Because there were 2 civs in the dlc: Lac Viet (RoR) and Romans (2 DE)… now maybe they will make one and one for each dlc until they reach 48 in 2 DE and 24 in RoR…
Yeah I know but it’s pretty elastic and subjective and I think we’re very far from it anyway (but of course people who are more conservative will be prone to see the limit closer).
Because people see the soft limit closer, they advocate to add only AAA civs and then call it a day. Because after all they really don’t care about variety (they probably adverse it) since they want those AAA civs fighting with European units.
They reduce everything to a matter of numbers like Europe has 30 civs so given how big and long my country is it needs at least the same representation. Again it’s true that the balance is wrong but it’s not necessarily because of what they say, rather because the game doesn’t differentiate enough between civs which makes it look like it’s an Eurocentric game. And yeah also civs numbers but not because of dimensions.
What I liked about Dol was how much UUs it added to give the deserved flavour to non European civs, like them not using rams. But many people don’t care about historical and cultural representation, for them it’s just a matter of numbers. Even if Africa is three or four times Europe in terms of dimensions using this as an argument for them needing civs three of four times the amount of Europe is laughable for how simplistic it is. I mean Russia is huge but I don’t think you would argue that they need 300 times the civs Italy has right? Indeed many people were ok having Russia represented by goths and I said enough…
That’s to explain that strongly advocating for non European civs not always comes from people who really wants variety, absurd as it sounds. They just want an Eurocentric game with African civs.
And who told you / where did you read that Indians did not use Rams?
Uff I knew you would have looked at the finger and not where I was pointing… I don’t know what they used but for sure they were not Teutons so my point is to differentiate civs with each others which it’s the argument you used against more European civs (that you end up having too similar civs)… so why more non European civs that are basically fighting with Euro units except for a UU would be more varied?
-
They’d used lesser used/new architecture sets making them more distinct.
-
In the case of the American civs, they’d add more flavour to a gameplay aspect which is barely used right now (Eagle Warriors).
-
There’s also cav civ concepts which could focus on regional units which are barely used right now like Steppe Lancers.
-
All the specific regional units (with the exception of the Winged Hussar) are non-European. Unique combinations could still possibly appear like a Steppe Lancer-Elephant one or a Elephant-Camel one. Afghanistan could possibly be a region to feature both unit lines.
-
To make a European civ stand out from a visual and gameplay/visual aspect from other European civs, nowadays you’d either need to add new regional units or architecture sets to add civs which are at best subvariants or cousin civs of civs already existing e.g. Bavarians and Serbians. Why put so much effort into something which would anyway not add that much or be contrived if there’s the Steppe Lancer which is used by 3 civs, the Eagle Warrior which is used by 3 civs, the Elephant archer which is used by 3 civs and the Battle Elephant which is used by 6. Not to mention that those architecture sets they’re usually associated with are proportionaly underused. I can’t see the justification of adding a 7th civ to the Mediterranean or Eastern European architecture set because the game lacks flavour there. There’s like plenty Romance languages speaking people, 3 alone for Italy, four shades of Slavs, 4 Germanic civs and plenty other ones which don’t fit in any of this categories. On the other hand, a fourth Eagle Warrior civ or a fourth Steppe lancer civ using as a third civ the Central Asian set would naturally add more visual and gameplay flavour than let’s say another Mediterranean civ focused on Navy and Infantry or Navy and Archers (the Venetians would basically be this).
-
Not to mention that some new civ regions naturally lead themselves for new unit lines. E.g. a non-cav African civ could naturally lead itself to an Eagle Warrior variant with slightly different stats which would add variety.
7 Likes
I agree with everything you said about non euro civs.
Again what is missing to me it’s the step where you conclude that Europe should not be talked about anymore. I’m sure some people think the same but they’re afraid to tell it because that’s the vibe they get from around here.
The Mediterranean argument is not very good imho since that architecture set should probably go to Spanish, Portuguese, Italians (and maybe Sicilians) only. Byzantines and Romans do not fit, they could either have a late Roman/early byzantine (hagia Sophia style) or something else.
I can see an Iberian set too tbh but it’s better if I don’t talk about that because it’s Europe right? I can honestly see many European civs being split but I retain myself about it because I think it’s time for others now. It’s probably just the result of knowing European history more in detail than other cultures but this is not a crime yet.
