Samef-gging with named accounts has to be one of the most pathetic things I’ve seen around here, and that’s saying a lot.
1 Like
I think Vietnamese isn’t unique enough. All the other civs I feel them as being unique, but Vietnamese feels the most generic.
Not sure how to fix it though 
.
Ok I’ll try one last time before giving up forever…
From the siege of Narbonne (752-758):
The region of Septimania was up to that point in the hands of Andalusi military commanders and the local Visigothic and Gallo-Roman nobility, who had concluded different military and political arrangements to oppose the expanding Frankish realm.
What’s wrong with you people? Can you use Wikipedia or Google basic info before speaking? The idea of the fall of Rome, the middle ages and 476 is a way to facilitate comprehension when you’re in primary school and you need to learn things this way. Now you’re all grown up right? So you can go a little deeper than that maybe?
Everybody knows that Romans were half of the romano Germanic kingdoms after the “fall” and until the times of Charlemagne. It’s not that Odoacer did an ethnic cleansing in 476 throughout Europe and Romans suddenly disappeared.
In the Tariq campaign half of the cities appearing should be Romans but they are either Italians or Spanish cause Devs forgot. The Germanic kingdoms didn’t destroy the Roman culture but rather cohabit with them.
Result: you have Romans everywhere in history records until the 7th century, from Africa to Britain.
Byzantines themselves used largely a late Roman military system until the themata reforms.
The last known legion, the V Macedonica, was destroyed by the Arabs around 640 AD.
And all of this ignoring the fact that the 5th century is already in game and that the late Roman culture is something almost completely different from the earlier one (starting with Diocletian).
And now please just miss the entire argument and facts I’m posting for the 12th time and rely on your primary school studies or make a straw man argument about the fact that there was a Hun general serving Justinian in 540 and that they represent Iranian Huns or other poor arguments to justify a division that does not exist in fact but only in abstract historical periodization.
Can you separate the theory from the facts?
The reason why people think that Romans do not existed in middle ages is simply because of the sound of the two words together or because they think of Trajan legions fighting against the Muslims and cringe, that’s really the depth of the argument.
Please just educate yourself before speaking otherwise do like me, I don’t speak about mesoamerica history if I don’t know a thing about it.
4 Likes
We need the Gokturks (covering Hephthalites, Uighurs) added to the game via DLC along with others like Tibetans, Khitans and Jurchens.
6 Likes
And Tanguts. 20 characters
They are the most unique in the region. East Asian Architecture but South East Asian Tech Tree.
1 Like
Fair → idk why but when I play them it feels so generic though.
I think there’s not much unique gameplay wise, even though their art style is very cool and I do wish more civs had cool art styles for them.
I guess being generic isn’t bad → in theory that means an open-ish tech tree.
When I read through the list of civs, I immediately thought of one unique thing about all gameplay wise, except for Vietnam; that’s why I voted for them.
Revealing enemy base is not unique enough?
Extra HP on range units? Faster researching eco techs with no wood cost? Rattan Archers? Enemy TC spots being revealed? I can understand maybe not liking them the most, but most generic?
1 Like
Ah the dlc everybody wants but might never get.
5 Likes
Why is this such a hot potato. Surely they can be creative.
Nope, they didn’t.
…
If anything I’d say the Portuguese and Italians are the two civs that suffer from being so similar they almost overlap gameplaywise, and they are still not that close.
4 Likes
Side effects of having too many Euro Civs.
3 Likes
And they both feel generic to me.
1 Like
Erm… where is the none option?
Even if one does not like a civ, it does not justify removing it.
2 Likes
In what regard does them being similar make them suffer ?
Like the first comment to express the “None” option.
Corrected this for you. If you add 15 Steppe civs, you will also find 2 similar civs with CA + LC/SL play.
1 Like
If this topic is so bad then why is it still very active?
I voted Burgundians because they were never a nation, a state, an empire. This is just one rebel area of France. I don’t know how they even made it to the game. Also their campaign is not bad technically but I totally didn’t want to fight against Joan.
Also I voted against Slavs, because they should have been divided to many civs long ago. Also this civ is weak, not authentic and having bad team bonus. They must be replaced with 4-5 real nations.
However I don’t understand why people voting so hard against Romans. They probly need a balance fix but dreaming of removing them is weird.
1 Like