He means ingame the best civs, not irl
2 Likes
Ah, okay. Then thatās another story.
1 Like
The Delhi Sultanate does do a bad job of representing India, I agree with you on that.
I donāt think the devs are gonna add civs like Kanem Bornu because I donāt think anyone who is not an African historian even has an idea about what they were.
It could be also said that some of them received wrong architecture set, namely Bohemia and Poland. And what i said was referring to just South East Europe, if you think two civs is plenty that is your own opinion, my opinion differs.
4-5 American - are you referring to whole Americas? North American civs donāt fit AOE2 timeframe, Mesoamerican i can see few more added, but other than those they all to similar to each other, if you have been reading many posts on this subject you will see that people in most part agree on this.
4-5 African civs - also, i can see some of them added, in fact i support that statement, but iām not sure if 4-5 is correct number, maybe less.
4-5 Asian civs - i see no problems here, i support this
I donāt see my statement as mute, does every civ has its own campaign? Not talking about historical battle, i mean its own full campaign.
Dude, South-East not Eastern! South East has only 2 civs. Iām not complaining about Eastern Europe as a whole, with DotD i believe it is fairly well represented. Please donāt misinterpret what is wrote.
1 Like
Then you should also welcome some more Indian civs, considering how an elemental part of Indian warfare elephants were. Camels have almost nothing to do with Indian warfare except in the Western part of it. Having Indians is like having Slavs but at least 3 times worse.
I thought exactly the same way about Cumans but here they are, part of the game. Whatās better to learn more about some lesser known part of history 
1 Like
I am welcome to adding more Indian civs if they have elephants cause I love elephants. 
Cumans are a bit of a different case but I think youāre right about the game teaching lesser known history so add the Kanem Bornu which after googling I know now represents Chad and Nigeria.
What is the justification? Your arguement makes 0 sense.
They are no more similar than South East Europe civs are to eachother
4-5 is actually shooting low for more Africa civs imo
Of course you donāt, how many people do you know that say something and then say their point is mute?
The answer is obvious
It will be quite awhile until every civ does if they keep going in the direction the LotW and DotD have gone. 2 campaigns for the 2 new civs and 1 for an old civ
South East is a tiny patch of land compared to areas like Asia, Africa and America that are poorly represented compared to Europe as a whole. Most of Europe is overrepresented and personally, I think 2 civs is plenty for South East Europe currently, maybe in 5 years we can revisit Europe.
As for the polls, the first one is vauge as it lists Europe as a whole instead of centralized. You also only get one vote, I for one want to see a Saxon civ from Europe, hence I picked Europe but I would much rather them go to other regions of the world first before we hit Europe again. And then there is the issue that it has less than half of the voters of the poll I listed, same for the other poll you posted. Generally, the greater the number the clearer the answer. If youāre testing a medical drug and the first test has 101 people and says the drug works, great. You test it with 275 people again and THAT one says the drug doesnāt not work, which one do you trust?
2 Likes
I donāt mind instead of DLC they added some unique units to existing civs and maybe update existing UU.
1 Like
Tbh I like those civ choices but they are a bit short on Africa
3 Likes
Civs need their own unique architecture.
You have the generic architecture for certain regions (i.e. Central Europe, South East Asia, ect) but then each civ diversifies a little, creating a unique architecture but staying similar to its region architecture.
I would also like each civ to have 2 UU since some civs do and some civs donāt, I think it is unfair. More regional units would be nice as well
2 Likes
Going by LotW and DotD logic they are not making new Architecture Sets sadly.
2 Likes
Very debatable, because there was many different cultural influences and almost each state had adopted different cultural influence along with its own culture.
Same cannot be said for Mesoamerican states.
Yes but not all of Africa civs fit in AOE2 timeframe and technological level, even those you guys are supporting to be added are a longshot, imo.
If i get a proper argument why not, but you actually later said:
So you made your own statement as muteā¦
This is highly illogical to me tbh!
