Which factions do you think should be added: Early Modern Era edition

[TungstenBoar]

Albanian independence periods were also shortlasting

[Temudhun]

Oh, yeah, that’s also something I wanted to mention but somehow I forgot xD

[StoreyedPlate74]

I would also argue that both the Serbs and Vlachs were more the most important of that group, since the Croats spent most of the Middle Ages in a personal union under Hungary. If these civs were to be added to the game, in my opinion it should be in this order: Serbs, Vlachs, Croats, Albanians

[Temudhun]

Yeah, Croatians would be mostly an Early Middle Ages civ I guess.

[SirWiedreich]

@TommoChocolate

To me it feels like they have a vision for each civ, but when that vision doesn’t work out the way they intended in actual gameplay, they don’t know how fix it.

You could say that. Although when I say “vision,” I mean that in a pretty expansive and well-defined way (that presupposes its ability to be implemented in a balanced yet compelling form). Otherwise I’m not sure that some of the civs, e.g. Dravidians rise above having a “theme.” And you need something a little more robust to guide your design process when the theme is niche strength (islands) and/or off-meta units (infantry/EAs) that make for weak overall performance. Perhaps this is kind of an arbitrary semantic distinction, although I think it conveys something important.

Regardless of whatever their design philosophy or balance plans actually are, I see no reason for the glacial pace of updates. Even if the design methodology is kind of weak (“guess and check”), you can still get decent results if you iterate frequently. But when you nerf Sicilians for example, and then leave them hanging for many moons without any hint of compensation, it makes me question whether there is a “vision” to make them more compelling. But, without expecting any particular buffs, I expect that the “big update” will be quite positive, so I’ll hold off on further comments.

@TyrannoNinja

So would the Mississippians and Anasazi depending on how much info is available about them to reconstruct a playable civilization.

I don’t think these have a reasonable chance of ever making it in, but I think the best compromise would be to add some Editor content of units/buildings for enthusiasts of those regions.

[MatM1996]

@TyrannoNinja

I want to see civilizations from Central and Southern Africa, and maybe a few from South America as well (I’d rather the Inca and other civilizations from that continent have a unique “South American” architecture set rather than one shared with the Mesoamerican civilizations). Tibet would be nice if they could get past the Chinese censors. So would the Mississippians and Anasazi depending on how much info is available about them to reconstruct a playable civilization.

Sure, it could happen at some point, Southern Africa, South America and North America would be interesting…

@Temudhun

To begin with, I think we should finish breaking the Slav umbrella and give the Dracula campaign its proper faction (and give the Russians, Hungarians and Turks their own campaigns) before doing anything else in Eastern Europe. There’s also the fact that Albania was always smaller and less populous than the other three, which doesn’t help.

@StoreyedPlate74

I would also argue that both the Serbs and Vlachs were more the most important of that group, since the Croats spent most of the Middle Ages in a personal union under Hungary. If these civs were to be added to the game, in my opinion it should be in this order: Serbs, Vlachs, Croats, Albanians

@Temudhun

Yeah, Croatians would be mostly an Early Middle Ages civ I guess.

Of course, it’s a whole issue… they already divided Western Europe (LotW), Eastern Europe (DotD) and India (DoI), now it’s time to divide Southern Europe (the Balkans and the Caucassus) or enter unknown areas…

[Temudhun]

@MatM1996

Of course, it’s a whole issue… they already divided Western Europe (LotW), Eastern Europe (DotD) and India (DoI), now it’s time to divide Southern Europe (the Balkans and the Caucassus) or enter unknown areas…

I mean, quite a few areas outside of Europe also need umbrella splits, I only talked about those cases because I think those three civs should have priority over the Albanians.

[MatM1996]

Of course, even if there are more than 3 civs per dlc, it’s easier to divide umbrellas…

[TommoChocolate]

@SirWiedreich

You could say that. Although when I say “vision,” I mean that in a pretty expansive and well-defined way (that presupposes its ability to be implemented in a balanced yet compelling form). Otherwise I’m not sure that some of the civs, e.g. Dravidians rise above having a “theme.”

That’s fair. I think the “vision” for Dravidians is supposed to be that they’re a non-American civ with essentially no cavalry – but I’ll admit that’s a very incomplete vision, since it doesn’t include any effective compensation for the lack of cavalry. Aside from the naval stuff, their bonuses feel pretty scattershot.

@SirWiedreich

Perhaps this is kind of an arbitrary semantic distinction, although I think it conveys something important.

I agree. Maybe I should have said “theme” or “focus” or something. Of the civs I mentioned, Dravidians seem to have the least vision behind them to me. I actually think Malians have a similar lack of vision, but make up for it with strong cavalry and more broadly useful bonuses.