???
OP was making the argument that one cannot pick 2 Balkan civs without people wanting different civs.
Then I said what you quoted me on, followed by:
But from what I’ve seen in Balkans civ discussions the top seems to be:
I think you may have misunderstood something.
Come on, he is consistent and you know it.
I just find it funny that he thinks complaining about people who want more civs is more productive than complaining to the devs for not adding more architecture sets, while also wanting civs that would use the already overused sets.
Seriously, it’s really crazy that he wants the already overused sets to become more overused but doesn’t want more civs for the comparatively underused set.
That’s not at all what I said and you know it. The overuse of the Mediterranean set is a travesty.
I have complained to the devs that there are no new architecture sets, but clearly that complaint has fallen on deaf ears.
Do not put words in my mouth. I want Balkan civs, but only if they can introduce a new architecture set.
Au contraire, I think underused sets like the African one should be filled out first. I don’t want African civs nearly as much as Balkan civs, but I also want Oceania civs, and both my wishes would require new sets, so I’m a pragmatist and choose to put the most likely reality over my own dreams.
I want 0 Balkan civs (if you ignore me being fine with Romanians), but I also never saw anyone ask for 10 Indian civs. At best I see people ask for Dravidians to be split into 2 or 3. You can’t complain about people putting words in your mouth and then make incorrect claims about other people’s opinions.
And you think if the devs could introduce a Balkans set, they couldn’t also split the Indian set into two or more? People have also been asking for the East Asian set to be split, for example.
Did you miss what @L0rdc0nquest said? He brought up the 10 Indian civs idea to demonstrate a point, but no one I’ve seen has personally said they want that many Indian civs. He said in the post that he doesn’t personally want to see that, so I said that I didn’t either, and brought up my reasons. If you want to know where the 10 Indian civs idea came from, ask him.
I don’t think that. I’m hoping, but I’ve almost given up hope that the devs will actually do anything smart and not lazy.
They could, but we’re more likely to get more Indian civs with the current set than we are to get any new architecture sets.
Ah, sorry for blaming that bit on you then, but my point about architecture sets still stands.
We’re also just as likely to get 10 civs with the Mediterranean set, or with 10 in the African or Mesoamerican sets if they take their attention off Europe but keep the same amount of effort as they’ve been putting since LotW.
I wouldn’t be against 10 new Indian civs or whatever number they need to be fully represented. I don’t talk about it because simply I don’t know.
And that’s convenient since nobody can do the same with American or African civs cause the former are extinguished and the latter are not on this forum (one could say that’s a form of cultural appropriation but I won’t repeat it cause someone nowadays could take me seriously). So only Europeans and Asians can fight with themselves for civs so the argument is basically “let’s not put more of them cause they may fight while Africans and Americans clearly can’t”. One would imagine that from this follows that extinguished people like Romans, Huns, Goths etc wouldn’t be a problem but no, they are, why? Of course cause they’re “Europeans” (back when Europe wasn’t even a thing politically speaking).
It was more of a reply to Player870583437 than to you. I wanted to point out that when people on those forums talk about medieval India, they’re usually actually talking about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and to a lesser extent Bhutan and the Maldives. So even saying it’s one country in modern days is wrong.
Ah, my bad. Thought it was a reply to me, sometimes it’s hard to tell on these kinds of forums that don’t always quote.
Sorry, my intent tend to be clearer in my mind than in real life, strangely xD
And I already replied to OP’s argument previously:
You don’t have to be from country X to want civ X added in the game. You can be a Zapotec fan and be upset that they added Olmec.
If they were to add Olmec, it’d be to AoE1
Almost all of them are not Balkan civs. Magyars kinda are but they came there from Asia. Bulgarians came from the land which is now Southern region of Russia.
True Balkan civs are numerous Slavic ones, Albanians and also Greek.
Your argument that there are many people there and they will be offended makes sense. However, this just means that a special approach is needed.
