Magyars aren’t balkans.
Teutons aren’t balkans.
Turks are arguably balkans.
Byzantines are arguably balkans.
Italians aren’t balkans.
Cumans aren’t balkans.
Bulgarian are balkans.
Out of the 7 listed civs. Only 3 are arguably balkans (Byzantine & Turkish territory was mostly outside the Balkans), and only 1 Bulgarians is really balkan.
We have seen a lot of Western & Eastern European civs, not balkans. There are 13 Western European civs, and 7 Eastern European civs. Out of the 7 Eastern European civs, only 1 is Balkan.
Having Indians as only 1 civ was enough of an issue to make a DLC to split the indians into 3.
Why not ask for a new architecture set as well?
AS IS:
Eastern European: Bohemians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, Magyars, Pole, Slavs(Ruthenians), Romanians.
Mediterranean: Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians, Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish, Croats.
- Bohemians were Central European in Architecture so they should be moved there.
- Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians were under the Byzantine Empire at some point, so their buildings style were influenced by the Byzantines. NEW: Byzantine set.
Central European: 4 civs.
Eastern European: 6 civs.
Mediterranean: 8 civs.
AS COULD BE:
Central European: Bohemians, Goths, Huns, Teutons, Vikings.
Eastern European: Lithuanians, Magyars, Pole, Slavs(Ruthenians), Romanians.
Mediterranean: Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish.
Byzantine: Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians, Serbs.
Central European: 5 civs.
Eastern European: 4 civs. (or 5)
Mediterranean: 5 civs.
Byzantine: 4 civs. (or 5)
The same is true for Africa, Asia and America. Everybody asks for different civs.
But from what I’ve seen in Balkans civ discussions the top seems to be:
- Slavs renamed to Ruthenians
- Romanians
- Serbs
- Croats
Of course it’s a “small market” when some of the pro-Africa, pro-Asia are more anti-Europe than pro-Africa, pro-Asia. I have never seen pro-Europe coming to hate on pro-Africa and pro-Asia topics. But I have seen plenty of pro-Africa and pro-Asia coming to hate on pro-Europe topic. To the point where the mods even banned some of the topics because of the conflict there. This was not balkan civ 1 vs balkan civ 2. This was pro-Balkan civ vs Balkan civ hater for some reason.
I never understood this, I don’t like regional skins. But never in my life went to a regional skins topic to say “regional skins suck”. Disagreement is fine, hate is not.
So yes the pro-Balkan people feel a bit discriminated because of the behavior of some people from the pro-Africa and pro-Asia camps.
Here Balkans were 5th place:
- Caucasus (Georgians, Armenians, Azeri…) 25%
- Central/South Africa (Swahili, Congelese, Shona…) 22%
- East Africa (Nubian, Somali, Kanuri…) 22%
- Eastern Steppe (Jurchens, Khitans, Tanguts…) 20%
- Balkans/Carpathia (Vlachs/Romanians, Serbians, Croatians, Albanians…) 19%
Here 43% of forum users said they want “more than 50%” European civs.
- 43% More than 50%
- 30% Around 50%
- 27% Less than 50%
125/254 votes said yes for new European civs.
82 said no for new Euroepean civs.
42 said maybe.
When it comes to the regions:
125 said Balkans.
62 said Central Europe
62 said Western Europe.
There are more topics like these.
Do you want to see Mounted Archers like the Mongols and European Knights with Venetian Armor in the same army and civilization? there’s a civ that used both indiscriminately because was right at the breaking point between East and West, and had equal influences from both.
Likely the only civ where having Cavalry Archers, Paladin and Steppe Lancer in the same civ would be historically accurate. Because yes they used all 3.
Do you want to see powerful Halberdiers? There’s a civ who had 2 armies: large host (professional army, the ones mentioned above) and small host (peasant army), but this was no simple peasant army, every peasant forced by law to be trained by his lord once a month, was required by law to carry a weapon with him all the time, even when working in the field, and those that refused were put to death.
You think bandits are attacking that village? good luck plundering a village of armed and trained once a month men.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg, one can only attribute this “the balkans were not culturally different from the rest of Europe” to lack of knowledge on the Balkans.
In conclusion:
- Only 1 of the 7 civs you mentioned is Balkan. (I don’t even know how you made the Teutons and Italians balkan?! that’s like saying the Koreans are Indians)
- We’ve seen a lot of Western Europe and Eastern Europe lately, not Balkans. And those were some of the best DLCs if we are looking at sales.
- You can always add a new architecture set.
- Only seems like this from the outside, the list from people who want Balkans is pretty clear: 1. Slavs renamed to Ruthenians; 2. Romanians; 3. Serbs; 4. Croats. And again, say you want to add Africa or Asia, will there not be discussions which civs to add? most of the hate on the Balkans come from people who don’t want Balkans, rather than the people who want balkans but “can’t decide on the civs” quote unquote.
- There is no small market, see the given topic as examples. What there really is, is some pro-Africa and pro-Asia players coming on balkan topics to hate on the balkans, I have never seen the reverse.
- I just listed a few differences in their armies, there is more. Of course is looks like a copy of western europe and eastern europe when one doesn’t know anything about the balkans. China is a copy of Japan if one doesn’t know anything about China.