TBF, Persians and Georgians are not far from each other. Though even the Byzantine set would be better though its too Italian looking for my liking.
We should not. The situation in Europe can’t be imitated elsewhere because Europe takes up half the game. It has been massively advantaged, and the only way we can complete some sort of worldmap is accept that and move on.
I also feel like South Asia is a false equivalent here. The whole subcontinent/region was summarised in one single civ, now it’s summarized in four civs. At best it has caught up to other parts of Asia, not surpassed them. There are several Middle Eastern civs, several steppe civs, several Southeast Asian civs and several East Asian civs. I see the argument for more detail within China or even the rough Saracens area, but I wouldn’t say India has been treated unfairly well.
I am in fact kind of fine with Asia right now. It’s not perfect by any sense, but it has the best/fairest civ distribution of any continent. (Where Europe has too much to be best or fairest, not saying Europe needs more work here.)
2 Likes
Problem is that everybody has different priorities. Georgians, Jurchen and Vlachs are post 50 civs civ for me. And “Polynesian” (concept which makes about as much sense as Indians by the way. Rather add Tongans) should take priority over America and Africa even. If they’d come with the next DLC, I’d welcome them much more than anything else (except maybe a Mississippians DLC <3)
America and Africa need to be the next priorites IMO. Europe and its surroundings got really a lot of love already.
Also a good excuse to get to use the Mesoamerican and African sets again, not to speak additional possible Eagle warrior civs and maybe go even crazy and add some regional units again for America and Africa.
and if 48 civs is the cap, we have a total of 20 or 21 civs from Europe, so nearly half of them. totally makes sense, especially when you consider how many other civs could be added.
Nope sorry. Europe has seen plenty of love. right now i’d rather focus on the rest of the world. I’ll happily come back to Europe if 48 is not the cap and the devs actually want to go above that number of civs.
2 Likes
worldmap already is complete if this is still game of medieval not modern.
because then more civs from americas or nomanslands like polynesia dont matter.
if no more europe: south africa needs civs and north africa for saracens is too little 1 civ of all arabs.
georgia and armenia region is empty too. we have 3 steppe lancer civs only.
i missed something?
2 Likes
East Asia.
(Character limit).
2 Likes
Shouldn’t the game focus o civs that actually did something remarkable during the middle ages rather than global representation?
4 Likes
Exactly, and priorities are precisely what must be discussed, and I haven’t seen many people take it in count when sharing their wish list (Aside of the people claiming we’re done with Europe).
The discussion should be directed to the near future. It shouldn’t limit itself to “x civ should / shouldn’t be in the game” but rather “x civs deserve to be in the game more than y”.
1 Like
@Mahazona @Gaudio3342 the problem is precisely to define this remarkable feat or this merit of a certain civ. Any suggestions?
Partially agree. Both aspects should be taken in count with criteria.
People who support the inclusion of Burgundians argue their importance as an economic power and their role in their 100 years war… And yes, they were remarkable, but (i’m sorry but) they are pretty much french (aka franks).
At the same time, we’ve never seen a civ from the Ocenia region. That place is certainly underrepresented. But they didn’t do pretty much anything relevant for others than themselves, aside of some spices trade.
Other aspects take their part as well. Overall recognition, known recorded history, polemic inclusion (Tibetans for example), “coolness”, etc…
4 Likes
Exactly! That why we do not need more Euro civs! Becuase they did not achieve anything or they are perfectly covered by other civs.
1 Like
Then we get into the eternal conflicts about what that means…
As I said above, merits and achievments should not be the only parameter to take in count. Popular opinion should be heard and regional representation is not a negligible point.
That said,
Considering those points I would say that East Asia is the most underrepresented region in realtion to world history significance and known history, with only 4 civs (Chinese, Mongols, Japanese and Koreans) representing a huge chunk of world land surface with tons of recorded history.
I’d include Jurchens and Tibetans disguised as Tanguts as the ones to go, but I’m open to discussion about that.
That is my current priority. I can understand others disagreing.
