Mediterranean DLC - Catalans civ, Moors civ and Venetians civ (campaigns: Catalan-Sicilian, Moorish and Venetian)
Proposition of small DLCs similar to LotW and DotD DLCs:
Southeast Asian DLC - Siamese civ and Tibetans civ (campaigns: Siamese, Tibetan and Chinese)
Far East DLC - Jurchens civ and the second Japanese civ (campaigns: Korean, Jurchen-Chinese and Japanese 1.0-Japanese 2.0)
Sahelian DLC - Songhai civ and Kanem civ (campaigns: Songhai, Kanem and Malian-Songhai)
A total of 25 brand new civs!
Great Architectural Reorganization
Below I present suggestions for the organization of architecture styles and the belonging to it of already existing civs in the game. The new civs are in bold and are behind the plus. Proposals for completely new styles of architecture are in bold.
Iberian - Portuguese, Spanish + Catalans
Western European - Britons, Burgundians, Celts, Franks
Central European - Bohemians, Teutons + Bavarians and Saxons
Italian - Italians, Sicilians + Venetians and Croats
The Moors could offer many interesting things - new UU, UT and other bonuses (even related to the University). Besides, the Iberian Islamic countries were empires that were a serious rival to Western Europe. I think the Moors would be a nice civ.
I don’t want to ruin your party, but:
Saxons are Teutons
Swedes are Vikings
Congolese are Bantu
Mamelukes are a class of warriors / dynasty, not a people
Catalans are Spanish
Moors are Berbers
Venetians are Italians
I tried to make a Mayan custom campaign but it’s just impossible with the very little historical evidences available. This is why the Mayans only got a Campaign mission ( Dos Pilas) instead of a complete one.
You should pick the Aragonese instead and divide to spanish into Castile and Aragon, like the Indians. Catalonia wasn’t an important state on it’s own. They were first a buffer state betwen the Frankish kingdom and the Moors and then got their independence but as a minor county. Then they joined the crown of Aragon and they were given some autonomy but still not fully independent.
I’m just going to comment on the East Asia-SE Asia part since I’m most familiar with the history of that region, I’ll leave other regions for those who’re familiar with them.
First of all, Tibetans are highly unlikely to be introduced due to well-known reasons, and they aren’t part of SE Asia either but rather Inner Asia or Central Asia. Religiously and culturally, they’re most similar to Mongols and to the now extinct Tanguts. Therefore I propose the addition of a new Tangut civ, which could partially represent the Tibetans. And together with Mongols, they could share a new Inner Asian nomadic style architecture, which could draw inspirations from the Tibetan style architecture. Right now the in-game Mongols have East Asian style architecture, which is kind of weird. Tanguts and Jurchens could be introduced in the same DLC about the Far East, and another new civ called Dians or Zangkes representing Nanzhao/Dali kingdoms could be introduced alongside as well.
Secondly, I’m not sure what second Japanese civ you’re referring to, maybe Ryukyu or Ainu? I’d say Ryukyu would be the better choice, since they had been an independent kingdom for much of their history and had more contacts with other civs (in particular the Chinese).
For a new SE Asian DLC, I’d propose the addition of Chams and Siamese.
Regarding the architectural styles of East and SE Asia, here’re my proposals:
Chinese or Pan East Asian - Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese + Dians/Zangkes and Jurchens
Japanese - Japanese + Ryukyuans
Inner Asian - Mongols + Tanguts + Gokturks (Cumans share the Central Asian architecture with Tartars, and Huns have the North European architecture, those are unlikely to be changed)
Southeast Asian - Burmese, Khmer, Malay + Chams and Siamese
In the historical battles, Anglo-Saxons are also sometimes Goths and sometimes Celts. (I assume they used Celts for Northumbria in the York scenario because of the strong influence of Celtic Christianity there, but since the scenario takes place well after the Synod of Whitby, I’m not sure that reason makes sense. Perhaps I’m overthinking it…)
I don’t know enough about the Saxons who stayed in Saxony to know how similar they were to the Anglo-Saxons, so I don’t really know what the suggestion of a “Saxon” civ means…
The Saxons would be an umbrella civilization for North Germans (Saxonians, Brandenburgians, Pomeranians, Westphalians, Thuringians e.t.c), and the Bavarians would be an umbrella civilization for South Germans (Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians, Franconians, Swabians e.t.c).
Moors(Andalusians) aren’t Berbers. Andalusia itself had very different culture than North Africa/Middle East. Even had their own form of Spanish language which was a mix of Arabic and Spanish. Only next Arab themed civ can be added is Andalusia. Mamluks is totally out of question since Saracens itself represents more on Mamluke side just with their UU. Civ should be renamed to Arabians becoz that’s what they called themselves. Also Moors is wrong. Moors themselves called Andalusians as pointed out and Spaniards/Europeans used to call Moors to refer Andalusians/North Africans.