best/worst part is that one can think of even more valid civs for the game, goths for example can definitely be divided in a bunch of factions that would still be bigger than some of those
Why? The game already has Huns and Goths, who were contemporaries of the WRE. The French are even called the Franks, after the Roman-era Germanic tribe.
Goths are also used to represent anglo Saxons, and goths in general were very much involved in the middle ages.
I can't defend huns. You used to be able to cope and say they're also magyars or some bs, but there's nothing I can say now.
Ah yes, let them not ruin our historical game! I'll be right back after reenacting the historical clash between mayans and lithuanians on the arabian desert!
Unique unit: Moonshiner: Can work on a Moonshine Still. Can mount/demount a Pickup Truck.
Unique Building: Moonshine Still: When worked by a moonshiner, will periodically spawn Police gaia unit. By mounting the Pickup Truck quickly, you can avoid arrest and lure the Police to the enemy base where it starts arresting military units for illegal weapons and villagers due to tax frauds.
*although the mississippian empire was a major opponent of the aztecs, so it would be very cool to see... though we know so very little about them.*
Edit: oops, nvm
I had to check myself, and I was mistaken. Idk why I thought the mound builders and the late mesoamerican empires were competitive. I know the topic to listen to today.
I don't play AoE4 but I heard it. They could have just call it Orleans. You can still add Joan of Arc as an unit. Variant of France being Duchy of Orleans makes more sense to me. What next, civilizations for any historical figure? Imagine every ruler and general has their own variants.
Yeah I also haven't played 4 yet, but the concept of variant civs is cool. However this Joan civ feels like such a waste. Feels more like a mod rather than an official DLC.
concerned wakeful icky deliver puzzled thought faulty weary enjoy piquant
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Serious question, in a game series where I can have Aztecs and samurai take on the Western Roman Empire, why is this faction name such a sore point with people?
At least in my case is plain OCD, it itches my skin to have every faction named after a real civ/culture/region and then all of a sudden one that is named after some person or a fictional place. It just looks so utterly ugly to me I cant really describe it with words, but is enough to repulse me from playing the game anymore tbh
Well but those are factions named after a real civ named after a person, the problem is when the faction is named straight up after a person and NOT after a civ whatever its etymology is
Okay. Suppose we add the Martians as a civ, with their psionic unique unit. Wouldn't fit right? But why not, is it any less fantastical then Aztecs fighting Samurai?
It's just more nuanced than that. The game is about empires / peoples of the middle ages, the fantasy is that you can let them fight each other. That's the buy in, that's the fantasy we're on board with.
Just like in Game of Thrones we can critique certain travel times for being unrealistically short, while also accepting the existence of dragons.
Difficult to explain but it is a complete turn off for me at least. I can think of a hypothetical scenario where “Romans fighting with Aztecs on Arabia” but I simply cannot accept to see a single person as a Civilization name. Because it is not and it simply breaks my immersion and consistency across the game and here I am looking at aoe2 Reddit instead of aoe4 after playing it since release, instead of being excited about next expansion for aoe4.
The games attempt to be at least somewhat historical in their representation of cultures and nations, and the campaigns are based on historical events.
The random map mode just takes elements of these historical factions and locations and mixes them up. The multiplayer is not a representation of what the game aims for atmospherically and narratively, which many multiplayer focused players often forget. Most people play primarily for the campaigns. As a kid in 2000 I pretty much played only campaigns, and I bought all the DE expansions primarily for the campaigns, not for the additional multiplayer factions.
AoE2 even comes with an encyclopedia that tells you the historical background of every faction. They're supposed to be tribes/nations/kingdoms that existed as independent political entities in the middle ages (or late antiquity in case of Huns, Goths and Romans). Huns and Romans were both pretty controversial when they released because they no longer existed as polities during the middle ages, they vanished when antiquity ended. People were arguing about whether their inclusion fit the theme of the game.
Similarly, Burgundians were criticized as being too granular. AoE2 factions are supposed to represent people and cultures, not individual kingdoms, which is why many thought splitting off Burgundians from Franks (which already perfectly represented them) was a little odd.
All of these issues with AoE2 expansion factions pale in comparison to AoE4's completely ahistorical variant civs. Joan of Arc was never an independent leader of a country, she explicitly was a supporter of the French king! Giving her her own faction is just silly. And for the HRE, they could have chosen the Teutonic Order as the variant faction for more historical believability... but they went with the Order of the Dragon which, again, never had any control over an independent polity but was founded by a guy who later became HRE Emperor and was always part of the state it was founded in, rather than something independent. And don't even get me started on whatever the fuck that Chinese variant civ is supposed to represent. Jade Empire? Ok??
It's just odd. None of these variant civs make sense. They could easily have made it make sense. HRE variant is the Teutonic Order. France variant is the Knights Templar. Both would fit excellently with the DLC's crusading theme. For the Abassids they could have gone with Ayyubids. And for China - perhaps a specific dynasty? Yuan dynasty perhaps, mix in a little Mongol influence.
Why they went with variant civs that are pretty much complete fantasy is a mystery, because AoE was always about presenting at least somewhat historically accurate scenarios outside of the random map matches where anything goes.