I think if one cares for being constructive about it instead of proposing sarcastic elves and orcs civs (do you get it ah ah) he could simply theorycraft new AAA civs and propose them on this forum which as I said and as people are proving by debating me it’s way more welcoming (and understandably so) towards non euro civs than euro ones.
Who knows, maybe Devs see it and get ideas or at least they get what is the vibe of the fanbase… maybe not but at least you did something useful instead of complaining.
I made a custom late Roman campaign and a Roman civ theorycraft with RobbyLava and not even a year passed before Ror was announced. Maybe it’s just a coincidence or maybe Devs actually care for their customers…
For example I read yesterday about a Zimbabweans civ proposal along with other East African upcoming ones. And it was very interesting, I even learned something about it. I didn’t feel the need to say for the 50th time that Celts should be split, Saxons should be add, south America is barren or Mongol castle looks Japanese. Those are all legitimate opinions but in that moment another person started a thread to talk about Zimbabwe (or Serbs or gokturks or whatever) so why should I use other issues the game has to shut him up? Because of my priorities? That’s on me, not him.
For example some months ago I saw a super cool looking mod entirely set in India with so many more civs than the 4 we have and a lot of UUs and UTs… I didn’t say anything because I don’t know anything about India but I could simply notice it looked nice and hard work to me.
For example, there’s a guy proposing interesting Teutons split who always get roasted like a chicken even before commenting on the actual civs… my point is simply just let people express what they care for lol! They’re not harming you in any way, those civs are not going to be added tomorrow and we’re on a forum to discuss. And if you really wanna point at priorities ok but no need to harass them like it’s their fault for proposing something.
If someone propose a Venetian civ and I don’t know a shit about it, it’s not that I make fun of him because oh no Italian city states… then what’s next? My house? Same sarcasm repeated over and over to achieve what? Let’s judge a civ in its merit, that’s all.
Gajapati Empire should be allowed now.
3 Likes
I think the limit on the rate civs are added is more relevant than the eventual total number of civs. DE was released five years ago, and since then we’ve had 8 new civs, so the rate is about 1.6 per year. (In fact, this is a bit generous – measuring since AoK was released the rate is only 1.25 per year.) Suppose you want a specific civ added, but it’s going to be the 60th one. You’re going to have to wait over 10 years before that civ is in the game. Most people don’t want to have to wait that long.
You keep using this phrase and I don’t know what you mean by it. African, American and Asian civs?
As for the rest of what you’ve said, I don’t understand where you’ve got this idea that people who want non-European civs are conservatives who hate variety – the impression I get is that, often, their motivation is the exact opposite of that.
3 Likes
Well I know but that’s like saying I don’t want to stay in queue at the bank… unfortunately other people exist lol. Or course everyone would like to see a certain civ tomorrow… Personally I don’t care that much since you can almost make custom civs through modding and scenario editor but yeah you still need new units and material added to the main game… I’ve come to a point where if I want something in the game I just try to make it myself and maybe that can inspire Devs. I would not be that happy for example if Devs decide to add a civ I’m making a campaign of while I’m in the middle of making it (wanted to start a Khosrow one but now I want to see what Devs want to do with Persians before).
That’s just to say people should chill and not be greedy, in the end Devs will make choices that some will like and some not and life goes on with or without you agreeing. That’s why personal civ theory craft becomes even more important since people can imagine what they like and how it will look in game…
Yes I’ve seen it used by other users.
How do you judge wanting more south East Asia civs but all using European knights? Or wanting more meso civs but no new gimmick or regional units? I mean I wrote a lot, wasn’t my point clear?
Let’s imagine the game has all possible subsaharan African civs but using wrong units, no regional skins and maybe one or two UUs… can you really call it varied or maybe you’re just reducing variety to a matter of how many non Euro civs (ignoring how those civs actually looks) are in the game? It feels like quantity over quality (I’d try to have both, after all I’m for an evergrowing civs roster). But that’s just my take.
1 Like
The race which SO needs a split is Slavs.
This is an absolutely an umbrella civilization, Slavic players literally do not feel that it reveals their peoples. Russian players do not see it as a sufficient embodiment of Rus’, and representatives of other nations do not like the fact that units speak Russian. The Slavs reflect the RUMANIANS in Dracula campaign. In addition, it is technically quite weak, has a bad team bonus, has almost no imperial period and in any case needs to be reworked.
