He means Slavs. At this point they’re Rus in basically all but name (and campaign)
and campaign
And UU, and UT, and castle, and history section, and infantry/siege identity…
Personally I think they just need a rename (and maybe a new UU if Boyar becomes regional) and campaign. I really don’t want any new East/Southeast Euro civ unless it’s Romanians/Wallachians (so Dracula goes to a more fitting civ and Slavs, Magyars and Ottomans get proper campaigns).
Edit: And a new castle instead of the current castle built by the Teutonic Order on Polish land. Give that one to Teutons already.
Rename should be Ruthenians, a properly medieval term for Kievan Rus (though, I hate to say it, the 3Ks did set the precedent of having non-ethnic civ names, so I guess Rus could work grumble). The UU could be the Strelet, which can switch between a bardische and a musket, maybe proximity being the decider. The campaign could be someone like Alexander Nevsky.
You wouldn’t want any Balkan civs? Shame.
The Magyars could get Matthias Corvinus and the Turks could get Mehmed the Conqueror.
The Slavic Castle doesn’t fit the German architecture at all, and it also somewhat resembles Russian kremlins. If the Teutons get a new Castle, I would prefer something like Eltz Castle.
Sorry, I wouldn’t. I’d sooner see 20 more Native American civs.
I’ve suggested that as well, though all I know about Corvinus is from seeing him in Civ 6 sometimes. lmao
Then I’d want both to get completely new models. The current Teutons one is most definitely based on an English castle.
Imo that castle is Romanian
See Why I think a Balkan DLC is a bad idea - #131 by SchwarzeGarde49
Various authors including iirc greek ones like Jordanes speculated of the slavic origins in around the danube river. Hence the devs probably gave preference to Dracula for the slav campaign…
Shame. That would mean Bran Castle couldn’t be their unique Castle. They could even reuse Poenari Castle in-game, since it’s actually just Bran. But oh well…
Rus united before settling in Kiev and also existed afterwards, it’s a proper ethnic name. See Bela-rus, white rus.
wouldn’t want any Balkan civs? Shame
Especially in regards to the turks we could have serbs (Serbian Empire) and Romanians (renamed Slavs)
Wait why would the Slavs be renamed to Romanians instead of to Rus or Ruthenians? lmao
But does it work with “the” put before it like all the other non-3K civs (for example: the Persians, the Chinese, the Georgians)? Or is it more like a proper name where having the beforehand would sound weird (the Persia, the China, the Georgia)? I picked Ruthenians because it doesn’t have this issue.
It would be fun to have the Serbians as a separate civ along with the Croatians and Albanians, but the Wallachians/Vlachs/Romanians should also be separate instead of being a renamed Slavs.
I’m not a native English speaker but to me saying “The Rus” doesn’t sound weird. Idk how it sounds to native speakers tho.
Because their castle is Romanian
And also their campaign
And the UU boyar seems to have first emerged in around the balkan area
As well as the slavics in general, around the danube
“The Rus” works, sure
Then who is going to represent Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus?
Nobody untill they add them as a separate civ
You’re overthinking it. Just make the existing Slavs the Ruthenians, then add the Vlachs or whatever as a separate civ.
1 Like
make the existing Slavs the Ruthenians
But why if they’re already as protagonists to Dracula campaign
Especially in regards to the Turks discussion
If anything, add the Serbians because of the Serbian Empire
It isn’t.
Hindustanis are the ones closest to the old Indians (to the point of not needing DoI to be played), but Gurjaras are the ones who got the old campaign and Dravidians are the one who got the castle AND wonder, why should Wallachians be different?
1 Like
Hindustanis
The original Indians are removed.
We got a whole rework of that area.
Then refer back to this:
Because Hindustani were not just a rename