Let’s be honest, the data from this survey has been extremely abused by making such extrapolations about things that are far outside the scope of the poll. If anything, this poll likely overstates the support for a Slavic or Balkan DLC by only offering a “yes or no” choice. It’s very likely that the “yes” vote has been padded by people for whom a Slavs/Balkan DLC wasn’t really their first or even second choice, but were okay with the idea of such a DLC before too long, and chose that over the “No” option which presents no immediate prospects or enticement.
If you don’t believe me, here’s a poll from a month after this one was made in which people were actually given the freedom to choose from a nearly exhaustive list of regions and given up to 5 votes, meaning if they had any interest in the next DLC being Slavic, Balkan (or anything else), that was likely to be reflected in the poll. An important caveat is that for whatever reason the poll had fewer participants, but otherwise it gives us a lot more detailed information. Let’s look at the results.
Top choice is East Africa. A continent that you said “wouldn’t even get 20%” as a whole has a single region sitting at 35%. Next up is South America at 25%, and various other regions around the 20’s. We finally encounter the Balkans when we get down to 10%, and Russia at 6%, for a grand total of 16% of people who voted for a Slavs and/or Balkans DLC as one of their top 5 choices. Hardly the preponderance of support that you keep implying here.
If you think I’m being unfair, perhaps it’s time for a new poll. It’s been a couple months, and perhaps opinions have changed. As a bonus, we might even get our friend @DairyChimera759 to reappear from the æther he vanished into immediately after making this thread.
I understand that you’re probably referring to the absence of writing in South America, and the lack of iron smelting generally, but apart from that I want to push back a little against such an imprecise generalization. But yes, there are some information and technology gaps that present some difficulties for some American and African civs relative to many Eurasian civs.
We’ve definitely gotten a lot of Italian split threads over the years, they just haven’t made as much of an appearance lately. But yeah, I would expect Balkans to do moderately better if the poll were to be redone with more participants, but still end up in a similar place. Regarding the 16%, yes I meant that this portion voted for one or both.
It’s an assumption he makes here. Decent reasoning, but still just an assumption.
Well, I just had a brilliant idea. The Non-Europe dlc. Includes:
Maya campaign. Made up out of nothing.
Some Africa campaign, don’t even know which peoples, because there were almost none except Mali and Ethiopia. Also made up.
Turks campaign. Those finally don’t have a problem with recording their history.
This closes the rest of non-campaign civs and gives the most loud ones smth they really want. This one will most likely fail in sales though. And after that the devs will understand that they should make exactly the things that people ask. And as you mentioned, almost everybody asks Europe every 5 min.
In any case, Asia will be announced to us in February, and that’s not bad, I wanted it too, there wasn’t enough of it in the game. Therefore, everyone who wanted the next DLC to be non-Slavs can be happy. But the NEXT AFTER should be the Slavs. I’m done here.
All for the best if we’re all done here, I think. Don’t know that there’s much else to do but rehash the re-rehashed arguments and/or drift off topic for the dozenth time since the dozenth post. This thread got a lot of mileage considering OP never stuck around to engage with it at all, but considering how much of that has been futile argumentation or tangents, I hope we can just let it sink now.
This topic is a perfect example of how split the community is between European & Non-European civs. Most of the comments were just arguments about that.
I think the devs should made non-reginal DLCs to please everyone. Something like:
Zapotecs
Romanians
Nubians
Slavs rework
And instead of having geography in common, they could have something else in common, in this case being the underdog, fighting a bigger empire. (Zapotecs → Aztects; Romanians → Turks; Nubians → Caliphate)
I’m no economist, but I think both European & non-European fans will buy them.
Sicilians and Lombards are complety different, Lombards mainly Longobards, Sicilians mainly Normans, Arabs and other mixed culture. Also different between Venetians and other you mentioned
I could be wrong, but think they’re more like umbrella civs. The Normans were called by the Lombards to fight the Byzantines, the Normans came, stayed, and took over. And the Lombards integrated with the population. So I think the Sicilians are meant to be an umbrella for that. I have to check the in-game history to see who the devs were trying to represent.
Same for Italians, I think they are an umbrella for all north Italian cultures, I agree they were different, that was never the point. But again, probably the in-game history can tell us more about who they are meant to represent.
As for Romanians, they can be an umbrella for Wallachians, Transylvanians and Moldavians. Although it’s “umbrella” here because we’re playing as civilizations not states. The Romanians lived in 3 different states but had mostly the same language and customs, which cannot be said about Lombards and Normans. I think “Vlachs” could lead the impression of this being only Wallachia. Where as “Romanian” which isn’t a modern term is more representative of all 3.
