so was Mexico, Hausa, and Malta.
Also what dose relevant in history means anyway? They were important in their area ( Oceania) How can you tell if they are relevant?
so was Mexico, Hausa, and Malta.
Relevant civs are typically ones that either created great empires, or pushed the limits of human progress. Also a relevant civ may be relevant if they were a major player in relevant location. For instance, the colonization of the Americas was the one of the greatest events in world history, so major players in the Americas such as the Aztecs and Iroquois have a place in the game.
Australia and Polynesia were never really relevant historically-speaking.
That is very American central point of view.
For Korean-New Zealander Colonization of America is just another European colonizing new lands like how they did with Africa and Asia.
and Oceania were relevant in British and some French history. After all it was what created well Australia and New Zealand- Two important allies of US and UK.
it maybe not relevant to you but it is relevant to wider world. Don’t look at things through US lens. Not everything revolves around US.
Don’t forget the Dutch (Willem Janszoon).
Honestly I think this relevant civs argument needs to go away. Any civs that survived to the Early Modern Era can be in this game.
Of cause I am not asking something ridiculous like Babylon or Byzantium to be in this game… BUT I think any “player of history” in this “gunpowder era” can be in this game… weather they are important empire or not.
Not being “important” enough is a stupid reason.
If a civ is cool and interesting, why not add it? It will make the game more fun to play.
If you don’t care about them you can always choose to ignore them.
If they are not important enough for you doesn’t mean they aren’t important enough for someone else.
Just because a civ isn’t cool and interesting enough to you doesn’t mean it is cool and interesting enough for someone else. Of course it is subjective and opinion, and my opinion is that important and relevant civs tend to be the ones that are cool and interesting.
and we are running out of civs if we go that way.
How many important “empires” have we left?"
Persia, Brazil… and probably Zulu?
and then what? End the including new civ?
Persians, Brazilians, Poles, Danes, Commanche, Moroccans. There are plenty of relevant civs left.
Pole wasn’t an Empire… neither was Dane.
Commache wasn’t an empire.
I’ll give Moroccans but that is only 4.
The Danes held a small little island called Greenland. Commancheria was a huge expanse that was acquired by the Commanche after defeating many of its neighbours.
who were Commanche kings? give me the list of kings?
i dont like the idea of adding Maori and Hawaii as playable civs. In my oppinion a civ has to bring a unique playstyle (lakota/malta/mexico) or be so important, that you couldnt leave them out (spanish/chinese/ottman) … obviously the best would be, when they are both …
sure, maori is interesting for its wars against britain … but hawaii? … and even then its just the british … idk its like adding a random siberian tribe the russians fought and later incorporated into their empire.
but more importantly i think they wont offer a fun and unique playstyle … after reading the different proposals for maori, they really sound like haudenosaunee 2.0. Good units, bad eco, wierd gimmicks for compensation. haudenosaunee are occupying this niche, and they are not super popular … so 1 is enough is guess.
another problem with a oceania dlc is: its water. I’d really love to see more water gameplay, but everytime i host a 2v2/3v3 caribean or smth like that, it takes ages to fill the lobby. Also: pls no more canoe civs
“Quanah Parker was never elected chief by his people but was appointed by the federal government as principal chief of the entire Comanche Nation, and became a primary emissary of southwest indigenous Americans to the United States legislature.”
yes, they were not unified, but they are still called empire in popular science literature
Bigger Empires first. Africans, Asians, specially Center and SE Asia
I made a proposal a while back for an Australian revolution for the British, French, and Dutch, to replace the US revolution. Australia - #7 by TheSquidEmpire
I think ideally we would get a half dozen Australian and oceanic maps, an Australian revolution option, a bunch of polynesian and Indigenous Australian minor civs, and a small campaign or set of historical battles set in the region. That would be my dream “south pacific” update.
Maps I would like
- Daintree → rainforest with coral coast teeming with fish and crocodiles.
- Van Dieman’s Land → A large heavily forested island with a vital coastal trade route at the north. Everyone starts at the South, or even just with settlers in a boat kinda like a nomad start.
- Auralia → Goldfields and the Nullabor, rocky map with coast along the south and NO TREES but a lot of gold mines. There would have to be some map gimmick to supply wood, like everyone starts with a market or there are crates scattered around.
- Pohnpei → A tiny island where players start really close to each other for a quick, brutal game.
- Fiordland → A cold coast rising to huge snowy mountains with forest in-between.
- Solomon Islands → Each player gets a small island to start on and there are numerous other small islands scattered around for settling
Oceania and the mysterious distant Pacific seem very interesting to me. I hope they come in the future.