I has tried to design some new civs that are not covered well by the in-game civs in my opinion.
And I list them from pack A to pack F to make them look like DLC.
African Return
Bantu
Nubians
Vandals
Bulwark of Christianity
Armenians
Croats (south Slavic people)
Georgians
Vlachs
Continental Storm
Burgundians (who can cover Medieval Netherlanders)
Swiss
Wends (west Slavic people)
Dharmapala
Bengals (east Indians or Buddhistic Indians)
Dravidians (south Indians or Hindu Indians)
Siamese
Edge of the World
Iroquois (cover all the north Americans)
Mapuches (cover the south Americans except for Incas and Muiscas)
Muiscas
Polynesians (cover all the Oceanian natives)
Far East Dynasty
Gokturks
Jurchens
Khitans
Tibetans
Now there are 21 civs above. Almost done except for Georgians and Croats. My problem is, what can the UU and UT of Croats be? My first impression was the Crabats (cavalry unit), but I think they may be too late. Next, I looked at ZvonÄŤari (infantry unit), some records show that they were related with the Battle of Grobnik Field but I am still not sure about it.
May someone understanding the history of Croats help me?
BTW, since my acceptable total amount of civs is 60, there are still 4 quota at most. I still considering some civ like Roman, Scythians, Normans, Sinhalese, etc. But I think they are not in the era of Aoe2 or already be covered by the in-game civ well in some degree.
Personnally i think with all These Threads rather than writing huge lists of possible civs, you should think about how would you Design a civ, so IT doesnt Just become a reskin of a different civ. Sure you would give them different bonusses but would These civs function different than whats already there?
For example italians get extra Archer Armor Vietnamese extra Archer HP but in effect its functually almost the Same Bonus. How would a new civ Bring a certain unique Playstyle to the Game?
So for a croat UU i wouldn’t worry so much about what its called or If IT perfectly fits the time frame. Arguably the whole meso civs, Huns, gbeto, janissary and Others arent perfectly within the time frame of the middle ages.
What would the unique mechanic of the croat UU be, that its Not Just a slightly Stronger/weaker Knight?
What about no new civs? I will vote for that option. I dont really think we need more civs. Currently you already have some many civs. Already i dont have the time to play them all frequently.
For the reason about the region, it may be covered by Dravidians.
For the reason about the religion, it may be covered by Bengals.
For the reason about the ethnicity, both of Dravidians and Bengals are related with it.
The other hand, they probably had not influenced too much on the history of the region as well as the whole world in some degree.
However, I agree that their independent wars are attractive to be a campaign so that is why some people want it.
Yeah I found this name before.
Its mean was similar to a king or a highest top leader of a state instead of people who can group. So I will keep looking for. Anyway, thank you.
By this standard all of europe is teutonic and croatians wends valachs are all slavic.[quote=“UpmostRook9474, post:7, topic:91278”]
The other hand, they probably had not influenced too much on the history of the region as well as the whole world in some degree.
[/quote]
That is true but why are koreans mayans burmese vietnamese cumans and celts in game?
Btw north indians bengals sinhaleese all are indo aryans so one indian civi can cover them all.
Please dont think Im attacking your civi concepts im just pointing out an inconsistency within your own logic.
I understand and respect that everyone has personal preference on modding.
Please show some respect to other people with another opinion. We dont have to agree, but we do have to respect each other. While i disagree with your opinion, i still respect your opinion. Hopefully you can do the same.
Not all European had the relation to the Germanic people or Teutonic people you said. Also, Vlachs was not Slavic people, even nowadays Romania is not regarded as a Slavic country.
I listed some potentially oppose reasons from all angles since I didn’t know which one you care. Okay, now I have known that you are not really care about the ethnicity in some degree, and there are still other reasons nothing to do with the ethnicity.
Actually I had put Sinhalese in the pack D of that civ list before. However I still cannot be persuade that how its civ bonus and tech tree can be different from other Indians especially Bengals so I took it down.
One reason I had heard is Korea and Vietnam are the important market of Aoe2. Burmese had conquered many places in the south east Asia in the past, that will be clearly shown if Siamese can be introduced into the game. Cumans had had their own khanates and participated in many wars in the east Europe. Celts had been one of the origins of most of the European nowadays, you may found them in many wars in the early Middle age.
I am already respecting you. This is an open forum and I had not said you are wrong.
However, it is also a fact I stated that you may ruin others’ pleasure and I honestly and sincerely suggested people who cannot accept the new civs anymore can let each other off. If find a thread and obviously notice that it is talking about new civs, please just ignore it since the focus of the meaningful discussion there will based on people’s acceptance of new civs. You won’t criticize the singer on his fanpage when you just pass by it on the Facebook, right?
Yeah I started to notice the Croatia and study its history since her suggestion.
Croats fought many in-game civ like Italians, Magyars, Byzantines, Turks, etc, having many resource to be an in-game civ.
Not all in the east Europe and some other places.
There were still Slavs and Celts.
Nobody was fully replaced, the germanians were not genocidal madmen. In Western Europe, however, they fully transformed the culture and social power-structures of every nation they conquered, and many they did not.
Afterall, the tradition for Heavy Cavalry and Knights, comes from the germanic tribes, and you see it was adopted even in Scotland and Ireland, which did not underwent massive germanic invasions.
I have to said it is not simple like you stated.
Even yes, if you don’t care the ethnic classification in some degree, there is no any problem at all.
Be clearly different in my version.
There were Boyars since some Slavic people were in the Vlachia, which did not mean Vlachs were Slavs.
I had post my Bengals and Dravidians tree on the other thread.
So I said not every Europeans were Germanic there.
BTW, we are off-topic now. I still hope someone can give me feedback about Croats.
Just looking at the preview shows me the persian uu with range.
You can make a civi outline for any civi if you put some effort and time rather than saying its too much like that civi.
And I have never said that I judge a civ only by the ethnicity and never said that Sinhalese has no chance at all to be introduced, I had considered about it deeply before.
Siamese can have a special tree from other 4 south east Asians with the Mahout Cannoneers as UU and Elephant Monks as 2nd UU.
I guess you are a Sri Lankan, right? I respect your nation’s culture, history and ethnicity. But I still need more evidences to be persuade to support it to be introduced. How can its tree different from Bengals and any other civ?
Seems you have never checked its difference from Persian War Elephants, its terrible siege ability and extra range make it special, and it also has its own weakness.
I typed the tree in detail to let people read it clearly and understand what this civ is deeply and easily.
You are keeping being off-topic.
Thank you for the help, I’ll check the link later.
