Should the next DLC be: Slavs rework, Croats, Serbs, Romanians?

There are a lot of topics about a Slavic DLC with these 4 nations on the forum.

Should the next DLC be a Slavs rework with Croats, Serbs and Romanians as new civs?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

None of that, take one tribe for the Western South Slavic because the Bulgarians represents the Eastern South Slavic branch. Yet I would still be in favor of renaming the Slavs to Rus and adding the Vlachs for the Dracula campaign.

The next 2 DLCs should finally focus on other areas of the world. Here East Asia should be mentioned first with new 2 to 3 new civs and campaigns in the China area. The Koreans and or Japanese deserved at least a whole campaign.

A second DLC for the Near East would make sense to split the Saracens into Saracens and Arabs. Where I think of the Saracens then for todays countries Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Syria, how it has been implemented for the campaign so far. For the Arabs I think a new campaign would go well for Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.


Croats/Serbs won’t ever make it for the same reason Tibet will never be in AoE2, too hot politically.
But ofc they’d be far more deserving than adding Somalis, Swahilis or even Polynesians to an Empire building game (lol).

1 Like

Africa and East Asia should be the next 2 DLCs.


Saracens are Arabs,how are they different?

Not necessarily no. Even the developers agree with this, as they run the Saracen campaign scenarios in the countries of Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Syria, and not in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

They can be able to differ, but to do that, we would have to do research on the internet. Take the Bohemians and Poles in the game as an example, both West Slavic peoples, they are even closer culturally than the Saracens and Arabs. Therefore would a split into Saracens and Arabs should work well.

They speak different languages and had their own kingdoms for centuries.they are not the same people.

You do realize these countries did not exist before ww1.Levant was byzantine before arab/saracen conquest.


Bohemians are a West Slavic tribe like the Poles. Their languages were similar from the Dark ages to the Middle Ages.

That does not change the fact, that we can split the Saracens and Arabs according to the same principle as it was in reality.

Even you dont know how to split them but splitting them is a fact?

They can certainly be split according to cultural circumstances, as I showed with the example of Bohemia and Poland. But how exactly we should do it, takes more time to post it here so briefly.

It is a fact yes. The scenarios created by the developers from the Saracen campaign are also a fact or do you want to deny that?

Lol what’s up with this recent flood about a slav dlc. Suspicious.


Saladin is a Kurd so by your bizarre logic it represent kurdistan.

I do not have any bizarre logic, I write facts. But you do not understand, that the Near East is represented by different tribes, especially in the times from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages, when there was not just 1 civ, that you could call Saracens. That would be like, if you viewed certain parts of Europe as just one civ.

Some day? Yes (minus Croats, sorry Croats) but the next one? no. Africa and E. Asia are higher priority IMO.


This I agree but saracens are arabs they are not different people.

Thank you for that.

Under the umbrella of the Saracens yes.

Saracens represented further peoples in the Near East. Thank you for mentioning Saladin as a Kurd, who is apparently also Saracen according to the campaign.

Let’s give a break with Europe (even if Caucasus is kinda Asia) and search for something else.

About Saracens they’re one of the most splittable civs imo since them and Berbers is basically just Muslims from Spain to Arabia and further into Asia.
Civs I would add are Egyptians, Arabs, Syrians and Andalusian but there could be others.

Egyptians would be based on Fatimids coming from Tunisia, ayyubids, Mamelukes and what was left of Abbasids in Egypt until the ottoman conquest. Saladin would go to them, they’d be the civ closer to current Saracens retaining their UU and a focus on markets I guess.

Arabs could represent pre Muslim reigns like ghassanids, lakhmids etc and the first caliphate of the Rashiduns but also the Abbasids based in Iraq. They would retain from Saracens the focus on camels and religion I guess. No idea about the campaign yet but lots of options.

Syrians would basically be the Umayyads who had their base there in Damascus but would also represent all the Muslim Levant between Egypt and Anatolia. They should get the navy bonus from current Saracens and a campaign set during the early Muslim expansion.

For the Umayyads who gained power in Spain and later Emirates during the reconquista, Andalusians could be introduced too, playing as enemies in El Cid along current Berbers who would basically become Maghrebines. They’re the furthest away from Saracens in terms of civ design but maybe they could gain something out of Berbers (after a small rework, current Berbers are not a very creative design, very vague boni). Andalusians could share an architecture set with Sicilians and a future Spanish split mixing Christian and Muslim elements. No clue about the campaign yet but plenty of stories to be told there.


Slav is already separated in to 4 civs: Bulgarian, Bohemian, Pole and Slav themselves. If anything ,Slav should be renamed into the Rus and that’s it. No more splitting.


Still romanians and albanians can be taken out of the slav umbrella,they are not slavs.


We need a Byzantine rework with a new Byzantine architecture set, Greek voices, Varangian Guards as a Champion replacement, and a new UU that utilizes Greek fire.

This should happen with a Balkans DLC that includes the Moldovans and the Serbs.

1 Like