that’s why they need a change. And the change would be perfectly with a maritime dlc.
3 Likes
@AllHailWaffles0 im just wondering since i googled abit about burgundians the idepends was that upper burgundy or lower burgundy that were ruled by dutchys?
Thai, Somali, Swahili and some North American representatives like Haudenosaunee, Mississippians, Puebli etc would be nice.
1 Like
No it should be Western Balkans. Then they can add ca 5 civ so we get to 50.
2 Likes
If you’re talking about the Duchy of Burgundy itself, it would be a mix between the western portion of Upper Burgundy and the Burgundian-Frankish territories that they ruled. The Kingdom of Burgundy covered both lower and upper Burgundy as well as the Frankish territories.
So, to answer your question, the Duchy of Burgundy ruled western Upper Burgundy.
If you were talking about the Dutch duchies and territories under Burgundian control, they were just called the Burgundian Lowlands iirc.
5 ca civs? All from the same place? Oh hell no, that sounds terrible…
Those do too, for different reasons, and the last one especially won’t happen. They refuse to allow their language to be recorded, so we’d never be able to get their voice lines correct.
1 Like
- Župans of the Balkan - Croatians, Serbians and Romanians
- Electors of the Holy Roman Empire - Bavarians, Saxons and Swedes
- Warchiefs of the Americas - Chimu, Muisca and Tarascans
- Mansa’s of the Africa - Bantu, Congolese and Somalians
- Forgotten Empires II - Siamese, Songhai, Mamluks and Ghana
- Kings of the Caucasus - Armenians, Georgians and Khazars
- Chinese Dynasties - Tibetans and Jurchens
1 Like
Thx. Agree. Maybe we can add Kazan, Kazakhstan and the countries in Central Asia.
It don’t fit better “Princes of the Holy Roman Empire”?
1 Like
They are represented by Cumans already.
Since there is only room for 6 more civilizations, it’s safe to assume that we are going to get 2 DLC with 3 civs each.
Would it be a crime to make stuff up? I’m sure there are written accounts by English, French, and American settlers who encountered them. It would be possible to apply that knowledge retroactively - to imagine that the Middle Ages were something similar.
A Mohawk Unique Unit for one of them. That’s a start. Bisons were abundant in North America, so they should be used somehow. Now, the campaigns are a more complex matter. You can’t make it up in a game mode that tries to reflect real life events. So, I don’t know.
So Vikings and Malay should be deleted from the roster?
@gargarensis4771 Since there is only room for 6 more civilizations, it’s safe to assume that we are going to get 2 DLC with 3 civs each.
Buddy, it’s not confirmed that the engine can only handle a maximum of 48 civs. Just because this space was specified in the game files doesn’t mean that the devs can expand it… maybe they wanted to free up so much for now. then later when the expansions sell well * which they do 10000%…* free up more space.
I wish one of the devs would finally confirm what’s going on so it’s not always presented as FACT.
FACT is: the Devs want to support Age 2 DE for a long time. it was officially said in the 2021 november patch notes at the end… of course the question is for how long really… but at least it says so.
6 Likes
It needs to be a very big change with multiple buildings, unit types, eco units, defense buildings etc to actually become interesting. But most likely it would end up being 2 or 3 civs with bonuses for water and a unique warship. And for balance those civs will end up being very situational on land.
Preferring to not have “new” water civs doesn’t imply that I’m suggesting the removal of existing civs. I’m both confused and surprised why you would think something like that and why specifically pick those 2 civs?
Incas are Native Americans.
In a game that takes a lot (not all, but a lot) of its inspiration from history, historical events, and historical military compositions, fantasy has a way of bashing you on the nose with how out of place it can get. Not even some of the campaigns or other civs can get away from this effect (Montezuma, the Celts) and while they are both fine, they are still glaringly obvious that they are weird compared to the scope of the rest. What you suggest would put anything made like that on that same level. I’d rather just avoid it altogether, personally.
No.
That would be like taking everything we know about Modern China and retroactively fitting what we know of them onto Yuan China. There would be too many assumptions made that would be colored by the current state of their culture to be fully accurate. That is an absolutely terrible idea to try to make a civ off of.
Just leave the NA civs alone, they don’t have any type of widespread impact to miss out on compared to the rest of the possible civs we can (and should) add into the game.
1 Like
Whoops. Thanks for catching that.
Oh! Well, I’m glad!
I picked Vikings and Malay for my example because they’re water civilizations; I though it was obvious. “No more” of something means that you’re tired of the existing amount of it. My point is that Vikings and Malay are balanced enough to work on land maps, so it’s unfair to bar more water civilizations, if the same balance is achieved.
Venice is built on a marsh. There you have a geographical background to give them a land bouns.
I’m Argentine so I’m qualified to say that that regarding Incas as different from Native Americans was not offensive. I mean, that wasn’t even his intention.
I know, that’s why I acknowledged that making campaigns with North American Natives wouldn’t be feasible. But the civilizations themselves is another matter. As long as descendants from those people don’t feel insulted in any way, it would be fine.
That’s not a valid comparison. You’re talking about year 2022 China. I was talking about North American Natives in the 1600’s. There was still not electricity so things would have been more similar.
Why don’t developers go to native reservations and interview them? That would be a way to ensure accuracy in how the civilizations are designed.
When did I ever say that was their intention lol
Incas are Native Americans.
Well, of course you wouldn’t want them to be insulted; I wouldn’t even want that to happen. I just feel like the devs wouldn’t be able to do them justice given the materials and sources of information we have available to us nowadays. And, even if we somehow were able to account for those issues, how would you propose the devs get around societal customs and traditions that prevent their cultures’ or languages’ representation in media, like the Puebloans not wanting their language to be recorded in any way?
Then to rectify this in a more fitting scenario, Qing China superimposed onto Yuan China. It’s quite the same situation, overall: you’d still have many inconsistencies between the two eras anyway. It would still be a subpar method to use.
This would be an excellent idea, and if they were very successful in gleaning enough details to justify making their civs then I’d lower my war banner about this and eagerly await the coming DLC. And, while they’re at it, maybe they could go find a Nahuatl speaker to redo the Aztec lines too!
I’m not tired of those civs but rather tired of adding unnecessary water civs very similar to those civs. Nothing new is going to come out of it. You will still make the same fire galley-demo in smaller water ponds and galley line on Island like maps. If you’re civ has a unique ship you might mix some of them in certain situations where they’re applicable. Whereas land based civs and units offer a lot of matchup variety depending on opponent civ(s), ally’s civs in team games, map terrain, civ’s bonuses etc. So when new content is coming in I’d like to see civs like Poles, Sicilians which offer something new and have nice land bonuses instead of having a unique warship, some random bonus to fishing and a handicap tech tree on land.