Here I see more of the middle eastern set than the current mud sahelian buildings. To be honest, the african set only fits malians imo.
1 Like
I’d prefer them to use Middle Eastern if devs are lazy to make a Central African set. They were influenced heavily by Arabs. Ethiopians with Malian architecture make 0 sense anyways.
I still want to see more civs in the North American region.
I’d like to see civs based on the Pueblo, with lots of fortifications and trade bonuses, on the Navajo, with a rare american mounted unique unit, and the Adena, which are based on the loose confederation of nomadic tribes in the pre-columbian era.
The Adena would be unique in that they wouldn’t get Town Centers. Instead, they’d start with two houses, and they can produce villagers, drop off resources, and do research at their houses, but much more slowly than at town centers. Four houses might produce villagers as fast as one town center, for example.
1 Like
The African set right now is mostly Malian, only the Imperial Age buildings have somewhat an Ethiopian touch.
I’d prefer them to use African architecture to not overuse the Middle Eastern set anyway. I’d love to see more civs for the African one and Swahili seems fitting enough.
1 Like
This seems too radical, though I’d love to see some civs for North America.
1 Like
I’d see it as just a sort of Krepost or Donjon except for villagers. The precedent is there, more or less.
It would lead to some pretty interesting base designs, too. Rather than centralizing around the town centers, it would become more distributed.
I think it could be pretty neat!
Probably too hard to balance. Would also throw people off when they should get them randomly. Even the Cuman Feudal TC is still a hot topic nowadays, so I’d rather see more conservative designs, especially when it comes to elementary buildings like Town centers and such.
A merged drop off site would be interesting and unique on the other hand or smaller farms, a bonus I really want, would not feel too out of place for a civ like Adena.
1 Like
If a new expansion were to be considered, my wish-list would include:
-
Rename the Indian civilization to something like Mughals, and then add at least one of the other kingdoms from that region, preferably something for the Rajputs or the south. I cannot overstate how much I dislike the way a whole bunch of kingdoms just got lumped into “India”. As others and myself have stated, that’s basically like saying “Europe” is a singular civ.
-
Optional region skins for units. The Mezzo-American civs have a small amount of this in the form of their monks already. I wouldn’t mind seeing swordsmen and pikemen aesthetically reflecting their regions as well. This is a longshot thing, but hey, man can dream…
-
New terrain and props for random maps.
Other than that, really, anything’s good. Honestly, even though Western Lords didn’t feel like the biggest boost, I’m just happy that they are willing to release brand new content for this game. Been having a blast with it, and been getting an increasing number of my friends to join in too!
2 Likes
Renamings probably won’t ever happen but otherwise I agree with you.
I also had some thoughts about new civilizations. And I came up with some big questions. One is, that AoE2 is set in a Medieval environment. That excludes like 80 percent of Asia, Africa and America.
Some guy mentioned the possibility of a Sami civilization in AoE2. Good idea in my opinion. But there comes the next problem. You need to balance this civ. They could have some good archers and skirmishers as a hunters civ. But no proper pikemen, swordsmen or at least mounted military. That makes it impossible to create a civilization, which can compete with others. And that’s my huge concern regarding adding civilizations to AoE2.
2 Likes
- DLC (Western European)Lords of the West + 2 civs: Burgundians, Sicilians
- DLC (African) + 2 civs: Swahilis, Kongolese
- DLC (American) + 4 civs: Mississippians, Haudenosaunee,Tupi, Caribs
- DLC (Eastern European) Boyars of the East + 4 civs: Wends, Serbocroats, Georgians, Armenians
- DLC (Asian) + 3 civs: Thais, Tibetans, Bengals
I really don’t think american civs are aoe2 material, aztec mayans and incas are already pushing to far in the medieval period.
Also georgians? armenians? the only civ we are missing in eastern europe is poland or something related to them, the balcans are pretty much cover with byzs, bulgarians and magiars
But i like the idea of asian and african civs, just that i think we will see no tibetans because of china
1 Like
These are the first Christian civilizations. They have a very long (the Armenians have a 2500-year history) interesting history and culture.
Wends is a Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs and more).
But there is still no representation of the South Slavs (Bulgarians are a fusion of Turks and Slavs who represent their unique culture).
Serbo-Croatians would represent the South Slavs (besides, the name is a fusion of two South Slavic nations).
These DLCs would give (proposals):
New historical battles:
-
Battle of Grunwald: Wends and Lithuanians (ally) vs Teutons
-
Battle of Kosovo: Serbo-Croats vs Turks
-
Battle of Manzikert: Turks vs Byzantines, Armenians, Georgians
New campaigns:
-
Jan Žižka (Wends) - Hussite wars
-
Bolesław I the Brave (Wends) - intervention in the Kievan succession crisis
-
Tamar of Georgia (Georgians and Armenians) - Eldiguzid campaign of Tamar of Georgia
-
Stefan Dušan (Serbo-Croats) - rise of Serbian Empire
1 Like
They’ve existed during the time frames, built cities and had wars. This definitely qualifies them as AOE2 civs. They didn’t magically appear with the Spanish.
Eastern Europe is basically completed with Lithuanians and Bulgarians in “The Last Khans”. I’d rather see some Caucasus Christian civs like Georgians or Armenians which could also come with their proper architecture which they could share with Byzantines afterwards.
Agree. I’ve heard Chinese user saying that the CCCP has no problem with Medieval Tibet so maybe it could work.
1 Like
I do not think so
That would technically be Rome
Actually, it would technically be Greece, since that is where it spread through the most at first, and Christianity is an Helenic religion, more so than a Semitic one.
WE are talking about official recognition of it as state religion
Which would be Rome
It could have spread faster in Ethiopia but we dunno
As a state religion, it was Rome, because almost everywhere was a Roman domain at the time.
But the first big conversions, en masses, were Greeks, mostly the Greek diaspora throught Asia and the Levant at the time, and then Greece itself.
I guess the sermon at the Areopagus had a big effect on the people 