Some DLC concepts with the same pattern as LotW and DotD

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
82

You could also add a Haude civ proper :wink:

83

Unless Georgians are an infantry civ and have no Paladins (something that wouldnt fit imo) I would honestly have a hard time making them diferent. Armenians are a cavalry, monk and defensive civ with vibrant economy and so are Georgians. They have some minor diferences on the military and Armenians may have an slightly better eco but honestly I think we will jut end with two fairly similar civs.

3 Likes
84

Like I said, they’re not exactly what I would call a priority right now.

85

I’d love to Iroquois civ in AoE 2, but they’d better not show up - adding a native civ will do more harm than good.

When you add Iroquois civ, you would have to add other natives such as Huron, Cree, Cherokee, Lakota, Seminole - without that we have a problem with “insufficient” civ count.

Why aggravate this problem?

1 Like
86

You know more about Serbs, he knows more about India, didn’t stop you from talking about India

What is the same exact answer

Fine

2 Likes
87

Impact they had on history was big tho.

2 Likes
88

I wont disagree on that, but they are still an small state, and I would say that having a large state is one of the big requirements to be added

1 Like
89

Land size isnt really a thing in this game but I agree the bigger the better representation.

90

mesoamerican civs are good but i want new civs to be andean or north american

1 Like
91

Somalis are also a great idea but they are in AOE 3 , would like something new and fresh like congolese

92

I disagree. Somalis fit Aoe2 almost as well as they fit AoE3

Kongo actually fits the timeline worse than Somalis

93

Empires of the Two Worlds

  • Armenia

  • Georgia

New campaigns:

  • Byzantine campaign (Alexios I Komnenos)

  • Georgians(Tamar)

  • Armenians (Leo I and first crusade)

2 Likes
94

I myself would like to see new architecture sets:
East African Set, West African Set separated.
Mongolian Yurt Set, Chinese Mainland Set, Japanese Set separated
Indonesian Set and Khmer Set separated.
Byzantine Set, Italian Set and Iberian Set separated.
Yucatan Set and Andes Set separated.
German Set and Norse Set separated.
If they introduce more civs to some areas then we will also need Dravidian Set separate from Indo-Aryan, Bantu Set separated from rest of the Africans, North American Set separated from rest of the Americans, Tibetan Set for Himalayan civs, Caucasian Set, and so on.

But for being realistic we are not getting any more architecture sets. So it’s better to make use of what we have. Currently the most underused ones are Indian(1), African(2), Steppe(2), American (3), SEA(3)
So we need more civs from these regions mainly.

For India the options are:
Tamils
Bengalis
Kannadas
Rajputs separate from Delhi
Oriyas
Assamese
Deccani
Gujaratis
Many others but am just counting those that were more significant in medieval age. Other important mentions if we can adjust a few more:
Punjabis
Marathis
Telegus
Nepalis
Sinhalas
Malyalis
Sindhis
Gonds
Kashmiris

For Africa the options are:
Swahili
Somali
Kanembu
Songhai
Nubians
Kongo
Zimbabwe
Malagasy

For Steppe the options are
Khatars
Afghans
Uyghurs

For SEA the options are
Chams
T(h)ais
Filipino
Javanese separated from Malays

For America the options are
Iroquois
Araucans
Chimu
Tlaxcalans
Tarascans
Zapotecs
Muiscas
Mississipians
Caribs
Arawaks
Tupis

You may add/remove any civ “I forgot to add”/“you disagree with” in the list. I may not have been able to recall all of them while typing this. But this is just the gist of what I think about the current state of the game.

6 Likes
95

Somalese fit aoe 2 but i was looking for something new as we will get just 2 more african civs

1 Like
96

I think we can have a bit more than that. At the very least 3 more civs but ideally 4.

We can have “Traders of the Sahara” including Nubians, Zimbabweans and Kanembu and “Sailors of the East” or “Sailors of the Indian Ocean” with Somalis, Tamils and Bengalis. and then we can round up with an eastern Asian or American DLC

4 Likes
97

I said i would welcome more Indian civs, do you disagree? Should we have less? Did i say they aren’t relevant, or that their history is not long lasting because i would consider just some time periods and others i wouldn’t? And what makes you think i don’t know much about India? In fact they are very interesting to me and i love reading about them.

The same exact answer i have already given you, but again you wouldn’t understand because you don’t want to.

You say fine to stop after you ask me a question and make wrong assumption


98

This just proves you have very subjective view on history, which is very wrong, because there are numerous times when a much smaller state defeated a much larger/wealthier/populous state. Military might is also an indication of powerful state, if you disagree with that that’s your own incomprehension.

99

Until they do anything with it it isnt worth adding. If the Principality of Serbia counts as a regional power it just becomes stupid and you can get to add whatever you want to add without any complain because “Remember, the principality of Serbia is a regional power so I can add Leonese”. The principality wasnt Swiss level impressive either on military

Military might doesnt matter until you expand your territory or population to represent that or use it to become filthy rich or make the people around you to adopt your culture at the very least. The Grand Principality and kingdoms are already small enough on themselves for a pretty long time.

And yes this goes for Asian and African civs. Military might helps but only after you do something with it

1 Like
100

Which Serbia did and after principality it became grand principality > kingdom > empire (tsardom)!

Look at the title: "Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs and Greeks, the Bulgarians and Albanians "

101

Until then they werent a regional power.

Thats what Im saying

Spain doesnt count since 712 as a regional power either

1 Like