I already wrote a topic about this:
In short, it should be divided into: Rus, Ukrainians (Cossacks), Vlachs (Rumanians, they are partially Slavs), Serbs, Balkans.
As for the rest. Maybe it is still possible to divide the Ottoman Empire. Personally, I would like to see civilization of Armenians, but the rest suits me fine as single empire.
As for civilizations of Mongol type - theoretically, of course, it would be possible to add the Xiongnu (they are enemies in a couple of campaigns), but I very much doubt they could be any different from the Mongols.
I also think there should be Swedes in the game, separate from the Vikings (just like there are Italians, separate from the Romans).
1 Like
Timurids are included in Tatars actually
1 Like
Oh, I didn’t know you were from there, if you don’t mind can I ask a question? I’ve seen many names given to your people (Kalinga, Orissa, Odia…) which seem to depend in part on the time period, but I can’t find a definitive answer regarding which one would work better in the Medieval era, and especially under the Gajapati Empire… Are you saying Kalinga would be the best option?
From what I understand Kalinga is a multicultural geographicbarea while Odia is an spevific group and Orissa is the region where that group is centered
Kalinga would represent the Telugu too I believe
1 Like
Nope different people groups.
Kalinga isnt an ethnicity, its a region lol
A refion with a large Telugu population
Kalinga (Southern Odias and some Telugus) is the region defined between Godavari River and Mahanadi River.
Greater Kalinga (All of Odias and More) is defined as the region between Hugli River in North to Godavari River in South.
Utkal (Northern Odias and some Bengalis) refers to the region between Hugli River and Mahanadi River, sometimes it is also used for refering to the entire region as in the national anthem of India.
As @TungstenBoar said, Kalinga is region specific more than people specific.
Odia/Oriya refers to the language/script primarily written in this region. Though there are other tribal groups too such as Gonds, Khonds, Mundas, Santhals and some Telugus and Bengalis who are part of this region. This region has its distinct culture and distinct Kalingan Architecture Style.
We use the words kind of interchangeably. Kalingan sounds more medievalish/ancient. While Odia sounds a bit more modern usage. Its like the words Iranian (modern) and Persian (old).
Odisha on the other hand refers to the language based state that was formed after independence. Chhattisgarh state which adjoins Odisha also used to write in Odia script, it was called the Loriaa language. Sambalpuri/Kosali is another such language written in the Odia script spoken in Western Odisha. There are few other districts that are not part of modern day state Odisha but are part of Kalinga region such as Srikakulam, Midnapore, Singhbhum, Bastar. They got depopulated of Odias when British snatched them and incorporated them to their territories forcing people to learn the new majority language of their territory.
6 Likes
Except it’s not really a queue in this case, and no one ever had to wait 10 years at the bank.
You asked why people talk about “wasting civ slots”, I pointed out that there are soft limits, and you acknowledged that – I don’t really know what more you want here.
I actually think one of the best possible additions to the game at this point would be proper support for custom civs. Something like the Krakenmeister modding thing, but integrated into the game in such a way that they can be used in campaigns, singleplayer skirmish, and lobby multiplayer, and so they don’t break when there’s a new patch.
It was clear, I just don’t think it matches up with reality. I think most civ proposals I read have either multiple unique units, a new regional unit, a unique building, a bonus or technology for a little used existing regional unit, or some combination of those things. The question of regional skins for units is completely separate from which new civs get added.
Ah you too missing the point of a metaphor to focus on the specific example? Anyway it doesn’t matter… I’m sure you have better things to do than to discuss with me.
Well what can I say? Ok I guess… I’m ready to other 10 years of predictable sarcasm repeated over and over because too much Europe in game etc.
Now if you can excuse me, I shall go back to an African campaign I’m making because you know everybody here being for “variety” but then there are literally no custom campaigns set in Africa… but I’m sure keep lamenting about Europe will achieve the goal.
FilthyDelphia’s Kings of West Africa.
6 Likes
Yeah but it’s a campaign of leftovers from AK. And it feels really disjointed and abstract… not quite a proper campaign with a proper plot and protagonist.
Problem is it’s kinda hard to find historical accounts for subsaharan Africa that are enough for a 6 scenarii campaign without having aoe1-generic-abstract types of scenario like converting a tribe, find relic carts etc.
Unless you go from 1400 AD circa on…
1 Like