Again the three haters coming here to deem European civs as insignificant and ruin another thread…
8 Likes
The European hate (or any kind of racism) is not a good thing but if he doesn’t care about campaigns that’s ok, he paid the game, he can do what he wants with it.
Come on, let’s move on, we’re adults…
Ah yes, the three haters. Come on, he didnt say anything about European civs here.
And have you seen what we were talking about at the beggining? There were nearly 100 comments about Asia, this thread didnt even start well.
1 Like
you need to read what your comrades are posting… imagine if someone said this for any African civ?
5 Likes
Im talking about Szaladon.
And yeah I think Akoskaa goes too far, I just liked the comment for the people playing singleplayer part, but you have liked some very questionable comments before. You have no right to point fingers at us
The European civs would be fine if they added more users of: Camels, Steppe Lancers, Elephants or Eagles heck even Dromon.
Can they extend the use of these underutilized units and thus expand the gameplay? If so great I will be your champion especially if you can justify them without their elite upgrade for even further tech tree unique design
That said I still don’t understand nationalistic pride for a time 5 centuries detached from today and fantastical elements.
1 Like
With a statement like that, I am really happy, that there are so many civs from Europe in this game and they are still increasing… This game is weighty focused on Europe and always has been, that is what the developers want and we players are not developers and can not do anything about this situation, just accept it.
I am also in favor of adding large and important empires, but if the developers do not comply with your wishes, we European players can not do anything about it.
I also wrote already, that we should get more East Asian and civs from North Africa respectively from the Near East for the game. Your allusion is therefore not justified.
Back to Szaladon. If it is now known, that someone, who so often and constantly has exotic civ desires, but he ignores the basic pillars of the game and does not play any campaigns, even though he has bought the game and the DLCs, which is good, that is of course harmful for everyone, who wants such exotic civs in the game. Because the developers then assume, that his wishes are not quite as serious as they seem. Look at it from this objective point of view.
2 Likes
Should we all be dogpiling people? Need I remind some of you involved you have fallen victim to such abuses as well?
I also want to see underused architecture sets getting the spotlight. People which want more European civs like Muty are arguing that they will come with new architecture sets, an assumption which is rather bold with the current track record of the devs. A Balkan DLC would likely reuse both Mediterranean and Eastern European architecture, a thing which even those which are neutral or positive about European civs are against it:
An African and American would almost guarantee another Archer, Camel and/or Eagle Warrior civ while also use underused architecture. I expected them to focus on underused architecture sets if they didn’t plan on adding more.
All suggestion so far for European civs are either contrived, need massive reworks of other civs and destroy iconic civs like Teutons or Vikings.
And to be honest, should they dare to sell a Caucasian or any other DLC civ architecture set separately I’d be pissed considering that I’m already paying 45 % more than for a HD expansion which included a new architecture set from the get go.
3 Likes
Why would it destroy original civis?adding sicilians and burgundy didnt do anything to franks.
To be honest, with the insanity of some suggestion, I think Akoskaa isn’t that wrong to point them out the way he’s doing it.
Might be a bit more undiplomatic way of doing it but apparently people aren’t willing to listen otherwise.
Regardless how much hate few people have over adding more european civis there will be another one.simple reason vikings dont have a campaign yet.
3 Likes
There are some suggestions which are very much stupid like a Papal civ, but I would not call them insignificant. I would maybe call them minor, shortlasting or arbitrary, but not insignificant.
Not true. Back in the day AoE2 was one of the most progressive games in terms of non European representation I would argue.
From an objective point of view someone who plays the game and pays for new content is a serious player.
C´mon, you are ridiculous.
2 Likes
20 percent is far too small a proportion to credibly support your argument.
It is really hard true… Or do you mean to claim that North Africa, Central Asia and South Asia had more civs than Europe from the beginning in 1999, it is not so. 7 of the 13 civs were already European back then at Age of Kings.
Only to a limited extent to certain parts.
If a player constantly suggests exotic civs and campaigns but does not even play such campaigns, are this for sure really bad moves, that such content will ever have a good chance to become an official part of the game.
Maybe its just me but the game hasnt felt “new” since Conquerors expansion really shook things up in interesting ways without taking away or going too far. It also added 5 civs when it was harder to code snd program due to less ease of use technology
If it comforts you, I’m also not playing the “normal” campaigns. The wallet will decide and mine will be pretty closed should the next DLC be European once again.
It was pretty much 50/50 and the first planned expansion was either going to be Indian or American. The one after that was planned to be African and introduce a new Age but Microsoft told Ensemble to make Age 3 with middling success.
Campaign vs Victory with civ of the DLCs:
Campaign completion rate is between 30-45 % for expansion civs (with the disclaimer that Prithviraj was a “Indians” campaign before becoming a Gurjara one).
Even the most played campaign (William Wallace) has 30 % completion rate roughly. This isn’t indicating much excitment for campaigns in general, even for the iconic William Wallace one (which might also just be the thing new players launch as first thing).
1 Like
Thank you for that.
For a possible future DLC: I would also be in favor of getting a new Meso American DLC, which is missing so far. The density of advanced cultures in this area of the world is high enough for us, to be able to introduce them. In particular rare animals and plants would be well received in campaign and also skirmish maps. Furthermore, one can certainly create good and further campaigns with not yet occupied Spanish conquistadores. Here I am thinking about the Florida area in order to finally include the South of the North American continent in the game.
Let us put it this way, a few over 50 percent of the civs in 1999 were European, the other civs were spread across different continents, mainly in the Eurasia area. That means that the developers of Age of Kings had the main focus on Europe in terms of civs, that can not be denied 
These are interesting facts.
Yes it shows that Age of Empires 2 was and still is the most popular part.
There isn’t a fair distribution even if you consider this area. We don’t have Tibetans yet and I have seen people asking for Brandenburgians.
Yes, we do not have enough East Asian civilizations, this area of the world has not been taken into enough account up to now. If I remember correctly, I think I once read here in the forum, that the Tibetans was even planned very early on, but then rejected.
This is probably so, because the Brandenburgians represent Prussia more than the Teutons it does, who primarily represent West Germany. The Brandenburgians are represented in the game by the Teutonic order shown on campaign map cards where the Teutonic order fight under the name of the Teutons in the Orient.
It was planned by FE mod. Then they went for Indians instead. They weren’t sure if they will ever expand what they are now.