The most underrepresented region. Comparable to Eurasia in the Middle Ages.
- Eastern Asia
The most potential. Koreans, Chinese and Japanese have no campaign.
Serbs, Croats, Vlachs and Swiss are the leftover civs.
Only metal users with stone masonry are acceptable to me.
Campaign material for sure. Though a new set is an obligation considering how 5 civs are already using the very Japanese looking one.
As a Swiss, I can tell you the most we did was winning two three wars against Burgundy and inventors of the Halberdier but that was about it.
I wouldn’t want the rest of your suggestions without a new set considering that I already feel it’s overkill that the EE set is used by 6 civs. The alternative for Croats which @Ongarelli173 used for her Tomislav campaign the Mediterranean set is used by 5 civs so that is overloaded too.
You’d remove Aztecs, Incas and Maya. Interesting…
And that Stone Masonry is a criterium while we have plenty civs using other materials is strange to me too. There’s plenty civs which used different materials which were available in their region. Sometimes it was stone, sometimes not. I doubt that Nomadic people would have taken the effort to built massive Stone structures either. We do not have to forget that most Keeps, especially in the early Middle Ages, were made mostly out of wood. Most of those civs are in the game too and I see nobody complaining about that.
I don’t know why you people want Swiss so much, it’s just one of many South German states, like the Austrians and the Bavarians. I think the Bavarians who would be the umbrella civ for the South Germans would be a much better civ.
Nomadic people had advanced weapons, tactics and managed to destroy massive civilizations, something that a Nat. Am. tribe with stone weapons and blowguns could never do.
The Cumans were running away most of the time but they’re still ingame. The Nat. Am civs I’m suggesting would be on the same technological level like the Meso civs we already have. They’d work fine as well.
Mississippians, Iroqious, Mapuche or whatever had even worse weapons, architecture etc. Cumans is a bad choice, but they are stronger than an Nat Am civ.
Eh, not really sure if you are right. They had some metals and all of them had stone masonry
Tbh Araucans fought off Spain
I noticed that you are only looking at the architectural sets, so in this case I will reassure you.
The Byzantines receive a completely new set of architecture - Byzantine / Balkan. The Byzantines are replaced by Croats in the use of the Mediterranean set. You understand?
The Cumans as they are presented in game did that, but they have a history of more things than just retreat. But go on with ignorance
Yeah, but they didn’t use them for their weapons nor for their tools. To be honest, I don’t know much about Mississippian metallurgy. Maybe they did have some kind of basic metallurgical knowledge. I honestly don’t know.
Mississippians were also with the Aztecs and Mayans in the copper age gang
Which is true about a lot of things in North America
There was never a big battle, Araucans hid behind trees and ambushed the Spanish. In a normal battlefield, they have no chance.
Like 500 Conquistadors destroyed Mesoamerica.
This is simplifying the situation to an extreme degree.
Mesoamerica was destroyed by smallpox, and surrounding rival states. The Spaniards were simply the powderkeg.
Feel free to send me good links on Cuman history.
I know it’s mostly lack of knowledge which leads to ignorance. That’s why I was suggesting you to read 1491 by Charles Mann a while ago.
I’m reading right now about the history of the Balkan and am now at the post Medieval part. The part which was relevant for AOE2, no offence, just reaffirmed that this world region had quite some centrifugal tendencies when it came to creating larger Kingdoms so they’re clearly not high on my list. Especially considering that we have the most powerful options (Byzantines, Turks, Bulgarians, Magyars) already in the game.
Yes. People arguing that an small army of conquistador was what defeated the aztecs are dead wrong
It all came together. But if we can’t even agree about whether the addition of meso civs made sense, why propose even less advanced native tribes from North America?
Because it’s basically the same discussion for a different world region.
Considering that the original found them cool and added them, I’m just applying the same standards for their Northern neighbours with their not well known history. They’d work fundamentally the same and their cultural as well as militaristic achievements are on the same level.
Especially civs like Mississippians shouldn’t be disregarded.