsic motivation to make.
Funnily enough both memish rev and first crusade are useless in their respective campaigns, since even if the mission happens to let you go to imp, is not a fixed force scenario, and lets you enough room to have a big eco, then once you have enough to use them you’re probs steamrolling anyway. Not to mention flemish revolution is anachronistic for its whole campaign, while the very same expansion has a Briton campaign that prevents you from getting warwolf because most of it happens before its namesake is actually built. So if both civs and especially Burgundians had a better replacement for their UT it would make the campaigns better as well.
Wow Central Africa rated so high. I voted for it thinking about the Kanem-Bornu empire, but they are rather obscure. What were you people thinking about? Kongolese?
Honestly, I only want to see 4 civs left unrepresented in Europe, there are plenty elsewhere that should be introduced as well.
My european picks include the Frisians, the Venetians, the Georgians, and the Swiss. Otherwise, I have a lengthy list otherwise that I’d like to see as well. Dravidians, Tibetans, Chimuans, Manchu, Bengalese, Siamese, Inuits, Swahili, Mutapans, etc.
The difference between me and the people who are saying they don’t want more Europeans is that I don’t care which order I get them in; if europeans are in the next DLC, that’s fine. If non-Europeans are in the next DLC, that’s also fine. IDGAF what order they come in, as long as they do.
Congolese, Swahili, Ambundu and possibly Shona if we go so far South. Basically I equated “Central Africa” with the Bantu cultural area and I think Kanembu should probably be considered as East African.
I think Kanembu and Hausa fit better with west Africa as they are part of the Sahelian civilizations. But I think its better to just put all Bantus as S Africans
Hmmm, for me several of the answers are “it depends”…
For instance, for architecture sets, I (totally arbitrarily) think ideally no more than four civs should share an architecture set, and five should be the absolute maximum. So I think if there are new European or East Asian civs, they should get completely new architecture. On the other hand, I want more civs with South Asian, Central Asian, and African architecture, because those aren’t used much yet. In fact, that’s a large part of why my preference is for new civs from those regions.
Likewise, for civ design, I think some of the recent “bold” designs work well, and some don’t. But I also think some of the old “conservative” designs are great, while others end up just kind of boring. So I find it hard to give an answer there.
Something I hope gets changed in the future is more civs that can challenge the top 3 on water (Portuguese, Italians and Vikings). Tbh I think its now top 4 since Byz had a lot of success but its still a bit boring to only have four truely viable options. Koreans and Japanese have massive aater bonuses and are still unable to compete
In regards to Europe, I think 4 civs would complete the whole European set:
Romanians
Swiss
Serbs
Croats
Other than that, every other civ is already represented in one form of another. One could argue the nordics but we have the Vikings. As for the Slavs (therefore making Serbs and Croats obsolete) we already have the Poles, Bohemians, Bulgarians) so the Slavs should be renamed the Rus for logical consistency. One could make the case that the Swiss are already as Teutons, but still, the Swiss were kind of their own thing and weren’t only German.
We already have Italians which have a good naval focus so the Venetians are included in that. Also, I’d rather not see Burgundians 2.0.
When it comes to other continents, Africa has a lot of potential:
Great Zimbabwe
Ghana
Swahili
Somalia
Namibians
Kanem
As for Asia, I don’t think the devs will ever make civs that aren’t compliant with China’s policy. So I could only see:
Siamese (Thailand)
Gokturk (Khazakstan)
Various sub-types of Indians
Overall, there’s plenty of civs, and I don’t think that 48 is a “hard cap” as the word commonly gets on the forum.
