You can have turks or persians in a middle eastern or caucasus dlc too.
3 Likes
Add Turks/Magyars/Slavs, whatever is not represented by Dracula campaign accurately. You play as all of them yet represent none of them accurately.
4 Likes
Theres no way a civ called āBavariansā gets added. Its Its either Swiss or Austrians who are way more recognizable.
Not to mention having more HRE civs than Indian civs would be a very bad joke
2 Likes
A campaign based on Harald Hardrada where you can play as Vikings Slavs and Byzantines and fight a whole lot of landscapes and enemies would be nice to have.
1 Like
I think a full on Viking campaign would be better imo. Something like Sigurd I would be cool since theres a huge variety of possible enemies
2 Likes
Bavarians is a term for quite a large group of South German smaller nations, such as the Bavarians, Austrians and Swiss. This would be the most correct name for a civ to represent these nations. Another name I gave was the one Sandy Petersen offered - Habsburgs civ.
It wouldnāt be a jokeā¦
So far, typically German civs are the same as Indian ones. Both Teutons civ and civ Indians are too much abuse in this game - last too huge umbrellas civ.
I want more historical battles, good campaign scenarios and unique skins for each unit.
2 Likes
Celts and Vikings?
Celts scots irish welsh brittani
Vikings denmark norway sweden finland
Celts are like Italians civ - there are differences between individual nations, but they are not strong enough and not significant enough to be a priority in AoE 2. You could divide the Celts civ into Scots civ and Irish civ, but this is not a priority even in Europe.
I myself offered to create Swedes / Finns civ. I think a second Scandinavian civ could be added if the civ limit was a maximum of 55 civs.
With only 9 civs to add, you have to be as flexible as possible and you have to accept concessions and simplifications - therefore I offer 3 European civs, 2 Caucasus, 2 African and 2 Asian. Since the creators decided to break the European umbrellas, let them finish it. One last Slavic civ is enough - Serbo-Croatians (a big concession because it could be made 2 interesting civs), one German civ based on HRE (Swiss Pikemen and Landsknecht) and for free as 40 civ - Romanians (so that Draculaās campaign finally stopped to be a caricatured campaign). 2 Caucasian civs would be a completely new region in this game, 2 African civs (Congolese from Central Africa and Zimbabwe from South Africa) meant that we would have one of the most powerful civs from each region of Africa. Finally, 2 civs from South Asia to break the Indian umbrella at least a bit and add the coveted Siamese civ.
I would prefer more civs, but since there is a limit of 48 civs, this is in my opinion the best selection of the last civs for AoE 2. Personally, I would prefer the 55 civs limit as already.
It is impossible to satisfy everyone, so with the limited 9 civs, I did not include America, especially Oceania, because it would be a less important selection of civs, especially when the most important American civs are already in the game. I would like to see Muisca, Tarascans and Chimu but they would make more sense to add if the civs limit was 55 civs.
1 Like
Why do we need a 5th slavic civi and only one more teuton civi?that would make 7 civis in the same building set unless they add a whole new set which is more than unlikely.
Again, a civ representing South Germans called Bavarians wont be added.
And its nowhere near as bad as India (I would argud Germany is fine considering how many Germans I have seen complaining) We need to add at least Bengalis and Tamils before even considering adding a second German civ, and we already had Bohemians too who are half-German.
I really hope there will be no new DLC, since i dont like the latest new civs at all. But i think that the devs will give us new civs. So it seems like my opinion on this subject doesnt really matter for the devs.
At least i hope that the devs will also make time for bugfixing the game first, before they add another 2 useless civs.
1 Like
Yes we know. You dont have to repeat it every time someone talks about the future civs (which tbh I also hope are better than the last four).
I agree that the civs wont stop coming until they stop selling or we reach the 48 civ limit
1 Like
Realistic expectations for how many more new DLCs threads weāll get for AoE2.
3 Likes
This would be pretty impossible to have as we have most of the areas they owned as separate civis already.
1 Like
I donāt think an American DLC should ever happen. I donāt mind adding maybe one more South American civ, but it is already unrealistic enough with Aztecs and Mayans being better than a lot of the other civs, when technologically they would have been crushed by practically any other civ in the game. I like having the civs there, but the American civs further north had technology even less able to compete with the rest of the world and would be stretching things a bit too far. They also donāt really have anything resembling castles I donāt think, which could create some problems. They really are more of a AoE3 civ.
6 Likes
Hardly empires. They are more of ethnic groups that once had powerful military power, or being too close to existing civs on characteristics.
2 Likes
Not all in game civis had or have empires eg.cumans tatars koreans.
3 Likes
The realistic expectation should be more bugs, more broken things, more old civs power creeped and more performance issues.
Seems fair and consistent with everything we observed so far.
1 Like
Tartars becasue of Timurid Empire. Cumans are basically packed with bulgaria like aztecs and mayan. Korean imo is the most fantasy civ in the conquerer version and I donāt want to see another Korean. To me, before de, Korean is basically a meme civ and wierd in almost every aspect(naval civ but pratically not good at water map, whole tech tree built for tower rush, economy canāt support good siege, war wagon has no source material, competative game with korean civ very boring to watch)