2 Likes
Well, I also think we should find some criteria and I appreciate your effort, but of these only recorded history has weight. Overall recognition will always be biased towards Europe (although I don’t think devs follow this reasoning, think Cumans or Khmers) and “coolness” is subjective.
For me, the only criteria used by the Ensemble were, as I said elsewhere:
(1) a people who made one or more kingdoms/empires and
(2) within the period ~400 (Huns) to ~1600 (Aztecs).
If anyone thinks there is more or has any suggestions, please share.
Sandy Petersen makes it clear that the only criteria for Ensemble was recognition and “coolness” (help me find a proper word in english)
Why should a completely isolated civi get added for the sake of adding?
If there is some historical significance then it’s fine but just adding civis for representation is just bad, looking at you Sicily.
2 Likes
I watched the whole video and I can’t remember what points he said but I was like ‘omg are you for real’ at a couple things he was saying 
. I will rewatch and list them if someone has the link.
OK. It makes sense, although I would say Africa is the most underrepresented. Weren’t Mongols split into Tatars? Japanese and Koreans are fine as they are and, well, Chinese, I think everyone in this forum agrees to split them into Jurchens and Tibetans (if possible), maybe Thais too.
Perhaps I should have expressed myself better: by “criteria” I mean the internal logic of the game that I observed, the way they included the civs (the Byzantines are the exception). For example, as cool as it might be for Sandy to have the Swiss in the game, he didn’t add them, precisely because they didn’t meet one of the above “criteria” (the second).
3 Likes
You misunderstood me. I’m not saying that East and SE Asia should be split apart in the same way as Europe, if that’s the case then it would make the game very tedious and complicated. I understand that Europe is the exception of this game. However, adding a few more civs to this region to balance things out a bit won’t break the meta of this game, instead it would only make the game more fun to play with.
Currently there’re only 3 civs with the SE Asian architecture (Burmese, Khmers, and Malays), adding 2 more civs (Chams and Siamese) to this region won’t be too much, cause they have just caught up with other regions. Personally, I believe that 4 to 6 civs for each region is the best number.
For East Asia, currently we have 5 civs, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Mongols, and Vietnamese. However, from a historical and cultural POV, the inclusion of Mongols into this region is rather weird. Mongols should have a Tibetan-style or Tibetan-inspired Inner Asian architecture, however it’s very unlikely that a Tibetan civ could be introduced for obvious reasons, therefore the Tanguts can be introduced to supplement them. And with the Tanguts introduced, Mongols can finally have an Inner Asian inspired architecture shared with the Tanguts. Jurchens and Nanzhao (or Lolos) can be introduced to represent Northeastern and Southwestern China respectively, which were historically on the borderlands of the Sinitic sphere and were home to various Non-Sinitic ethnic groups.
So after my proposed changes, here’re the number of civs for each region:
Europe: the exception no need to be further discussed
East Asia: Chinese, Japanese, Jurchens, Koreans, Lolos, and Vietnamese (6 civs)
SE Asia: Burmese, Chams, Khmers, Malays, and Siamese (5 civs)
South Asia: Bengalis, Dravidians, Gurjaras, and Hindustanis (4 civs)
Inner Asia: Cumans, Mongols, Tanguts, and Tartars (4 civs, with 2 having the Transoxiana architecture and 2 having the Tibetan-inspired architecture)
Middle-East: Persians, Saracens, and Turks (3 civs, this place has the potential to have 1 or 2 more civs added, which I propose to be the Afghans and the Georgians).
Africa: Berbers, Ethiopians, and Malians (3 civs, has the potential to have 1 or 2 more, which I propose to be the Swahili and the Kanems)
Americas: Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans (3 civs, has the potential to have 1 or 2 more, which I propose to be the Chimus and the Mississippians)
And that basically sums up everything. I don’t think the addition of Polynesians or Tongans is necessary since in the period covered by AOE 2 they had barely interacted with any of the existing civs, IMO they’re more fit as an AOE 3 civ.
4 Likes
yes
-character limit-
1 Like