Hi, @mastakilla91!
In that interview, he was constantly asked what does he think are the unique units of the new civilizations. He managed to get them correctly based on the type being, e.g. cav-archer, melee unit, etc. This speaks to me that they prioritize the gameplay more than anything. He knew perfectly well that there are discrepancies in the historic background for certain choices, but inevitably it is all acceptable, if the gameplay is intact from drastic inmbalances.
Shortly, gameplay first, history - second. It is not how I desire it to be as well, but objectively, if we do not want to see only three dominant civilizations being played constantly, we have to sacrifice a bit of history for the sake of playability.
Uhh No it would not be hard to justify this and it has been justified in multiple threads.
Which interview was this? I don’t recall seeing any about Slavs…
Irish are celts gypsies are albanian and valachs.
This video, I guess.
Lets not forget sandy and es team added huns and mesos which made any civi a possible candidate.
The devs did a big mistake after they introduced two new stupid civs which they are actually more like a villages/courtyards (Burgandians & Sicilians) rather than being empires/kingdoms. I was totally depressed by such a stupid thing, actually there are many great empires more worthy to add rather than those “villages” like Khazars/Afghans/Mughals/Göktürk Khaganate/Tibetan Empire/Liao empire, but what the devs did instead?! Yes they added stupid villages/courtyards as empires and because they did that, we have now tons of posts want to add every country in the world to the game even if it meaningless. I was totally disagree to move out the umbrella system
2 Likes
Those are already covered in umbrella civis.Indian chineese tatars.
1 Like
I don’t understand this either. If they wanted to add Sicilians/Burgundians they should have done it with the Italians and subcivs mechanics I proposed for the Slav.
This way we will inflate the number of civs