It seems to me that the Slavs are forcefully added to this campaign - maybe they didn’t want to make a separate campaign about the Slavs. Overall it is a strange campaign (three civs) but that’s because there are no Romanians (Wallachians, Transylvania, Moldovans).
What would you do with the current Slavs if two new Slavic civilizations were added?
Leave them as they are, they are a functional civ, and the name is good enough.
Dracula is a meme campaign. He wasn’t even Slav.
It is a good campaign, and the people he leads were slavic.
Saladin was not an Arab, and he is the focus of the Saracens campaign too.
He leaded Vlachs who weren’t Slavs.
It would be the fairest. No one will be disadvantaged - each of the three Slavic civilizations will represent their nations. There is no nationalism in this game. The Franks represent the French nations, so why can’t the Wends represent the Western Slavs?
If Poles are added - the Czechs are sad. The same is the other way around.
Poles and Czechs added - the rest of the Slavic nations furious.
One civilization of the Slavs - complete disregard for history and culture.
Therefore, the three Slavic civilizations are the best option for this game.
Apart from two new Slavic civs, two new East European ones, e.g. Georgians and Armenians. 4 civilizations in the Eastern European DLC. I think that would be great.
Romanians are part Slavs, and they definitely were more so in the Middle Ages.
Also, they will not delete the accurate Dracula campaign, or give it to Vlachs civ, as it would make no sense.
It is better to leave Slavs as is, name and all.
Romanians aren’t part of Slavs. Search history.
No, this is unhistorical. Changing the name to Rus (or Ruthenians) will correct this and will be in keeping with the story.
Exactly. He was a Wallachian (Romanian).
Wallachians are Romanians (descended from the Romans), not Slavs.
And the current Slavs represent only Ruthenians. Only Ruthenians. There is nothing Polish or Serbian in this civilization. Even the description of this civilization says that it represents Kievan Rus. This rename is needed.
This game has a lot of unhistorical things in it, like Berbers with Genitours, or Chinese without Cannons.
Gameplay comes first, and they decided that the Dracula campaign would be better, for some reason.
The Slavs are a good civ, if you change their name, then you will need to change the names of dozens of other civs, and prepare for every small kingdom in Western Europe to be added in for years, because then it would be justified.
Well, but with others, you do not need to change.
These are poor examples. You have listed nations here, not civilizations. Ruthenians are a civilization, not a nation.
Lol. I had just watched that video yesterday.
Wends weren’t nNomads. In fact, they founded a lot of cities in Pomerania and East Germany, such as Brandenburg and Dresden.
But Polabians were overrun by the Germans early on, whereas Poles and Bohemians weren’t.
Yes, you are right. I was inaccurate. By “nomads” I meant there were no big states with proper administration, military, tax etc systems, there were first states/tribe organisations, like states in infancy.
So I was thinking about it and the real question here is why to have such general umbrella civ while we do have on the other hand a fully developed mediaval states/civs with specific characteristics? I will make an analysis 
To all Wends supporters:
How will you design that new civ if it should contain aspects of late Poland and Bohemia? Will it be defensive (Bohemians) or neutral/aggressive (Poles)? Would you prefer infantry (Bohemians) or cavalry (Poles). Will it have access to gunpowder (both civs had it)? What would be UU of such civ?
While the other choice is clear. Instead of nothing-saying Wends, lets assume to pick Bohemians:
That is what I made up within few minutes, could be imbalanced, idk, just few thoughts, how to make them unique in the game.
I am not going to write about Poland because I do not feel I know everything about it. But if somebody dive in it, he should explain:
Rather nothing than Wends 
P.S. Paladin upgrade can be bought like a UT called “northern crusades”/“german noble vassals” ? just an idea…
No
My idea was better for this 
Mobile mini-barracks.
For Poland:
Weaker infantry
Strong farming
Strong theocratic techs
Strong Cav (and access to Steppe Lancers)
Weak Navy
Ok siege
Free Cavalry Armor (like the civ who gains free infantry armor) and 2 farmers per farm (may or may not increase farm price to balance).
Every few castles = +1 attack (or defense) for knight line. This is reasonable as stone is not that concentrated and would cost large amounts of gold to buy it when it runs out.
UU: Pancerni ( because most civs have hussar already which historically is an Eastern European thing. Also (stupidly) we have Magyar Huszar as well. Also they were later in time.)
My unique techs were:
Team tech is 20hp extra for monks.
Read more about my Slavic civs here: 'Bulwarks of Christendom' DLC Suggestion
Who cares? OHHH NOOOO 50 CIVS HAVE MEN AT ARMS NOOO!!! Having one strong unit simply means the subtraction of another. That is how balance works after all.
This will require you to do your own research as I don’t have all night to explain obvious differences to you.
Wends
Civ Bonii:
-Barracks upgrades Food cost halved
-Monks have +1 Speed
-Cavalry train 20% faster
Team Bonus:
-Gunpowder units +15% HP
-Taborites: Castle Age UT for Militia line, +2 Damage and cannot be converted (radical fanatics).
-Szlachta: Imperial Age UT for Knights, +30 HP.
-Bombard Wagon: UU, that has to deploy like a Treb, replaces the Treb, has less Range than Castle in base unit, has same Range as Treb Elite version, and even more damage, specially to buildings.
There you go.
Czechs (Taborites), Poles (Szlachta) and Bohemians (Bombard Wagon) in one civ. It really is not that hard, eliminates bloat, covers quite a few people and events, and even makes the civ actually good. Wends is a decent option for AoE2.
Also I would not give them Paladins, 170 HP + faster training Cavaliers is more than enough for Polish Cavalry.
No one really wants another Hussar civ.
Czechs are Bohemians
And i do dislike the rest
Yes, but the Taborites were their own, more fanatical group in the Hussite Revolt, mostly Czechs, so I think they deserve some recognition, and a name drop never hurts.
Most of Bohemia was ‘mostly Czechs’ lmao
