You can see them more similar to Dravidians if you want to. But for this one, I think you’re are really biased.
I guess you can add availability of LC on your side. Other than that I really don’t see how you can bring more similarities.
Franks and Tetons are fairly similar but some of the ones you chose (siege onager, castle, town center, mill and the extra armor) seem like an stretch.
Like for example:
-
Teuton castle bonus only pays in imp, Frank and Sicilians are good castle drop civs meanwhile
-
Sicilians Franks both get a mill bonus, and in that sense it pays off around the same time, Teutons get it from earlier
-
Sicilians play more like Franks with an okay-ish archer play early game and strong scouts. Even their knight plat ay least to me is more similar with the bonus damage reduction and extra hp being relevant against spears
-
The UTs line up way better with Franks while Teutons get a siege and defensive tech
And I feel like saying “they both have extra melee armor on knights and a town center bonus” is kinda silly. Hauberk is the extra pierce armor tech, the extra melee armor is almost irrelevant. The town center bonus for Sicilians is about booming, for Teutons is about defending. Its nothing alike
Either way yeah Im probably biased because I hate all their bonuses which basically make you do dumber plays (“yeah just drop a castle, no big deal” or “yeah its just a few spears/skirms, just keep raiding”)
I won’t argue with you on this topic anymore. Let’s agree to disagree.
You can have the same focus but still be a different civ.
I think it’s silly to say Franks/Sicilians/Teutons are clones of each other because of the focus on farms & heavy cav.
Everyone one of them has different bonuses and plays different. Sicillians don’t even have a Paladin, which makes them, very different.
Franks have good kinight and generic infantry. Teutons have good knight and good infantry. But the Franks compensate with Throwing Axeman that fills a different role from the 3 infantry option troops the Teutons have.
As for Teutons/Sicillians “though and slow melee UU infantry”, but the Teutons’ is tougher however the Sicillians can build Dojons.
It’s okay for civs to be similar but not the same. We don’t need to have civ A miles distance from civ B. That doesn’t make either civ a clone.
Are all Camel civs clones of each other? Or all Battle Elephant civs clones of each other?
3 Likes
Are we really acting as if thats even comparable to this? lol
Im not saying its a problem to have similar civs. A similar civ to an existing one which is also a civ I dont like how it plays is a problem. And I dont like Sicilians because of how they play, and their Frank like bonuses dont help me feel better about their addition
I think Burgundians at least have a fairly fun eco and knight play
None of these replies have anything to do with the topic 
1 Like
Maybe the topic isnt that interesting and we should let it die 
2 Likes
Pretty sure a new topic will spring up before march.
6 Likes
I hope so. We need more topics about slavs and Romanians. Surely that will solve the issue!!!
9 Likes
How Sicilians play is not my cup of tea either, but they bring variety to the game and I understand that some people like how they play.
I mean, at the end of the day, they play very different from the Franks, so they can still be called a Frank clone if they play very different?
You literally gave no arguments to conclude your conclusion. While he is giving reasons for whatever he is saying.
Read a few texts above.
There are 20 Asian civs and 19 European civs.
There are 20 Asian civs to European 19.
Hold up. Arabs are, by definition, Saracens. Saracen pertains to the peoples of Islamic religion. Turks are Saracens by the definition. If you were to do something to Saracens, you could only do the India approach by deleting India and splitting it into multiple smaller groups.
You can multiquote. Check this out
1 Like
Dang, looks like I got owned by a guy with functioning eyesight. Good job.
Also if this numbers are high, it does not mean, that not more civs can be added from these areas, especially if campaigns are missing, as with the Slavs for Europe and with the Koreans and Japanese for Asia.
Yes with a use of a rainbow term, but you can also split it up.
Yes but they also include Hebrews in todays israel… The game does in the Campaign not refer to Arabia rather on Israel, so the developers have to orientate based on what and how can be further split in this area.
No this term is only valid for Arabs. I am still in favor to split Saracens into Arabs and Saracens. The Turks are independent of it, they even speak a different language family out of the Semitic languages.
Same as romans byzantines and italians?
If you want so yes, then at least we have a fairer balance than now in the number of civs with the Near East too…