Not sure about things like language but in terms of gameplay, they are not the same. Bonuses encourage passive gameplay till like 30 mins for Slavs while completely opposite for Bulgarians.
In terms of gameplay design, I feel Turks and Tatars are quite similar in terms of imperial age composition. Magyars and Bulgarians are similar in terms of early castle age gameplay. Dravidians and Japanese quite similar on water maps till imp. Dravidians and Malay on hybrid maps.
Oh yeah. Cheaper age advancement, water, archer and defense focus, kinda jack of all tread, and also same architecture + language.
I completely agree that before DE, Slavs were often compared to Teutons. They have a lot of similarities in tech tree and a bit on bonuses as well.
I think the playstyle follows the design
If not your question is easy to answer:
- Aztecs, Incas and Mayans are the same, no stable no gunpowder
- Spanish and Bulgarians both without Crossbows
- Steppe Lancers civs: Tatars and Cumans (Mongols were added later without any other changes, so you can put them in here)
- Indian civs: Bengalis, Dravidians, Gurgaras and Hindustanis lacking Knight line and having access to the Siege Elephant line
- Battle Elephant civs: Khmer, Malay, Burmese and Viets (later the Bengalis); all with access to them
The similar eco civs: - Best farms late game: Slavs, Khmer and Poles (I could be missing one)
- Free military upgrades: Magyars, Bulgarians, Koreans, Turks
- Civ bonus better than techs: Franks, Goths, Cumans, Saracens, Byzantines, Spanish
Some examples
Basically all civs with good cav archers can be played in the same way: Huns, Mongols, Turks, Tatars, Magyars: All can do feudal Scouts (+skirms if needed), into castle CA, into Imp CA+Hussar+Siege. Out of these, Turks and Magyars are probably a bit farther away from the rest in the sense that the castle-age CA don’t have immediate boni attached to them, making the direct transition a bit less viable.
Obviously, you also do have other options with these civs, but CA+Hussar Imp combo is what I would typically aim for [at open maps].
TBH… I see this rarely. They often just go Knights in Castle age, at least in the beginning.
And weak cavalry. Although I don’t see much similarities in design among them.
Not all the time. As culture (Language, Architecture set, Wonder), AI players name are also part of civ design. And even in terms of bonus, similar bonus may play differently due to different factors.
Sure, as a transition this might be needed, as it also depends a lot how the map looks like, how the game played out so far, etc. But then again, this pertains to all of the civs, just to a bit different degree. Tatars are quite good for instant CA due to free thumb ring, whereas for Magyars it makes most sense to use heavy cav in between.
But, to connect to the topic thread again, I feel these are rather small differences, the general game plan is the same.
I guess all 3 are also meant to be top tier water civs (Dravidians and Vikings for obvious reasons, and Malay because of the faster uptime allowing you to, in theory, steamroll with Fire galleys/War Galleys.
Bulgarians and slavs have nothing in common in my experience bulgarians are way more flexible, they aren’t played in the same way, but slav and celts are identical in terms of gameplay.
We can list lots of civs that are mirrors with just different UU’s/bonuses or techs but they are being played the same and their army compositions are similar during most ages.
A lot of replies kind of missed the point. The question is most similar
Of course there are differences.
To me, both Franks and Burgundians are cavalry civs without bloodlines and with below average light cavalry quality is remarkable
1 Like
Bulgarian is the more fun version of Slavs.
Burgundian is the more fun version of Franks.
Devs making unnecessary civs. They can just upgrade old civ with new features.
Burgundians are OP in terms of eco and still Franks are still being played more than any other civ in the game