I would like to see this Caucasus DLC because Georgia and Armenia are the civs I see people asking the most here. It reminds me of the DOTD dlc hearing the people’s voice and bringing Poles and Bohemians and I believe those two are the next.
10 Likes
You may be into something… because devs are saying that Persians are going to get some changes soon… I don’t know about georgia but Armenia and Persia share a lot of history, at least in the pre muslim era…
I can see a DLC with a free Persian rework and a few civs closer to them
2 Likes
Armenia has a lot of shared history with Persia too. An Armenian general commanded the Persians and defeated the Gokturks in the Second Perso-Turkic War.
1 Like
Only two? Try three or however many moee to reach 20 characters to post
2 Likes
In Attila 5, and Alaric 1 western Romans were represented by eastern Romans alone. In Alaric 5 and Attila 4 and 6, western Romans were represented by eastern Romans and others. In Alaric 3 and 4, western Romans were represented by eastern Romans and Italians. In Attila 6, western Romans were represented by Byzantines in HD and Italians and others in DE.
I would even argue that Hinndustanies and Gurjaras could get a few splits and still no be at the same level as Venetians
You can split all indian civs 10 times if you want and that is not an argument that Venetian should not be in the game.
And by the way, a civ that is “already represented” by Byzs or Italians such as Romans has almost as many picks than the 4 indians combine… while 3 out of 4 least picked civs are from the indian DLC (of course, the 3 civ that you need the DLC).
I don’t mean that Romans are good and indian civs are bad, but it’s clear that the preferences of the playerbase favours the Eternal City over this great foreign Indian Empires. There is no need to demerit a civ just because YOU don’t like it, specially when most of the players clearly do not ask for representation in a new civ, just a cool civ.
Just in case, I didn’t like Romans to be added. Then, I tought ‘at least I’m gonna enjoy new campaigns in AoE2 and OG campaigns in AoE1’. Whatever.
I get it, I didnt like the single player content neither… I think the biggest miss was the lack of a Román campaign in aoe2
That’s because Romans is the newest baby in the family. Gurjaras had almost 1.5x more play rate than the second pick - the evergreen Franks after DOI. Wait for Romans being nerfed and see Gurjaras being back at top 3 pick.
I don’t know where you get those numbers, in aoestats it says Gurjaras never got 2% of the pick rate and franks never droped lower than 6%… I’m considering all ELOs not only top players
Anyways low pickrate does not mean a bad civ, in fact Gurjaras is one of the most powerfull civs in Arabia, specially in higher ELOs… but I wouldn’t split any indian civ with their current pickrate
aoestats don’t have April 2022 data. I’m talking from my memory from aoepulse. Gurjaras and Hindustanis were top pick back then.
If Italians pick rate was as bad as them, would you be willing to wait for Venetians? Let’s be honest, no one will consider pick rate of civs from same region to wait for their favorite civ to be added.
Just to be clear, I voted Africa. I don’t want another Indian DLC until more under represented regions are covered.
1 Like
My personal picks would be, in no particular order, East Asia (especially the Eastern Steppe with Jurchens, Tanguts and Khitans, or Himalaya with Tibetans, Kashmiris and Nepalis), the Caucasus (Georgians, Armenians and either Alans or Kazars), East Africa (Somalis and Nubians, maybe Kanembu/Kanuri) and South Africa (Kongolese, Swahilis and Shonas).
In the long run, I also want more content for many other parts of the world and I think we should eventually come back to Europe, but even then the Balkans should imo be proritised over Venice. And I’m French, with two grandparents whose family came from Italy, one of them being specifically from an area that was previously part of the Republic of Venice. I think it would be nice to have this civ at some point in the long run, but I’m not particularly eager to see it happen.
I also think LotW was the most underwhelming dlc in terms of new civs (loved the campaigns though) and I’m pretty sure DotD would have been better received had it not come out right afterward.
1 Like
Or all four, like in my Caucasus expansion concept.
1 Like
Or that, yes 
The Kazars could also fit in a Pontic Steppe dlc, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon and it shouldn’t come before a Caucasian one.
1 Like
Honestly, the four picks that I went with for my expansion concept seem so obvious that if they went the route of making a 4-civ DLC, I can’t possibly see them picking a different four.
1 Like
That’s for sure. The main problem is that we didn’t have a 4-civ DLC since DE came out…
2 Likes
Well, DoI is kinda a 4-civ DLC, since the Indians were significantly reworked into the Hindustanis. They’re functionally basically a new civ.
Hopefully the devs aren’t lazy and actually make my most wanted DLC HD-quality, like with The Last Khans. New architecture set, four new civs instead of just two, new SE objects, and so on. The architecture set one is a biggie - Georgia especially is not gonna feel right if it doesn’t have a new architecture set.
1 Like
There’s also the fact the devs seem to have settled for 3 campaigns per dlc since LotW (especially noticeable with RoR), and I supsect campaigns take far more work than the civs themselves…
2 Likes
This is the one DLC I wanted the most, so I hope they don’t mess it up.
1 Like
Just want to point out that the Africa option doesn’t include the most requested civs, Somalis and Kanembus.
I really hope the next DLC is not “Here, take 2 new civs and 3 campaigns… and a wallpaper with some “challenges””. I hope they make a DLC like the old ones. New music tracks, new gaia animals and scenario editor objects, new terrains and trees, new maps, a proper hyping and immersive trailer, etc…
6 Likes