I would be happy with just Tibetans, to be honest.
Maybe add Khitans for the Cavalry Crossbows.
1 Like
The same could happen with Tanguts: Flamethrowers, Fire Towers, Cannons carried on Camels, etc… etc… I found Burgundian Cranequiers more interesting.
1 Like
I would love a Cranequier unit in the Scenario Editor.
Camel Cannoneer: Terror to Knight AND Castle!
1 Like
haha 111, but I imagine this as a fast cannon with a bit less damage/range
1 Like
Double mounted small cannons on the side, and the Rider has a Bomb Shell hat.
AoE2’s version of the Mammoth Tank: the Camel Cannoneer!
Would make a funny cheat unit, if nothing else.
2 Likes
I saw the “Bombard Camel” concept on reddit:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/9vkhj8/civ_idea_tangut/
Could be cool as a UU, specially if the civ lacks Trebuchets, which would be pretty unique aswell.
A bit too much HP on that one, for a very mobile piece of artillery, though.
1 Like
However 15% cheaper and 30% faster Trebuchets would be historically accurate.
1 Like
Maybe, but it would be too strong. Even Mongold, Huns and Japanese Trebs do not get to be that strong, with 2 bonii on them.
A Siege HP bonus or UT would be cool, aswell has free Ram upgrades, Siege Workshop working 50% faster, and an Imp UT for Siege price reduction.
1 Like
Pashtuns
Uganda
interesting
That’s their main Imperial Age bonus basically, so I found that balanced, maybe the speed boost should be locked by an UT.
Que?
Castle Age UT for Siege Workshop work rate, and Imp Age UT for Siege price reduction (not affecting UUs).
the Kitara Empire was founded by Abbyssians so I found a siege bonus interesting.
Pashtuns cover Ghurids and Siege of Delhi is represented by their strong siege weapons.
1 Like
It is a game, not a textbook. We should find the umbrella to make the game workable, not making every ethnic people become a civ.
I would support Iroquois to represent the north native Americans, Sahelians to represent Hausa states and Kanem-Bornu Empire, Sogdians to represent the Iranic nomadic and Oasis states living in the inner Asia like Hephthalites and Tocharians, Bantus to represent Kongolese, Swahili and Zimbabweans, etc.
For me, 24 Europeans, 24 Asians and 12 Others are enough. 60 is the the max acceptable amount of the playable civ.
My thoughts exactly.
Yea I so wished that they had made the Meso civs more realistic. And I think they missed a great opportunity with DE to fix that to some extent, they really should have overhauled the architecture and unit designs to be a bit more realistic in their reflection of the civs they were representing.
1 Like
Historically Europe accounted for 1/3rd of the world population. Africa and America were maybe 5% each at the time. So they currently are represented just fine… maybe 1 more of each at most
I’d also like to see Tibet in the game. But I’d also like to see Dutch, Swiss, Poles, Vandals, and Finn’s… what’s wrong with that?
1 Like
AoE2 never cared for population numbers to justify a civ, only how fun it would be to have it in the game, and SOMETIMES Real World significance for the period.
3 Likes
Precolumbian population is actually a hot topic in science. Actual estimates go from 50 million to over 100 million.
Africa had around the year 1500 a population of 40-80 million.
Europe in comparison a population of 80 millions roughly.
Source: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/appendix_B.pdf
Population-wise, those regions are pretty similar, so a few more civs for America and Africa would be nice considering how inhomogenous from a cultural point of view those regions are. Europe has like 14 civs (16 if you count Huns and Cumans too), so a few more for Africa and America from this perspective seems reasonable if not mandatory. There are only 6 civs for both world regions right now.
1 Like
That’s not only a European thing though. Maya recorded important aspects of their history on their famous stelae, which are actually quite old (400 BCE)
Ethiopia recorded it’s history too in their famous Alphabet:
I could mention many other cultures from other various places outside of Europe which recorded their history, myths and legends. That’s definitely not an exclusive European thing.
2 Likes
But the Mayans did not record the History of other peoples, only their own.
It was the Europeans who started to value the History of other nations that were not themselves.
This has to do with how Europeans waged War and conquered lands. The Ancient Greeks, the Macedonians and the Romans all absorbed the deities and legends of the people they conquered, but to do that, they had to understand the peoples they wanted to assimilate.
With time, this lead to a sort of academic xenophilia, in which European empires spreading outward, actively sought to record the History and customs of the people they vanquished, in order to syncretize them into a Hybrid culture that would adapt to the new European standards that would inevitably be imposed.
Most other conquerors actually sought to eliminate or significantly change the records of the people they conquered, so they would never remember a time in which the new crown was not in power, and they were another kingdom.