Indian subcontinent alone is almost as big as whole Europe! If you are going with that logic North America should have more civs than whole Europe, right?
However, in order to appear in AOE2 certain civ must fit in AOE2 timeframe and technological level, which many civs worldwide to not fit in, in that timeframe. And even some civs that appeared are debatable, such as all Mesoamerican civs, Huns, etc.
Donāt get me wrong, i actually enjoy playing with them, Mayans being in my top 5 civs, but it is known that the devs added them more from marketing aspect than actually being fit to appear. And if their marketing study shows that people want certain areas more than others, then devs will do accordingly because of sales. Just the fact that there are most European civs shows that people want that region.
And about polls, you showed me more than a year old poll where you can click whatever you want, whereas i showed the poll in which must decide what you would like the most, not whatever you would like, i can guarantee to you that if you added Orcs in poll like that people would add it because why not. So your example makes no sense to me.
And about your more āfocused pollā comment from earlier, makes even less sense to me, i donāt know how you made that assumption.
And let me clear one more time, I would love to see more African and Asian civs, in next DLCs! Especially Asian! What i meant was, after them, devs will probably return to Europe, and i believe Serbia could be added without issues! Possibly in some Adriatic DLC along with Venice for example.
1 Like
i meant from a āin the game perspectiveā. not a real life perspective.
1 Like
Yeah, @GusTank04 told me. Was not very clear. Should have maybe read your other comments too.
yeah, i donāt think you could count lithuanians as a major power in the middle ages.
1 Like
Eh, I will say I dont think this is really totally accurate, Majapahit and Delhi are missing
Yeah, wasnāt happy with the list either. Itās Wikipedia, itās bound to be rather innacurate. I recommend as always everybody to read books written by actual comtemporary historians about a subject matter to learn more about a certain world region.
And Iām sorry @srbnems, thereās a ton more of Indian civs among others more worthy of being part of this game than Venetians and Serbs in my honest opinion.
Imagine the Eastern European set used by 7 civs and the Mediterranean one by 6. Would be complete insanity.
1 Like
Ok fair enough, in your honest opinion you think that, in my honest opinion i think otherwise.
1 Like
Same can be said.
There are plenty that fit within the Aoe2 timeline.
The official timeframe according to campaigns
394-1598
Plenty of African civs would easily fit this timeline
Technological level has never been an issue for AoE games.
What statement did I make mute?
And deserves to have a much larger civ count to represent it on the level that Europe has gotten.
What logic am I going by? I donāt think NA even had enough cultures to have more civs than Europe does right now.
They do
No, this is not a requirement and never has been for any AoE game. If it were so we would not have any American civs for AoE2 or AoE3 and we would not be getting African civs for AoE3. We also wouldnāt have Chosen or Yamato in AoE1
They fit in the timeline and were influential, that is enough reason to be in the game.
? I have never once heard that the devs added Mayans for marketing purposes, care to elaborate?
Apparently not as we have gotten 2 straight DLCs for Europe and people clearly want civs from other regions, this can be seen from the uproar the devs got from the community when they showed they were returning to Europe
No, it shows that the devs donāt pay attention to what the community wants.
It is from December 2020, the 20th. It is far from more than a year old. In fact, it proves my point even more because a good chunk of the people who voted for Eastern Europe probably wanted Poland as that has been a very requested civ for a while.
Did you not read this at all?
The poll isnāt accurate because you have to make a choice. I have a civ I reaaally want from this region but I think these regions should get some love first. But if we only have 9 more civs, I want to be sure the civ I really want gets added so I pick Europe. If we had multiple choice, I wouldāve picked all of them, or if we are limited to 3, I would Pick Europe, something from Asia, and something from Africa
How does that have anything to do with what I said? Nothing
It has Europe, not Western Europe, Eastern Europe, ect but Asia and Africa were split into subregions and America had South and North.
3 Likes