There’re people who think we still need more civs from Europe even though it already has more than 20 civs.
And technically there’re only 4 civs in East Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese), Mongols aren’t East Asians they need a different architectural set.
Not true at all, East Asia and Southeast Asia had always been quite culturally diverse. Even today the north and south of China are still quite different.
If vietnamese are considered as east asian mongols are definitely east asian.they did conquer and rule china afterall.
Historically the Vietnamese Dai Viet kingdom had far closer cultural ties to China than the Mongols. The Chams in South Vietnam were a different story they deserve to be their own civ, however the current Vietnamese civ is based on the Dai Viet and not on the Chams.
The Mongols did conquer and rule China, but they never really assimilated.
Ideally East Asia should receive two DLC-s with 3 civs each.
The first one should be Tibetans, Nanzhao and Gokturks centered around the Tang Dynasty. A Chinese campaign would fit here the best, perhaps a Korean too.
The second one should be Jurchens, Khitans and Tanguts centered around the Song Dynasty and the rise of the Mongols. A Japanese campaign should be added here.
Southeast Asian DLC could feature Siamese, Javanese-Malay split and Chams. Perhaps Visayans and Moluccans.
Finally, a Dravidian civ split should happen to Tamils (current Dravidians) and Kannadigas since both were very relevant and had multiple big empires. Oriyas would be another major Indian civilization covering the Gajapati Empire and the Eastern Ganga Empire. Perhaps a third civ, like the Sinhalese could appear, or the Deccanis.
Oriyas perhaps have the best campaign potential in all of India: Kapilendra Deva - Wikipedia
I love your idea, I’m seeking of remake of most AOK civs in the future with nearby new civs.
In DLC you mentioned, Chinese could be renamed to Han, got a moderate remake, with some gunpowder units added but delete camels.
Another wished DLC is about HRE, with Franks and Teutonic remake, make French/German independent civs and add Swiss/Bavaria/Teutonic Order as new civ.
In Roman Empire DLC, Turks and Byzantium got their remake, with new Serbia/Seljuk civ.
Saracens is another vague civ that need to be remade, they can be divided into Bedouins/Marsi/Yemen/Levantes.
Mongols already got some remake when they released DE.
Wow that guy’s Wikipedia page has an incredible story. Almost a demigod defeating everyone.
The civs I would most like to see for an African DLC right now are Nubians, Shona, and Swahili. Maybe Kongo or Yoruba as well to represent Africa’s rainforest regions.
Both of you need to stop and get back on-topic.
Then don’t contribute to the lack of friendliness, and stay on-topic like Apocalypso said.
this
Something that strikes me is the resolved request for new but non-european Civs, with the argument that we have enough of them (wouldn’t say enough, but surely lots).
Now, I would like to understand the motive.
All of those are legit to me, by the way, I’m not judging, even though I may have something to point out.
Personally, more than adding entirely new Civs, I’d focus on splitting/reworking the umbrella ones. Since LooW the new Civs get much more unique and specific than the OG ones, that’s a pity. With this could come the visual improvement of architectures, unique castles, religious places and units and regional units. Splitting Civs is a good way to make new saleable content, usually Civs interest more than just Campaigns. Altough new Civs could come every once in a while, don’t get me wrong!
99% of the time everything comes down to this.
It’s totally legit but in that case I don’t see why vetoing other’s proposals. It’s just tastes after all so everyone have their own. And, in the end, only the Devs decide.
In my case, it’s mostly 5 (though some other points also play into it) and moreso because most western games only represent medieval Europe with some sprinklings of other cultures/civilizations in them. And other games might not have the design of potentially 50+ civilizations existing in the game, so they end up just adding the same cultures we’ve seen in every other game as well. To me, that’s just boring and I’d really like something new.
Off topic to AoE2, but it’s sort of why I believe the next Civilization game should perhaps try to look at other civilizations in the world that simply didn’t get added to the previous games yet even if they would have a good reason to be included as well. They’ve done well with representation thus far, but if the base game always has to add the same ‘OG’ civs as every other game, it’ll end up being repetitive.
It’s also part of a positive feedback loop - Western games present an euro-centric design, which makes people think those were the only civilizations that mattered in the world, which leads to wanting other historical games to also have similar euro-centric designs. Which is why I think AoE2 could present a nice opportunity to break away from that loop.
If we suggest something the other guy also has the same freedom to oppose it but there are few individuals who will post the exact same thing in every topic for no reason.
Here are possible future DLCs ordered by my preference, which try to combine 2 (to 3) new civs with a campaign for an existing one (and potentially reworks of existing ones):
East Asia:
Campaign for Chinese (+ perhaps light rework of Chinese with more gunpowder units and alleviating the massive skill gap in the civ’s win rates)
Tibetans + campaign
Tais + campaign
East Africa:
Campaign for Turks
Somalis + campaign
Nubians + campaign (or Swahili)
Balkans: (should come after campaign for Turks as they lose one mission in Vlad Dracula)
Campaign for Slavs (+ perhaps rename them to Rus or Ruthenians)
Campaign for Magyars
Vlachs (they get Vlad Draculas campaign)
Serbs + campaign
West Africa: (no possible combination with existing civs)
Songhai + campaign
Yoruba + campaign
Edo + campaign
Americas:
Campaign for Maya
Chimus + campaign
Muisca + campaign (or Tarascans)
Eastern Steppe:
Campaign for Koreans (+ perhaps rework incl Hwacha as UU)
Jurchens + campaign
Khitans + campaign (or Göktürks)
This leaves Japanese, Romans & Vikings without campaigns and Celts only with the learning campaign. For those four, it’s difficult to combine them with new civs, as there are already many European civs and Japan is quite isolated.
This is a really good idea. So far every DLC (apart from RoR) has included campaigns for civs that lack one. So going off of that concept makes sense.
Vikings could have something like Dynasties of India, where they get a re-name and a more specific castle, along with the introduction of other civs from Northern Europe.
Japanese might be possible in a DLC that adds places from the coast of East and South-East Asia. For this, the Sino-sphere DLC would be better with civs like the Jurchens, Tanguts and/or Khitans, and the Tais go with a DLC that adds a Japanese campaign. Although a Japanese campaign itself would be difficult to not suffer from “Pachacuti syndrome”. Perhaps the Mongol invasion of Japan would be the best time period to cover.
Romans could be done with a DLC that has the Vandals and Alans. Alans are not European, and Vandals can focus more of their design on their settling of Carthage, to try and make it less euro-focused.
I’m pretty sure that in the dev’s eyes, the William Wallace learning campaign counts.
2 and 5 for me. It feels like we all look at Europe with magnifying glass so we can appreciate all the small diferences between each European civ while in the rest of the world we only get the broad picture if you get stuff at all. And I think in AoE2 theres no reason to give special attention to Europe unlike AOE3 for example. They were just another region,
I agree the Celts deserve an actual campaign. I think the best candidate would be Robert the Bruce, since it could act as some sort of continuation to William Wallace.
Similarly, I also think the Byzantines should have another campaign, since Bari doesn’t feel like a Byzantine campaign at all. I think Alexios I would be the best candidate, especially since it would show the start of the Crusades. I still find it crazy that Bari was chosen over Alexios, or basically any other Byzantine Emperor.
It’s quite complicated, since that civ already comes in a DLC. How could they sell a DLC with a campaign for a civ from a different DLC? They have cornered themselves by not including a Roman campaign with RoR.