In order to finally break the Slavic umbrella. Anyway, the South Slavs also have a lot to offer
I would prefer more German civs but unfortunately we are limited by the 48 civs limit. If the limit was e.g. 55 civs then I would add one more civ representing North Germans.
Hereās the point that I would like three completely new architecture sets to be created also for the civs present in the game:
Byzantine set - Byzantine civ, Bulgarians civ and Serbo-Croatians* civ
North European set - Slavs (Ruthenians) civ and Vikings civ
Nomadic set - Huns civ and Mongols civ
Changes:
Bohemians civ and Habsburgs* civ to Central European set
Bulgaria had 2 empires Aztecs also were an empire.Cumans not unified but a tribal confederation mayans were city states.we have all types of civis so if had an empire or not dosent really matter for adding civis.personally Id rather see swiss and venice get added first.
When it comes to the name for the South German civ, there are many possibilities, e.g. Austrians and Habsburgs (not my idea for such a name, but Sandy Petersen). Bavarians would be the most correct name, but if you donāt like it, it doesnāt mean that someone else bothers you. The Holy Roman Empire is also a possible name, but not in keeping with AoE 2 - but perfectly correct.
Donāt make this up. Teutons civ is a drop in the ocean of what medieval Germany has to offer. Lots of people want Swiss civ who are South Germans. A common South German civ could include Swiss Pikemen and All-German Landsknecht.
I offered one common civ for South (Hindu) Indians - Dravidians (would be covered not only Tamils). Bengalis could appear if the civs limit was e.g. 55 civs.
There are concessions since there are so few free slots for new civs.
The second German civ is as needed as the Indian second civ !!!
Bohemians in this game also represent smaller nations such as Moravians, Silesians, Lusatians and maybe even Slovaks. So do not say that they are just half German, because it is not so. Bohemians is a Slavic nation that was strongly influenced culturally by Germans.
The last 4 civs do not tell you only because they are European?
Sandy Petersen himself explained that this civ would simply be based on the Holy German Empire. He also said that this civ would have Swiss Pikemen and Landsknecht as its Unique Units.
Tibetans, Songhai, Bengalis were empires and arguing that they werent is wrong.
Nubians were super important and super long lasting, western Bantu peoples had multiple really powerful polities.
And I dpnt see how those are close to existing civs. The only one is Nubians and its not that close
I donāt think that is a certainty. When 2 DE was made, it was without knowledge of how successful it would be. They now have information they didnāt have when starting to make DE, and that new information (sales of 2 DE and its DLCs) might make it seem viable to re-write it for an even more definitive edition. If 4 canāt match the success of 2 DE, I think the chances of a re-write of 2 will increase.
No. Anyone with any common sense would know thats not true.
Teutons cover 1.2 million kilometers of related civs with a shared culture and history, as well as all being under one state and are represented somewhat faithfully. India covers three times the territory (and waaaaayy more people), doesnt represent any of the major medieval powers of the region accurately (and you cant even properly emulate most of them even), and includes multiple super powerful empires and more cultural variety (and again, currently no medieval Indian civ is represented, just Mughals). And beyond those units Im pretty sure you have 0 ideas of why the civ would be diferent from normal Teutons. Its like adding Burgundians, it sounds cool at first but its just at the end a Frank civ clone.
I liked Bulgarians and Burgundians beyond the identity problems, but Poles and Sicilians just dont seem particularly interesting even if they are well balanced (those two DLCs while better designed than LK and AoF at launch are still below all other DLCs). Bohemians are just a mess, I like deathballs so I cant say that I dont like something about I also just really dislike getting a DLC of civs that could be perfectly represented by Franks while not adding anything major unique to them that isnt stupidly designed. And Poles are just too weird to me and Bohemians feel overdesigned and really weird in a lot of parts (tbh I dont hate those two, I think they are fine but I honestly like other civs from other expansions more).
