Better yet change the Mamluk camel to a dromedary.
Well, if the Bengalis and Dravidians donāt represent you (although the Cholas had a lot of influence in eastern India), do the Hindustanis?..plus I only put the Serbs to represent the Balkans, obviously I donāt mention India because it had the dlc before RoRā¦
Thatās trueā¦I would still say not to divide so many civs, perhaps divide them into 4 civs per continental subregionā¦
Cholas are Tamils, they were our biggest enemies in overseas battles and language is nothing alike. Its impossible for them to represent us. And Hindustanis represent the Muslim sultanates in India and Kalinga was never occupied by Delhi Sultanate. So they donāt represent us either. There is no civ that can represent Kalinga. Bengali are the closest thing (linguistically) while Malay is the second closest (we had historical ties) to Kalinga, though the two of them are also muslim which makes them incorrect for representation.
1 Like
Well Bengalis could be like a cultural influence and that the K4lingas were in the middle between the Bengalis and the Dravidians (in Rajendraās campaign the K4lingas are represented by the Bengalis) (donāt make me remember that mission)ā¦ the Malays are left for you. very far from the regionā¦
1 Like
Yes, you donāt even have time to do anything because in less than 15 minutes you have to reach your main enemy, on top of that your other enemies capture your citiesā¦
1 Like
We need a Zanj Warrior for the Saracens. Either that add the Nubians as a civ and give them the Archers of the Eyes as UUs.
So @Juggernaut8704 you donāt need to be nationalist about a game civilization, thatās kinda childishā¦
I donāt really know what you mean by āwasting civ slotsā but it doesnāt sound very āmulticulturalistā to me (but it sounds like that to others maybe). Serbs exist nowadays as a people like yours exist so what? Is your ethnicity better than theirs? I think thereās space for everyone.
Iām not against adding 20 or even more Indian civs tbh, I just donāt speak about it because itās not my area of expertise and I respect other opinions. For example I think the Gupta empire fits in aoe2, I donāt know if thereās an ethnic designation for that but to me sounds more than fair to have it.
The difference is that youāre against adding certain civs, even when they had independent kingdoms, they had rulers, campaigns, an ethnicity etc. Just because theyāre Europeans.
The Serbian empire lasted 25 yearsā¦ so? How long did the Huns empire lasted? How long did cumans lasted after running from Mongols? Is it a matter of length really? Lol come on
If Devs canāt make a civ interesting itās not the civ doesnāt deserve to existā¦ what kind of logic is that? Game mechanics inspiring reality or itās the other way? Itās just Devs not doing a good job, like probably you think about Burgundians being too similar to franks etc.
But Iād keep ethnical superiority wars in game and just try to focus on the civ with a more detached and mature approach rather than cheer for our homeland.
Being for Balkans civ doesnāt mean being against India and viceversa, pleaseā¦
I am against adding civilizations that donāt add any gameplay value to the game, be it anything. You have 6 East European architecture civs , you want more. Get a hold of yourself. 4 civs per architecture is enough.
Donāt come telling me you can introduce another architecture for balkan/caucasus which is going to look very similar to already existing architecture. Meanwhile on the other side of world Chinese are using Japanese style, Ethiopian are using West African Style, Incas are using Central American Style which should be very different from each other but you donāt care as long as you can get your puny Serbs.
If anything, Devs should focus on adding African Civs first and foremost. That continent is seriously under represented.
And no, there is not space for everyone. Devs have limited time and resources.
7 Likes
Yeah yeah donāt tell me about that to attract easy consensus, Iām all for everything you said and more. Itās you the one excluding possibilities, not me.
Now you can talk about Africa and China to present yourself in a different light but you talked about your people being evidently more important than Serbs (Iām not Serb btw) so thatās it.
The fact Africa, America etc are forgotten doesnāt mean every other option is not viableā¦ there are a lot of civs to add in Europe too. I never talked priorities. And weāre just discussing, this is not a promo to add civs come onā¦
Ofcourse I can present my people as an example. But I donāt advocate their addition being a priority. Thatās what I want to say.
Also I donāt know if youāre one of them but the majority of people that wants to add AAA civs at the same time donāt wanna have new mechanics or units, for exampleā¦ they want to have new American civs with galleons, Indian ones with knights and so onā¦
I mean whatās the point of adding civs so unique and far from European warfare (if itās really because you want more variety in game than letās say adding Serbs) if you want to see them fight with European units?
I am sorry but no please. There is close representative of every imaginable civ in Europe. You cannot say the same about Oceania, Africa, America and even parts of Asia.
3 Likes
That argument is quite weak you know I have come accross this a lot of times. The units are meant to look generic, yes they are little European but itās no big deal. There are a large number of non-European Civs and non-European Playerbase and not many had a problem since the past 20+ years of this game. You just want an excuse for more European Civs by this statement.
1 Like
There will be a finite number of civs that are ever added to the game, and new civs are added at a finite rate. Therefore, civ slots are limited, and can be (at least subjectively) wasted.
5 Likes
I cannot say and I never said that. Of course Iād prefer those parts of the world but itās not that if someone comes up with an European civ I try to deny that a prioriā¦ I mean letās see what he can come up with at least and then we can judge. Otherwise itās just needlessly aggressive and prejudicial.
Iām not sure I get what you meanā¦ you want to see Oceanian civs with long swordsmen, monks and arbalesters? I mean, I donāt really see the point in lamenting āEurocentrism that make the game have less varietyā and then make every non European civ having European units when you could simply advocate (at least) for regional skins if not for more regional units but ok I guessā¦ I think non European players should be happy to not see the same knight rush from Malay and Malians like itās all Europe right?
I donāt look for excuses to add other European civs (tbh they came naturally at times) and I donāt know from where you did imply that but my heart is in a good place, I donāt have secret agendas if thatās what you mean. I just advocate for freedom of civ proposals lol
Well Devs never talked about a limit and since I like this game I hope it will keep expanding for many years. I know people dislike too much variety but thatās what makes priority arguments kicks in and everyone has their priority in the end and thatās ok, people have opinions and tastes, itās a good thing. Whatās not good is to force others into yours.
That being said I think anyone could agree that Africa and America (and even India for the little I know) objectively needs more civs before Europe. At the same time one can prefer subjectively European civs for a matter of tastes, itās not a crime.
Judging by what I read in this forum I think the majority of people is more than convinced of not adding European civs (quite the opposite, proposing euro civs is usually controversial and you get mocked or dismissed without even reading). Yes thereās a minority like in everything in this world that does not acknowledge it but I donāt think keep repeating that the game needs more AAA civs like weāre psychotic will change their mind at this point.
I mean you could shout it at Devs and maybe it would be more usefulā¦ (Probably not)
2 Likes
I agreeā¦some other units would be goodā¦
Iām not talking about a hard limit, like the mythical (i.e. false) 48 civ limit people used to talk about. Iām talking about the soft limits imposed by the practicalities of adding new civs.
Iām not sure what you mean here, but I donāt think this is why people talk about priority for adding civs. Itās at least not the only reason.
2 Likes
I think that even if the limit of 48 civs does not exist, I think that the devs will stop adding new civs for 2 DE and focus on new civs for RoRā¦
New release got only one so dont get your hopes up too much.
1 Like