Yes and that is why they should not be included in Aoe2.
No, they’re still eligible, because the timeframe of the game is as early as 450 AD, I believe.
Not every eligible civilization needs to be added just because they fit the time frame.
2 Likes
What next Naples, Florence, Milan, every street in Italy with its own civ? For such a tiny region, there’s already 4 civilizations. If any civ that can be split its something like Chinese.
12 Likes
Napels is already there with sicilians and papacy with rome so missing once are venice florence and milan.geoa is current italians.
1 Like
Some people would rather add 6 different German provinces, 7 different Italian cities and islands and 8 different Eastern European duchies than add a second South American civ or a third subsaharan civ.
12 Likes
Guys… this is a psychosis really…
4 Likes
The only civ I want to see split is Japan to be split into the various clans since there’s enough uniqueness going for them and it would make it more aesthetically pleasing in the same way the India split made the region more accurate to history. However the amount of time and effort it would take to do that would be better spent making new civs ESPECIALLY in places like south/central America, and Africa which only have 2 or 3 civs.
1 Like
Americans perhaps. But why the Japanese splitted?Seriously?
1 Like
Africa DLC with Ghanaians, Songhai, Swahili, and Shona.
3 Likes
As good of an idea than adding more Southern Europe if you ask me (not a good one).
1 Like
Americans? What do you mean?
Continuing the discussion from Splitting civs:
Not how civs work.
All the clans are covered pretty well by the Japanese civ.
5 Likes
Didn’t say that’s how it works. If the devs want to split a civ that’s on them.
I think the only civ where a split could still be properly justified is Chinese.
I could see that there are arguments for Persians, Saracens and maybe some more Indian civs.
Maybe rename Slavs, but I dont think we need more civs there.
I think the bigger issue is that we dont have a clear definition of what’s a ‘civ’ in aoe2.
some of the civs are ethnicities and some are multi-ethnic empires. some were clearly delinated (in time and geogrpahy), whereas others are vague concepts.
I am in favour of adding civs which add to gameplay, because I think historicity is a lost cause. But I don’t think we need more gimmicky mechanics like auras, charged attacks, bullet-dodging and armour piercing
So if it’s possible to make interesting new civilisations, which are interesting to play as and to play against I’m all for it. Otherwise I don’t see the point of adding more civs
Requirements I use to decide if a civ can make it are usually at least 10 historical or semi historical (not entirely mythical) AI names for rulers or generals;
Accounts of warfare with close civs which means battles, wars, trade etc.
At least a campaign protagonist roughly between 300 and 1600 AD who can take on their shoulders 5 or 6 scenarii not entirely made up (at least vague historical info).
A name for UU and possibly specific UTs.
And for what concerns this topic an ethnic designation or even just a dynastic one closely referencing an ethnicity, for example byzantines which are mostly a dynastic designation (a line of byzantine emperors) but we all know what they represent (Balkans, Anatolia and surroundings of Constantinople). They could indeed be named Hellenes, Greeks or romaioi to have a more ethnical sounding designation.
In vanilla aoe2 they wanted to add the Habsburgs at a certain point which is a bad name for something which could be represented by swiss, Bavarians, Swabians, Austrians and such. The name pick was wrong but the historical grounding was there.
Controversial conclusion: it’s not a crime to add semi ethnical designation similar to byzantines like Sassanids, safavids, Seljuks, Ottomans etc. Because even if they’re not technically ethnicities, like with byzantines, it’s very clear what people they’re referring and anyway you could easily find workarounds, like I showed for byzantines = Greeks and Habsburgs. I’m not an expert on Persian and Turk history but I already heard many ways to ethnically address those civs and I’m sure someone can remind them here… the point is the civ exists and there’s a way to represent or split it so one way or another you can add it if you want. So in the end it’s just a matter of being in favour of the specific civ or not, that’s why I always encourage to judge the merit of a proposal rather than dismissing it a priori because of non written rules that can easily be bypassed anyway.
I think there should be a right balance of reworking an old civ or splitting a civ. We’ll see with the Persians where the Devs want to go forward.
Yeah mine was more of an argument against confronting civ builds with prejudice and instead judge if the civ represent something real and if it does it well being it Indian, African, European, American etc.
I’ve seen people dismissing a Saracen split because well all the middle east medieval Muslim world is one whole thing in their mind but that’s highly debatable, starting from their name… dismissing a Umayyad civ just because Umayyads are a dynasty… ok call them Syrians or levantines since they came from there. Problem solved.
My point is you know what I’m talking about when I say Umayyads… despite the problematic name (may it be X, Y or Z) they clearly represent “something” that a civ with a sword thrower on a Bactrian camel can’t represent alone for 1000+ years.
Not me! I just assume the devs are already making new civs, HOPEFULLY Asian, American, and Sun-Sahara African.