Still, the Aztec Empire had a population equivalent to France and Cortez didn’t wait until smallpox acted. Even cutting the Aztec population by 90%, that’s still maybe the equivalent of conquering Bohemia with 1000 men and some diplomacy (Caesar had much better numbers and the support of the Senate when conquering Gaul). The Spanish won the battle of Otumba, hopelessly outnumbered, by a decisive cavalry charge that routed the Aztec army after killing the Aztec commander.
2 Likes
That was very clearly a sarcastic post. It’s a mockery of the Eurocentric players, who effectively want dozens of civs with much less potential for distinct gameplay than other regions.
4 Likes
I think that we now got the romans was only due to RoR. so I think the next DLC could avoid the EU again and be set in either Asia or Africa.
I would guess Asia specifically.
5 Likes
It’s certainly possible. I don’t really care what we get as long as a Caucasus expansion comes out eventually.
1 Like
This forum majority was against adding rome but everywhere else people were perfectly fine.I wonder if that will be the case for more european civis.
5 Likes
Probably. This forum has a huge issue with adding European civs, even though the game’s current system of representation allows for far more diversity and variety within Europe than most other places in the world.
1 Like
So where do you fit Elephant and Eagle civs in Europe exactly?
I don’t care about history but if you want to talk about unit gameplay diversity I will die on this hill perhaps IRL!
4 Likes
Gameplay is sadly not going to be that different, but there is much more potential for continued content from Europe than most other places in the world. That’s what I’m saying.
1 Like
Sure, that eagle civ in Europe then… and there’s your problem.
1 Like
You’re either not understanding my point or you’re being deliberately obtuse. I specifically said that future European civs wouldn’t be that different from each other in terms of gameplay, but there is much more potential when it comes to actual new content, due to how AoE2 handles people groups and ethnicities.
1 Like
And I’m telling you as far as game design is concern, that is a DEATH SENTENCE! Ergo with the same gameplay loop for the next 15 civs, you wont se much growth in this pattern.
3 Likes
Swiss could fill this role? I dont think they are well known for great cavalry.
Btw im not talking about historical accuracy just gameplay/unit diversification.
1 Like
This section of the forum truly is my common adage of “People would rather have the smallest, most irrelevant European city in the game rather than a new African civ”.
12 Likes
I’d love to see more Eagle Warrior civs, but there are not many that you could justify being in the game. European civs, meanwhile, are a dime a dozen.
That wouldn’t make any sense at all.
Actually, I would take a new African civ over a small, irrelevant European city. Because the game doesn’t focus on cities, but ethnic groups.
1 Like
By the time of Lords of the West, I feel like they stopped bothering with actually adding new ethnic groups and just splitting whatever they already had in Europe. The trend has kept up, somehow adding more and more euro civs to the game to absurd levels.
6 Likes
Europe has been milked dry. Whatever “potential” a european civ would have would be worthless. At this point you might as well remove all european civs and replace them with an umbrella civ.
1 Like
If Europe has been milked dry, then other regions are soon to follow…
1 Like
That is a good thing.
3 Likes
Actively wanting support of the most popular Age of Empires game by far to end is a good thing?
1 Like
What do you even mean Mongols didn’t have the same results, they conquered China & Persia. Not only two of the largest empires in Asia, but two of the oldest, longer lasting as well, they literally created the largest contiguous empire in history centuries before the Spanish and had a larger empire to boot.
Like, you gotta bear in mind the Aztecs controlled but a fraction of what’s the entirety of Mexico, they weren’t this gigantic hegemon that pop culture would lead you to believe. What set them apart is their engineering and city planning since, you know, Tenochtitlan was larger and more populated than any contemporary European city.
Crusaders may have maintained a foothold in the Holy Land, but what if I told you… Muslims mantained a foothold right next to the Franks for a thousand years. Guess they had better fortifications than what the franks could handle, huh.
A big part of the Portuguese gaining a foothold in the Indian Ocean was due to them allying with Safavid Iran that was becoming newly independent come the early modern era but, at any rate, this is already early modern history, what does it have to do with Age of Empires II?
It’s not like they completely removed the Ottomans from the map either, they kept supporting wars in Aceh, Brunei and whatnot well into the 1600s, nevermind the fact that the empire lasted well into the 20th century.
Of course Medieval Italy had better structures than the freaking Romans. What kinda comparison is that. It’s super easy to cherry pick and compare to the ottomans rather than, I don’t know, just about any religious building in Southeast Asia. Like, have you seen Angkor Wat? or Borobudur? the Golden Buddha Statue from Sukhotai?
You know that no one in Europe really managed to replicate either Wootz Steel from Southern India nor Damascus Steel from, well, Damascus, right?
Like hell they shot themselves in the foot when it comes to technology. If this were a reasonable forum we could have a discussion about how the Ming Dynasty could be argued that it suppressed all the technological innovation that was being pushed during the Song Dynasty, as they were rather conservative and that may even be argued to be the cause of what ceased the Treasure Fleet Voyages too way down the line.
But this isn’t a reasonable discussion, this is a very dumb argument to cherry pick arguments and make Europe look like a place of enlightened ubermensch that are above the rest of the world.
15 Likes