The Slavs?

I hope some of the devs reads this. I have a question, why is there three Italian civs (Italians, Romans and Sicilians), three French civs (Franks, Burgundians and Sicilians, if they are counted as Normans). There are Three Indian civs. Even the Iberian peninsula have both Portugese and Spanish.

But Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Wallachians, Russians, Ruthenians, Kievan Rus etc etc. They should all be bunched together in this bucket of “Slavs”? Not really a term used back then, but rather a racial term for Eastern Europeans.

I really think it is cool that they continue to make new cool civs, but having a “Slav” civ representing everyone in Eastern Europe and Balkans, and then they add Georgians and Armenians? For some areas it is very important with very, very specific civilisations, like Sicilians, a small island under Italy needs their own civilisation, which is some mix of Italian, Norman and Sicilian attributes. But Half of Europe shall just be “Slavs”.

I think the devs really should reconsider this. There are a lot of history in the Balkans that would do a few great campaigns. King Lazar or Tomislav comes to mind.


This is an original topic!!! Also you joined twenty minutes ago… pretty sus.

Its certainly more concerning that the Sahara only has one civ or Mexico only 2 or all of South America just one!


I mean, we can’t really fit all of them in… Out of this entire list, I could at best see Serbs (because Empire) Croats(Croats+Bosnians, under the Croatian Empire), Vlachs(Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania, Dracula Campaign), and either Rus or Ruthenians as a reworked Slavs civ. Maybe a 2 birds, 1 stone deal with Venice adding Albania as well? Venice was always connected to this region too.

Touchy, aren’t you?


What you mean the fact the cool concept of being a civ without cavalry and using s beloved alternative is being used in less than 10% of civs… is this a hill you wanna die on tp defend an account less than an hour old? Deny us more Eagle civ gameplay?


Bruh, that’s not what I meant at all. What I mean is that the hysteria isn’t necessary. You can say all of this without the outrage. It’s called ‘being civil’.

Let people talk about what they wanna talk about. It’s not your place (nor any others’) to decide what is and isn’t allowed.


You’d have a point jf there werent 6 other topics either specifically about or that have devolved into Slavonationalism as is. If there werent then sure fine no comment about the topic fatigue but…


There’s Southern Slavs in the form of Bulgarians, Eastern Slavs in the form of Slavs and Western Slavs in the form of Poles and Bohemians. Meanwhile West Africa has a single civ. I agree that the Italian civs were unnecessary and I would have rather seen another African civ than Portuguese but this is what the devs decided to add.

The Slavs as a whole group have not been that bad off in terms of getting new civs compared to a lot of other world regions.


I finally found a place where to discuss and my membership time is a problem? I hope someone was as rude as you are, when you first joined here.


It is not unreasonable how you argue, but as I wrote in my first post, is there any reason there is three (3) Italian civs? Even the tiny island of Sicily needs their own civilissation, but Serbs, croats, Wallachians, Russians, Ruthenians etc etc etc should just all be a collective of “slavs”. I think it is very strange.

If you’re not a ban evader trying to pretend to concern troll over this topic then welcome, but seriously we have like 5 topics about slavs going at once

1 Like

Again… For the 10th time… Romans are not byzantines nor Italians nor an Italian split… Sicilians are not Italians yet… Lots of people saying they’re Normans rather… So you see it’s debatable… Slavs is silly… Yes Africa with two civs too…

I’ve recently seen as much threads about Slavs as African theorycraft civs but of course if your heart screams one of the two no amount of threads will ever convince you that there’s not a conspiracy adding infinite Italian splits instead of your favourite civ.

Thank you. I’d just say to op maybe try to theorycraft those civs like in recent African civs threads instead of just name checking them (not that it would be a novelty anyway but maybe you can come up with good suggestions for Devs).


I assume there are no Italians in this forum because since I’m here everyone really enjoy ######## on them lol. Favourite scapegoat I guess :pinched_fingers::pizza:

1 Like

I am quite familiar with the difference between modern, or early modern age Italians, Byzantines and (Western) Romans. I have a degree in history, believe it or not.

About the Sicilians, that is true, it is in fact a Norman civ. With Norman units speaking bastardized Italian. It’s a very strange civ, it would be much more classic AOE to just have a “Norman” civ. Could be used elsewhere too of course. Like 1066 etc. So the Sicilian civ is in fact used as Normans elsewhere, like in the Bari campaign, but they have to rename it every single time it is used outside the Hautevilles campaign. Very, very not logic to me.

As Im trying to say this topic happened a few times already in the past two weeks. Still no community consensus and still squabbling

1 Like

I was trying to find one before making this one, let’s just say I am new here and not too familiar with the forum UI.

Well forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see any Slavo-nationalism here. He’s just asking for a Slavs split. I thought that was what was being discussed. I happened upon this thread, and maybe

I’m sorry to say that the Bulgarians are the single worst South Slavic rep civ there could be. They are Turkic in origin, unlike the vast majority of others in the area. The rest I can agree with, easily.

I disagree, the Italians are necessary, all of them. Romans for the Early Medieval campaigns, Italians for the Lombard Kingdom, the City States, and Middle and Late Medieval Campaigns, Sicilians for the Kingdom of Sicily, wider Norman representation, and Crusader representation. One could even say Venice is still required, to fully differentiate between the Byzantine-influenced Italy and the Lombard-Influenced Italians. If you’re worried about Italian over-representation, then add more elsewhere.

I would have rather seen another African country as well, but it’s also fine that they placed Portugal since, like as not, they began in the middle ages, participated in the Reconquista and began the first European Overseas Colonial Empire all barely within the timeframe. They needed a slot somewhere, and they were involved in Africa. So, in my eyes, it fits.

I also agree with this, surprisingly. Compared to Aztecs representing the Nahuatl religion kingdoms, Mali representing West Africa, and Dravidians representing South India, Slavs have made better progress than they have. However, it is only progress, not completion, and in the Slavic umbrella multiple Empires still exist. So why not represent them too?

Then instead of attacking him, direct him to those topics. He says he’s new, so teach him on how and where to go.


The amount of bad faith ban evading trolls has put many of us on edge.


They speak modern Sicilian dialect, makes me laugh everytime I hear it since it sounds like the godfather lol.
So not very Norman in that regard, that’s why you can’t play them in Hastings, it would be silly to have Normans in France speaking Sicilian while having them as enemy factions in longshanks is fine since you can’t hear them speak and you can just rename them Normans (even if the emblem remains the one of the kingdom of Sicily so still kinda silly).
So my opinion is there’s still space for a properly Norman civ if they ever go back to the British isles (insert “after Africa of course” here).
It’s a similar situation to the one of Armenians actually being Cilicians but probably Armenians work well enough (I mean let’s pretend it does) for proper Armenia while Sicilians only have Norman rulers who settled in Sicily as AI names. No William the conqueror etc.

1 Like

I am not familiar with Italian at all, but that is just hillarious, sounds like a Fiverr voiceover job done. LOL.

I agree to what you say, IMO they should be reworked and renamed as “Normans” with a new voice set that they can be used for more than just the tiny piece of history that the Norman precense in Apulia and Sicily is.

Indian factions were split a year and a half ago, Sicilians and Burgundians about 3 years ago. Some or all of the factions you’ve mentioned could become a DLC eventually. I just hope all of them are cool civs with good bonuses, none of them miss important unit lines.

1 Like