That is absolutely not true. European states only became the doninant military and economic powers of the world after 1750. Up until then, Asian states regarded Europe like a “third world” kind of place.
Medieval Europe wished it was the world’s leading power but they certainly weren’t back then.
Beetwen 1DE and the hero unit skins we have enough designs for UUs
I would like to see tibetans, they had a huge empire in the 7-8 century, can have some interaction with Indians, Chinese, Mongols, maybe even tartars.
A late medieval age simaese civ with canons and ayyutaya camping would be great. Has lots of camapign material with Burma and Khmer wars and Portuguese mercenaries.
Those are my top priority.
No Caucasus option? That’s disappointing.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 4 hours.
The caucasus option is missing.
The mesoamerica or south american option should include the waris. It was the first native empire, huge 1300 000 km2, had blacksmithing for bronze axes and armor, there is enough information to design UUs, and they interacted with the incas, the chimus and the spanish.
The africa option should include kanembu or kongolese at least. I don’t know much about africa, but the kanembu are fairly well-known and their empire was influential and powerful. So I just think they are a good option for a future african dlc.
I would also like to include the Caucasus option, but i focused on the most popular civs at the moment, when i created the survey. The whole thing is not so easy to make a good choice, because you have to look at the game as a whole, which civs fit into it.
Yes, together with a Bantu civ, it would be suitable as an African DLC, as we don’t have one in Age yet.
AoE3 DE African DLC, plus African Kingdoms? Are they forgotten?
For Age 2 subsaharan Civs was been obviously forget it.
Yes.
Just using the current assets it is possible to scratch together few civis designs too.
I don’t think it’s possible to add any more significant civs without having to split the existing ones.
For example, I’d split Saracens (which is not even a self determined term for Arabs) to two or three civs which sort of splinter off the original Saracens (Egyptians, Arabians and Levantines come to mind).
I’d do the same for Vikings with regards to Danes and Norwegians. Vikings are actually a terrible term for a civilization. There has never been a nation or people who describe themselves as “Vikings”. It’s more akin to a title or profession like crusader or pirate.
I can also see Britons splinter off to English and Normans… the English would be identical to Britons while Normans are still an archer civ but doesn’t enjoy the extra range and is more cavalry focused.
So yeah, I think the future of DLCs must be in splintering off existing civs. Adding esoteric North American civs would in my opinion be out of scope of the game, seeing as they were equivalent to bronze age tech when the first Europeans met them.
And yes, AoE is an old-world centric game.
A very good summary. I also consider the division of existing peoples to be the most sensible.
The addition of indigenous peoples has to do with the fact, that they were of greater importance in their geographical location at that time, but of course it is true, that they were technologically and militarily not up to the Europeans and Eastasians, nor the existing high cultures Aztecs, Mayas and Incas.
The issue is you have civs in the game like Huns which we heard of for a brief moment in 500 AD and other oldies like the Byzantines (who almost survived as an empire till the second half of the previous millennium).
The game sets itself up in the dark ages (which is around 400 AD by a stretch) and reaches the imperial age which is equivalent to the early renaissance in European history, nearly scratching the 1600s but not quite.
The issue is if the game adds the Indigenous North Americans as civs it would have to adapt themes from as late as the 19th century to get anything interesting done, or alternatively, invent some fantasy concepts that couldn’t by a mile exist in the time period of the game.
I don’t think historicity is a hugely important thing and gameplay surely is, but there’s something to be said about maintaining the theme of the game which would be broken.
Sure you can tibet is the best example.
Closing topic because it is a duplicate of this other topic.