In my opinion i don’t get why we should have new civs, there are already too many and the last ones are pretty strange civs.
Sicilians with First Crusade, Serjeants and Donjons, Burgundians with Flemish Revolution and UU with charge attack, Poles with unique mill and some ridicolous bonus with an OP trash unit, Bohemians with strong UU, OP trash monks, early chemistry.
Historywise there’s space, in the game not.
Although i like the new civs, especially the LotW ones, i don’t think i’d like to have a new DLC.
Because theres $ to be made and civ slots to be filled.
While Goths were added for marketing reasons, the dark ages were a part of the gsme when the original devs left. Most civs started on the dark ages snd we had two exclusively dark age civs.
Leave Goths name alone. The game should include the dark ages
1 Like
Basing on Kingdom of the Vandals and Alans, perhaps make a Vandal civ with a cavalry UU named “Alans”, similar to the combine of the Cumans and Kipchaks.
It isn’t but then again it is meant to since most European civs don’t have camel riders for a damn good reason.
Thats like comparing apples to oranges
A new civ always comes in a DLC together with another civ and 3 campaigns, therefore some possible DLCs:
India: [DLC concept] The Wealth of India (Bengalis & Tamils)
- Bengalis
- Tamils
- Persian campaign (or Chinese)
East Asia:
- Siamese
- Tibetians
- Chinese campaign (see Wealth of India) (or Korean)
Sub-saharan Africa:
- e.g. Somalis, Kanembu, Benin, Yoruba
- Turks campaign? (or third new civ with campaign)
(perhaps) Caucasus (non-European civs should have priority):
- 2 of 3: Georgians, Armenians, Khazars
- Slav campaign (e.g. Kievan or Muscovite Rus’)
(perhaps) Americas:
- Chimú New civ concept: The Chimu
- Tarascans New civ idea-Tarascans or Mixtecs (incl. Zapotecs)
- Maya campaign
(perhaps) South India:
- Kannadigas
- Telugus
- Chinese campaign (see Wealth of India)
1 Like
Danes and Sweds/finns with vikings campaign.
Swiss and Venice with turks campaign.
Georgians and Arminians with persian and or turk campaigns.
1 Like
Not in the slightest. It’s a perfectly fitting comparison.
It’s historically influenced. Much like a lot of medieval games. But no where close to accurate
1 Like
- Dravidians civ & Bengals civ + Indians (Mughals) campaign
- Jurchen civ & Khazars + Japanese campaign
- Tibetans civ & Siamese civ + Chinese campaign
- Congolese civ & Zimbabwe civ & Kanem-Bornu civ
- Tarascans civ & Muisca civ & Chimu civ + Mayans campaign
- Mamluk civ & Moors civ + Turks campaign
- Georgians civ & Armenians civ + Persian campaign
- Aragonese civ & Venetians civ + Italians campaign
- Romanians civ & Swedes civ + Slavs (Ruthenians) and Vikings campaigns
- Bavarians civ & Saxons civ + Teutons and Britons&Goths campaigns
- Serbs civ & Croats civ + Byzantine and Magyars campaigns
3 Likes
I never said it was accurate. TungstenBoar creates the impression that it isn’t even based off of historical facts.
1 Like
No its not, its a really bad comparison
???
When did I say that? I just said that the game is meant to portray the diferent regional powers from the 5th to 16th century, whats wrong with that?
I’d never want to see Goths gone / renamed just stating that they are a little late in time period. its like, they are in the in between zone between end of AOE1 and start of AOE2. if anything I reckon should be more dark age play.
4 Likes