Personally I would make such DLC like this:
Added nations:
This way we cover pretty much everything and everybody is happy.
No! No! A thousand times no!
The Balkan people, as well as me and the others asking for Balkan civs, would be unhappy with a generic Balkan Slavic umbrella. Very few people are happy with umbrella civs anymore. A generic Balkan umbrella should not even be entertained, let alone seriously considered.
I consider anyone asking for a Balkan or Sclavenian umbrella to be massively ignorant or a Euro hater.
Well, I agree that having every nation as a separate is better. But I am trying to be realistic. They add 2-3 civs per dlc. Will they add Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Bosnians, Macedonians and Albanians in one dlc? No, they will not. And if they do, world players will ask WHY. I made an advice how we could do that in our real universe. This Slavic family is really big and it needs a special solution. I don’t see other realistic options. The alternative is - not making any Balkan content at all.
At the same time I always read here that Rus and Cossacs is the same. While it is not. It has much more differences than Balkans civs.
Why tho? Maybe its because I never put too much interest into them but putting two diferent cavalry civilizations who spoke the same language and have deep cultural ties is far from anything too bad. There are plenty of more diverse groups who will never get split because theres just a lot to add to the game
Making a dlc to rename Slavs while adding another vague umbrella would solve a problem to create another one. I think it’s better if they just add the civs they consider interesting and with a campaign to show.
Me thinks the coolest and most realistic option would be to add Romanians, Albanians and Serbs, rename Slavs to Rhutenians (or whatever you prefer), give/rework Dracula for Romanians, make a Skanderbeg campaign for Albanians and a Stephen Dusan one for Serbs. If they feel dandy they could add either a Turkish or Magyar or Rhutenian campaign and that’s it.
The ones that would be left out from this are Moravians, Bosnians and Croats who I think have less interesting stories to tell although they have their quirks and specially Moravians and Croats would focus in the dark ages which are less represented in game. But you can’t have everything so choices have to made and the ones I named are the only civs realistically lacking from the area.
Macedonians and Slovenians were not that important back then and did not have any independent kingdom or ruler that I’m aware of… Well you could argue about Carantanians, the Narentines or other Dalmatian principalities like Dioklea in the early dark ages but it’s too little for a civ imo.
Real Bosnians, Croats, Macedonians and Slovenians don’t think so and they will rage if be forgotten while Serbs getting solid content. Such dlc is impossible if each of them doesn’t get at least something. That is why I suggest a number of historical battles, 1 for each side. Even if technically they will be the same civ.
Btw! They can be 1 civ in skirmish but in scenarios they can each have unique mechanics. Like Seljuk where you using a heavily modified civ.
You’re using modern denominations for something that didn’t exist yet. As far as I know, Macedonian identity is a modern national fabrication, they were a byzantine theme back then or either Bulgars. Slovenians could maybe fit as I said in the form of Carantanians but it’s a super ultra long shot, it’s like adding idk Tiroleans? Moravians would work better if you really want a dark age Slavic civ and they could represent them as well.
But if you have AI names of rulers, a wonder, a campaign etc for Slovenians and Macedonians feel free to share.
As I already mentioned, I myself do not believe in separate civs for them all. I want to see Balkan Slavs as 1 civ, I strongly believe in this approach. Also I directly said that better solution is making a campaign for a period of 9-11 ct when they were indeed one people.
BUT. When it comes to asking not me but them, they will keep saying they are different and deserve separate content. And I also believe that a good game must meet its players halfway. Because a game is made for players and not for existence in vacuum. So yeah, why not? Lets find at least something that Macedonians will recognize as content for them. In their scenario lets show a mix of Balcan Slavs and Byzantines and find some leader whom they recognize as their national figure. I don’t believe there is no a single one.
Same for others.
I really don’t know what is the problem here. Topic-starter described all of that as unsolvable problem. And I described what exactly to do: instead of 3 campaigns there goes:
All covered, everybody happy.