That is excatly my point. Cumans are like mayan not really empire, they can be in game because aztecs and bulgarians are and C & M are packed with A & B.
I think for Africa, there are, realistically, a maximum of 5 civs that could make it to the game: Kanembu (Kanem and Bornu Empires), Somali (Adal Sultanate and others), Nubians/Sudanese (Kingdoms of Alodia and Makuria), Songhai and Tunisians (expecially the Hafsid dinasty). Any other faction doesnāt make much sense to add since their military interactions with other peoples in the game were completely outside of the timeframe.
I mean, if anything I expect to get Zimbabweans, Beninese and Kongolese over any of those. And Hausa is probably something I would expect more than Kanembu
About the indian dlc:
Iād rather have Tamils and Bengalis in a dlc than Austrians/Serbs and Bengalis.
Austrians/Serbs donāt even match the dlc theme. Please no more european civs, or give them the lowest priority as possible so they come as the last dlc before pulling the plug.
About the american dlc:
Iād rather have Chimus and Waris over Iroquois, Muiscas, Missisipians, etc.
Chimus and Waris had large empires and were far more advanced since they were in the bronze age. Besides both are already in game included in the inca campaign. Why not fixing the most boring campaign by adding them. They also will improve modding because more models and the andean building set will have to be added. So why random american civs instead of expanding whatās part of the game already? Polishing the game and fixing stuff should be important factors to consider before deciding new civs.
Also I always wonder why people want Iroquois, Muiscas, Mapuches, Missisipians, Caribs, Lakotas, etc in aoe2ā¦ is it because of aoe3?
About the asian dlc:
Tibetans are needed. Probably the only civ thatās been requested since the release of the conquerors. And even considering the chinese censorship, as long as their campaign explicitly states tibetans were conquered by the yuan dynasty, I donāt see why or how the CCP could censor the dlc.
About the african dlc:
Kanembu are a must. The kingdom of Zimbabwe had nice fortresses and strong infantry, so the kingdom is a good candidate. The Kongolese traded (also fought) with the Portuguese and had the best gunpowder troops in Africa by 1600. Their kingdom was larger, and they faced the Portuguese between 1495 and 1625. Thatās campaign material. They are good candidates as well.
I would like to have at least one of them (tbh while both are cool, they seem a bit similar on what they would be though), but no one knows them.
I agree, but something to take into account is that adding Tibet may just seem like too big of a risk to the devs, even though that risk may be slim.
Big fan of Kanembu since they have a lot history and were really powerful, but I really doubt we will see them because they are probably the most unknown of the major African kingdoms. I would expect Hausa, Nubians, Beninese, Songhai or maybe even Ghana over them
Thatās the problem: everything that is worth adding about the Kongolese is in the 1600 and the earliest war they had with thee Portuguese was in the XVII century aka. completely out of AoE2 timeframe. Great Zimbabwe was an isolated kingdom in southern Africa, I donāt think they would be that interesting to add.
The Zimbabweans interacted with the Swahili (who traded with pretty much anyone at the cost of the Indian Ocean and were in part comprised by Arab and Persians immigrants) for like 400 years. Also they interacted quite a bit with Portos and Somalis when they controled the Swahili coast, so they are kind of like the Aztecs of the old world, only even more impressive in terms of territory held but with way less people. They would have a lot to add gameplaywise as a non meso civ without cav and were very interesting.
Kongo on itself isnt that impressive and werent as adept to gunpowder as some other civs (ahem Somalis ahem), but what really counts is the sheer ammount of diferent western Bantu kingdoms. Imo having at least one Bantu civ is a must.
The problem is that the Pachacutiās campaign problem isnāt just the lack of variety in civs, though it is a pretty big problem, itās that the gameplay of most of the missions is tedious and grindy. Besides, we have a campaign that is mostly mirror matches and is pretty good in Sundjata, so by replacing the Inca factions with Wari and Chimu you arenāt really dealing with the biggest issue.
