The Final 9 (civs)

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

First: you are wrong about the game having too many redundant civs that are really close related. Theres only a limited ammount of cases and those are either civs with very little connection or are civs that I complsin about already. Second: making a civ unhistoricakky accurate simply for the fact that otherwise they can be represented by another civ is stupid. At that point just represent them with Wends or Slavs because its the same

1 Like
22

lol you think the Poles in medieval times were redundant?

3 Likes
23

Having an unpopular opinion doesnā€™t mean you canā€™t share it. Good day to you

24

Assuming I have free design decision and they follow up with the same concept as LOTW:

Dawn of the Dukes (39)

-Bohemians (Eastern European)
-Georgians (Caucasian) (shared with Byz and Bulgarians)
-Lithuanian campaign

A New World (41)

-Mississippians (East Coast American)
-Iroquois (East Coast American)
-Viking campaign

Mutapas and Kings (43)

-Kongolese (Central Africa)
-Zimbabweans (Central African)

Kings of West Africa (45)

-Kanembu (Sahel African)
-Swahili (Sahel African)

Rise of the Rajas 2 (48)

  • Bengal
  • Chola/Tamil/Dravidian

The Oceanic Kingdom (48) (Free DLC)

-Tongans

7 Likes
25

Thatā€™s true, but I see this same opinion being shared over and over by the same 2 on here in an aggressive manner. Good day to you too

2 Likes
26

Like your picks btw. We can definitely have one or two European civs still, but IMO they should focus on the other parts of the world if the civ slots should be really limited

I want more Elephantos, Eagles and actually useful Steppe Lancers.

7 Likes
27

If you think this

Is talking in an aggressive manner you missed out on cyberbullying

1 Like
28

Design wise with the current civ selection yes

29

Woah woah woah, lets not get ahead of ourselves here, that is a lot to ask of the devs :wink:

3 Likes
30

The Poles werenā€™t even that great power in Medieval Ages, compared to many civs. Their prime age belong to aoe3.

4 Likes
31

Thatā€™s not what I asked.

2 Likes
32

debatable

word limit

3 Likes
33

Well, Im not saying Polish arent important (they arent that important though), but if you add a civ that its the same as Lithuanians it has to at least be a civ that isnt possibly represented by them at their prime. At least until we get more parts of the world covered Polish should wait. They really dont need to be in the final 48 civs

4 Likes
34

I respectfully agree to disagree. Good night

1 Like
35

No Polynesians?
i schleep.

I really dont care what other civs get added as long as thereā€™s polynesians.

2 Likes
36

Polynesians is way too broad. Iā€™d rather have Tongans than Polynesians which would be the equivalent of having Europeans or Africans as civ.

1 Like
37

I feel that Poles have already been covered by Lithuanians, Magyars, and Slavs. Itā€™s hard to make them distinct from those three civs.

Same reason why I wouldnā€™t want to add Jurchens or Khitans if thereā€™re only 9 spots left, cause I feel that they have largely been covered by Chinese and Mongols.

3 Likes
38

It is very broad, yes, but most of what they cover is not really represented in the game as of now, plus it would be soo cool to have a water focussed meso civ

39

If bohemians are getting added so can swiss and finns.bohemians are covered by teutons already too.

1 Like
40

Finns dont compare to Bohemians at all. They are near pointless because they didnt have any independent states. They are basically worse Mapuche because those at least fought off Spain and Incas

For Swiss, eh. Not sure they ever were as powerful as an state as Bohemians and even then that power was probably shorter lasting because they only matter on the late medieval ages as well. Also I just dont want multiple HRE civs since theres higher priorities before the limit and Bohemia is already kind of an stretch

2 Likes