I dont understand why there are still people advocating for more civs…
-pros and casters have said that they would “rather remove 10 civs than add one more”
-the recent civs have been nothing bad bad gimmicks and questionable historicity
-the price per value has become worse as well
-new civs are badly balanced, making matchmaking worse
-each new DLC introduces bugs, that take forever to fix
2 Likes
I voted for 4 civs: Khazars, Pechenegs, Uzbeks, Volga Bulgars/Chuvash. I chose this because they are quite famous and unique enough to be presented separately.
At the same time, I want to note that I didn’t even know many of the list and had never heard of them. And some I don’t think are unique enough to have their own representation in the game. I mean that in real life any nation is unique, but in the game its depiction as separate should have more serious reason, and in your table you yourself noted that most of them are simply subgroups of Turks, Persians, Tatars… What is the point in such details? If it’s a matter of having a campaign, then it can be made for example for the Iraqis, while technically leaving the Saracens as the playable race. And it won’t be a mistake. I don’t see the point in such a small subdivision. Let’s imagine that the developers could make for us 300 races for the smallest nations. Will we really benefit from this? Or will it be inconvenient for us ourselves? I already don’t understand the sub-division of some races. Division of the Indians into 4 civilizations is something that took some convincing for me (although their campaigns are probably the best in the game). Why do we have Burgundians? I don’t understand why we technically have different races of Native Americans (there are probably arguments, but I personally don’t see them). And now there is a proposal to introduce some other civilizations, which are mostly tribes or rebel groups. Khazars, Pechenegs, Volga Bulgaria - yes, these are really great peoples and political forces. But this cannot be said about many.
The point is that people might still vote for them, and actually do so if you look a the result. When I create a poll, I try to include as many options as possible if I think there’s the slightest possibility people might want to be interested in those options, because my goal is to know what people actually want and not to see them validate my own picks.
But in general, I think breaking umbrellas is a good thing if it can bring variety both in terms of game play and cultural representation. I don’t think anyone wants to go back to a time when Poles, Bohemians, Russians and Magyars were represented by Goths or Teutons.
Sorry but I suspect that’s a good thing you’re not in charge of chosing which civs will be in the game, then…
Sorry but I REALLY THINK that’s a good thing you’re not in charge of chosing which civs will be added to the game. I would be more easily convinced that the Native civs need to be removed from the game rather than merged into one.
3 Likes
I also REALLY THINK that’s good that you’re not in charge of choosing civs for the game. Otherwise you would have added the nations of individual cities, 50 Turkic tribes whose numbers never exceeded 10,000, as well as the tribes of Papua New Guinea.
Do you think all the civs he includes in the polls are civs he wants? Lol
4 Likes
Khazars it would be fine…Pechenegs are related with Cumans,Volga Bulgars are simply Bulgars and Uzbeks are fit better for AoE 3 (since they last until 1920)…
Not really, aside from the fact that they were Turkish peoples living in the Pontic Steppe they were closer to Oghuz Turks like the Seljuks and Ottomans.
Not really either, those two people kind of branched out at some point. By the 9th century, they spoke a different language, practiced a different religion and had followed different military tactics.
Ah, yeah, lets remove all civs that reached the 20th century. So, Franks, Britons, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italians…
Thanks! After all, it’s not like it was the entire point I tried to make in the first paragraph of the post he was replying to 
2 Likes
So they re represented by the Turks…
And they can’t be represented by the Cumans and the Tatars, at least in geographic terms?..
I mean that are not represented by any civ in the game yet…I think that Central Asia are very well represented by Turks, Slavs, Bulgars, Cumans, Mongols and Tatars…maybe we need the Khazars but from me we fine for now…
No. Because Chuvashians. Partially Tatar blood, partially Rus and part Bulgars, may be smth else too.
They last until 2024. As well as Frenchmen and Englishmen. What is this argument?
Well, we have Tatars and Rus (Sl42s)…
Yes, I know…I mean in geographic and chronological terms of the game…
We don’t have Rus yet. And as for Chuvashians their uniqueness lies in the fact that they combine several races. Personally, I imagined it as a civilization with Slavic buildings and steppe cavalry. Although we need to collect more information on how exactly to present the country. But it was big and played an important role in history. It was very different from Western Bolgaria.
Rus are Sl4v2…that we don’t have yet is a proper Sl4vic campaign (aside of Dracula)…the Chuvashians are ethnically Turks (that are already in the game), after they were conquered by Tatars and the Russians…
Let me introduce you to these guys:
Your continued denial of the fact that they don’t represent the Rus is baffling.
1 Like
What, are the Slavs censored or something?
They represent Romanians in Dracula campaign.
You clearly know that I AM Russian and I have several topics about Slavs umbrella split because they do not represent no Rus, nor Ukraine, nor Balkans. Just a magic wibly-wobly civ which does not look like any.
Actually I don’t deny the fact they don’t represent Rus, lol. I stand for this 
The Turks don’t just represent the Ottomans, but they represent the Oghuz Turks entirely.
A South Arabian civilization like the Himyarites would be a cool addition to the Middle East. They used to speak their own languages (which are related to Ethio-Semitic ones like Amharic) before Arabic-speakers subsumed them, so they wouldn’t qualify as “Saracens” (whom I take to represent medieval Arabic-speakers).
1 Like
They should, but with their civ design i’m not sure how well they actually do. That’s why i’m saying i’d kinda rather see a seperate civ for the earlier, Central Asian turks, and then a seperate Ottoman civ that is more similar if not the same as the current Turks civ. The Jannisaries and the gunpowder focus and even the Sipahis tech is very Ottoman focused (I don’t know if Sipahis existed earlier but i’m pretty sure the others didn’t until after the Ottoman Empire was founded
1 Like
They do represent the Seljuks and empires that succeed it but proceeded the Ottoman Empire as well.