Don’t the Malay in AoE2 basically cover the Javanese already? like the campaign is literally about the Majapahit
Not so familiar with their history, but weren’t the Filipinos mostly isolated? correct me if I’m wrong
Not sure about the others, most weren’t very widespread and often were part of empires from the civs that are already in game or the ones I mentioned for most of the timeframe
We have more distinct and “important” civs than those in other parts of the world in my opinion
The problem is putting both Java and Malay togheter when they could be their own civ. If Poles could be added despite Liths existing, Javanese canbe added despite Malay existing
Yeah they mostly fought each other
Mon is absolutely a civ that could be added, even though I doubt it will be included They existed through practically the entire timeline and interacted with most other civs
Shan werent as important but still were fairly influential and longlasting
Againz they arent beetwen the civs I want next, but they arent that bad, better than a lot of other civs
If the Prithviraj campaign is reworked into a Gurjara one, then surely Gajah Mada could be changed into a Javanese campaign too. And then the new Malay campaign could be about a leader in the Srivijaya Empire (I don’t know which one would be the most interesting, but Suryavarman I’s campaign made me curious about this state).
Given the amount of civs we have yet to add without even knowing is there is some kind of limit, I’d say that Malay works fine as an umbrella not only for javanese and malay proper, but for the whole austronesian peoples of southeast asia. It would include the champas as well.
Eh tbh I believe that the division beetwen Javanese and Malay would be good since bothcivs would have significant empires
Although they arent my priority
so romanians then best because their not in the slavs
this i agree on
Romanians is a very post aoe2 timeframe name. better off with Vlachs, that said I still wouldn’t go with them. And the exact words I used were no more then 1. As it currently stands, i would add zero. Georgia and Armenians, a China Split, and an African DLC. 6 civs.
Honestly I dont even think Armenia is necessary
I throw them in because it’s a way to add something with Georgians that is in the region without touching Europe.
You’re the only one here that consistently take in count the 48 civ limit when talking about possible new civs, recognizing that even if it’s not a technical limitation we may run out of design space by then. My respects to you.
More people should be aware of this when trying to ask for DLCs and civlizations.
This is not only about what civs we would like to see, the real question is which ones we would like to see the most.
Yeah, we could ask for an african and an american dlc, each with 3 new civs. 48 total. Great!
But then we may be left witout Georgians, or Jurchens, etc. You get my point.
You don’t believe there is a limit? Fine. So there’s no problem if we go with the priorities first and then try to paint the rest of the maps and split umbrellas.
Avars and Polynesians may be a good aditions, yes. As the civs number 70 and 71.
That said, I think the civilizations that should be the priorities, based on popular opinion, geographic distribution and overall “”“importance”“” are Georgians, Jurchens, Tibetan/Tanguts and Somalis.
Then some american civ (I’m not really fond of them, but most people do want more America) and finally either Thais or Vlachs. 48 total.
45 civis is a decent amount this game should not turn in to medieval United Nations.
United Nations is biased.
Siamese and Chams definitely deserve to be added in this game, they were quite important powers in the region historically speaking and are different from the existing SE Asian civs.
Well, applying this standard to Europe then I guess Vikings, Goths, and Teutons should be combined into 1 civ, since they were all Germanic-speaking. Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese should also be 1 civ since they were all Romance-speaking.
There’re many branches within the Austronesian family, Malays and Chams aren’t in the same branch, and historically the Malay Srivijaya Empire was the enemy of the Chams.
dont need more america. give us vlachs and rename slavs into rus.
armenians and georgians next so europe is done
or like this but vlachs for armenians
The keyword is consistency. We should apply the same standard everywhere, since the civs in Europe and India have been split apart, why should civs in East and SE Asia be bound together?
IMO SE Asia should have at least 5 civs: Burmese, Chams, Khmers, Malays, and Siamese (Civs like Javanese, Mon, and Visayans could be added if we have enough space, but they aren’t a priority).
East Asia now have 5 civs, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongols, and Vietnamese. IMO at least 3 civs could be added in the region, Jurchens, Nanzhao (or Lolos), and Tanguts. And after the addition of Tanguts, they and the Mongols could use a new Inner Asian style architecture as opposed to East Asian. And Fire Lancer could be a new regional unit for East Asia.
Tbh something that always complicates things is how recognizable the civs are
Yes, that depends entirely on who you’re talking to.
Recognition in the media in the modern world will always be biased towards Europe, for example, due to historical issues.
Yeah but sometimes you can get around tbhat and still add civs some people will recognize, once you get to talk about the Mon for example, its just not an easy civ to justify business wise
Although the devs just anmounced a civ called Gurjaras so who am I to talk
For sure. That’s one of the things I like about the game, it gives you the opportunity to explore the globe. Before TLK, I had no idea who were Cumans and Tatars