I very much think it would only be three at the most, in which case we’d probably get the former three, but not the latter two (especially not the Iroquois, who are already properly represented in Age 3). A final expansion should focus more on new campaigns and only add the most obvious and requested gaps in the civ roster. As devastated as I was when I heard the devs didn’t want any more new civs after The Last Khans, a lot of other community members rejoiced, so I think fewer civs in exchange for more campaigns would be reasonable.
I still fail to see why this should be the case. After all, both games have, say, the Portuguese, as well. It doesn’t make sense to eliminate an entire continent just because of its presence in an entirely different game!
1 Like
The Portuguese were included because they fit the Age 2 timeframe a bit better, as their explorations generally occurred before anybody else. Additionally, they were featured as part of an African-themed expansion pack, and Age 3 did not focus on Africa. Contact with the North American tribes happened primarily at the very end of or beyond the Age 2 timeframe.
Personally, I wish they had added the Bantu, Swahili, or Kongo as the third African civilization instead of the white Portuguese, but at least we got a unique campaign out of Francisco de Almeida.
Not true! Much of Native American culture took place during the 900-1300 era, long before any europeans arrived in the area! They had a vast and thriving culture that was unfortunately wiped out by european diseases long before europeans ever made their way that far northwest.
To claim they had no significant culture is very ignorant. They had more than enough to draw from!
1 Like
They had culture, yes, but you suggested that the hypothetical expansion pack be contact-themed. It would be possibly to include them, but they just didn’t interact much with the rest of the Age II civilizations until after the Age II timeframe. The Incas were at least much more advanced and famous.
Honestly, I’m starting to feel strongly that the devs need to at least sophisticate the ability to create new civilizations in the scenario editor. They could add an “Edit Civilization Bonuses” feature, “Edit Civilization Architecture Set”, and add in several more new units for the scenario editor that could be integrated as unique units. This would make it easier to produce campaigns centered around new civilizations without meddling with the balance of tournaments.
The Tomislav-based Croatian campaign I’m designing, for example, currently uses the Slavs as a default placeholder for the Croatians, but in most cases I have the architecture inherited from Gaia or other players because I want to represent the civilization with the Mediterranean set instead of the Eastern European set. Meanwhile, the Zupani and Kondura unique units are just repriced Magyar Huszars and Vikings Longboats and don’t function as I described in my earlier overview of the civ. The unique techs aren’t represented at all because there’s basically nothing I can do there except maybe enable similar unique techs from completely different civs (i.e., the Celts’ Stronghold for Bans). I want a bit more freedom over how I flesh out the civilization if possible, since I don’t have the time or skill to hack the Croatians into the game as the 36th civilization.
I do not care about representation. Media should never be a vehicle for people’s illusions of importance.
I just want some good warlike civs to play with.
As soon as you have the Age of Discover in your game (which AoC introduced with the Aztec campaign), you Have to get Portuguese, because they strted the whole Age by themselves.
Portuguese should have benn an AoC civ, originally.
I only said that they should have horses, to keep them distinct from the other meso civs, an anachronism that only took place later in their timeline. Not that the focus of the expansion itself should be ‘contact themed’.
We have a vast plentitude of european civs, they’re the last thing we need. Give us some micronesian ones, or more african ones, or North American ones. Certainly not more civs that are just going to further muddle the pile we’ve already got.
I mean, my goodness, we’ve got Slavs and Teutons and Franks and Bulgarians and…how many do we need?
1 Like
Poland and Serbia are still missing.Now dont say lithuania and magyar represent them too 
Non-European empires that are not included at all in the game are:
- Tibetans
- Ghurids (Afghans)
- Chola (Tamils)
- Jin dynasty (Jurchen)
- Kanembu
Non-European kingdoms:
- Thai
- Great Zimbabwe
- Kongo
- Somali
- Swahili
- Iroquois confederacy
- Mississipians
- Benin
- Muisca
- Chimu
European Kingdoms:
- Georgia
- Transylvania/Moldova.
- Burgundians
- Poland
- Bohemia
- Armenia
- Serbia
The above list is not definite or all inclusive. Just out of the top of my head.
Wishlist (minimum):
- Tibetans
- Ghurids (Afghans)
- Chola (Tamils)
- Jin dynasty (Jurchen)
- Kanembu
Wishlist expanded to include:
- Thai
- Bantu
- Iberians (Georgians+Armenians)
- Romanians
Potentially:
- North Americans
- Wends (West Slavs)
- Muisca
Total civs: 35 +12 = 47.
Will this ever happen? No. Not unless I learn to mod the game including making graphics for new units. lol
1 Like
I think the Thais could go into this list ahead of Iroquois.
Build set
East Asian set - Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese
SE Asian set - Burmese, Malays, Khmer and Thais
Mongol/Tibet set - Mongolians and Tibetans
Byzantine set - Bulgarians, Byzantines, Georgians
Indian set - Indians and Tamils (if, though I still think we could add more unit flavour rather than separate civilisation)
African set - Malians, Swahili, Ethiopians
Why not use Magyars instead of Slavs for the campaign?
Because the Croatians are Slavic (making the Slavs civilization more technically accurate) and Croatia was not part of Hungary during the tenth century. On the contrary, the Magyars are the primary antagonists of the early part of the campaign. Mind you, this was during the era that the Magyars were primarily nomadic and had not yet become a sedentary kingdom.
Weren’t Croatians a strong cavalry oriented state, hence Magyar unit strengths would make more sense no?
The Croatians are also infantry-focused, and the Magyars have mediocre infantry. Having the Croatians represented by the Slavs causes them to speak a more accurate language, but I can easily use the trigger system to give the Croatians access to Paladins and better naval units in exchange for weaker Monks and siege, not to mention the renamed Magyar Huszar as the Zupan placeholder instead of the Boyar.
Meet the Tatar Husskarl 11
Or something else entirely? You could do a new regional unit I guess. Also, many people proposed eagle warrior for american (or even polynesian !!!) because the Eagle-warrior that should be Aztec-exclusive has been used as a generic cav replacer already so people see it as a representation of a generic runner or something (ie.you could say they represent Chasquis for Incas I guess?)
1 Like
Meet the Tatar Husskarl 11
… You are right. Maybe +1 meele armor starting in Feudal?
Yes I was thinking that too. +1 P armor is too strong for a team bonus.
Tatar Hussars would have 2+4+1 and +1 from team bonus, so 8 P armor, which means an arbalester with full upgrades (6+3+1 = 10 damage) would only do 2 damage a pop and 1 without chemistry. Sounds rough.
1 Like
Lots of nice ideas here you missed the kanem bornu/nigerian empire.
No one really talks about the finnish people.
The Kanembu refers to the Kanem Bornu empire. So I have included that.
By the Nigerian Empire do you mean the Hausa and Nri Kingdoms?
If you want to make them all into one civi nigerians can be used.