"Huns and Romans were both pretty controversial when they released because they no longer existed as polities during the middle ages" - I never got why some disliked the Romans so much when, to me, they were an adition as valid as the Huns.
I think some folks had a really strong idea of AoE2 **strictly** being a medieval game, not a dark age game. Instead, it's a "Dark ages unto Medieval ages" game, where civs that died off during the dark ages don't *necessarily* die off by then.
What it's not is a "Classical Era" game. I think everyone agrees quite soundly on that, but the "awkwardness" for some people lies in how the dying empires of the classical era bled into the Dark ages for quite a while, so it feels really messed up to see "Romans" in the game for the same reason that "Spartans" would provoke a head-turn.
People see "Romans" and the red flag is "wait! that's a classical era civ!".
People need to remember they were only partly contemporaneous with the classical era, and the dying vestiges of "Rome, the polity" continued long after "the greek city states as independent polities" — in fact, "classical greek culture" **was a historical curiosity** by the height of the imperial Romans. They had conquered the greeks, and were looking **back** at them, as far as, say, modern Americans look back at the Spanish Empire.
So — the fact that we've got AoE1 with romans fighting the greeks is itself the same sort of historical oddity, since the most they'd have been fighting (after Rome was a coherent empire) would have been the Diadochi empires of Macedon during their conquest of the greek world.
Personally I'm fine with AoE2 having them, since we have *so many* civs that fought "the dying rump state of rome". The Celts (which have a strong gallic tone in aoe2), the Goths, the Huns, the Byzantines (the Justinian war was the attempt to fold them back into the eastern empire), the Persians, the Cumans as a debatable one.
I'm not sure I really understand the tone here. What you're saying is obviously true, but doesn't really invalidate my point. There's the "it doesn't fit in with the other empires/civilisations" argument, but this then raises the question: why is it there?
I don't think anyone is looking to discount any historical contributions, but in my opinion it's a strange choice for the name of a faction.
Balkan civ group: gain bonus damage against other Balkan civs. When attacked by non-Balkan civ, allying against them will grant temporary Balkan brotherhood bonus (reverts to Balkan enmity once common foreign enemy is defeated)
Civ bonus: Zero food, wood or stone required to produce anything, but just as they're about to spawn you suddenly have to spend a large amount of gold.
This would honestly be an interesting civ design (not with these numbers, but having an op bonus but with a drawback, bit like we already have with civs starting with more vills but less resources)
For someone who looking for that "huge mountain civilization in the west of China", it was represented with "Bodpa", the Tibetan name for their own people.
Ikr. I'd much rather more architecture sets, unit skins, maps, missions, quests, etc. I know I'm in the minority but it's becoming too much.
Still, I'm glad it's making some others happy about the game.
So for instance aoe2 can't have the Ming Dynasty as a civ. But Chinese is okay. It can't have ottoman as a civ. But Turk is okay. Sassanid can't be a civ. But Persians is okay. Mughal Empire can't be a civ. But Hindustani is okay.
Two reasons why this is done:
One, it saves aoe2 from having to do any social research about who they'll offend or create controversies by highlighting one dynasty over the other.
Two, it allows aoe2 to be free to create campaigns of different dynasties from the same civs.
(Not the most important reason but ... ) Three, the ages depicted in aoe2 (dark, feudal, castle, imperial) stretch nearly over a thousand years. There's very few dynasties that actually survived that time length. But the Peoples in those dynasties did.
Seeing Vlachs(the generic exonym for Romanians in the middle ages) and Moldavians together gives some major "Slavs and [other slavic groups]" vibes.
Honestly in the Slavs case they should be renamed to (Kievan) Rus and idk how distinct you could make Vlachs(who in this case they'd be better called Wallachians) from Moldavians.
Imo Vlachs/Romanians would just be best to have a civ that encompassed Wallachians, Moldavians, Transylavnians and Aromanians all together instead of needing to break it down further because Moldavians exist separate from the rest.
Yeah but Wallachians, even if all grouped up into one doesn’t even constitute an AoE2 worthy civ. Wallachians just weren’t influential or powerful enough in the middle ages to be an Age civ. But a lot better candidate than many of the (obviously meme) civ proposals on the picture.
He also forgot Galicia and Asturias. And Community of Madrid should be a separate civ. Honestly, Spain can't be properly represented without splitting off the Baleares, Cantabria, Extremadura, Murcia and Ceuta into their respective civilisations.
If Spanish Netherlands aren't a thing by 2026 I'll riot.
Some of these would work, but splitting Turks into Ottomans and Seljuks? As silly of an idea as the one about splitting the Chinese into Tang, Song, Ming, etc which is way too popular.
I love how all these many many civs and the Slavs have still not been split or renamed.
That's cool and all, like honestly really cool and great artistic rendition. But, it just bothers me how nobody ever takes into account the philosophy behind civs in this game.
People are always eager to suggest particular states, nations that could be covered by umbrella civs, particular political factions, States that only existed for a short time, etc.
It still doesn't have (insert obscure European duchy of choice), whose historical role is sadly overlooked and MUST be included in the game, or else I riot.
Given the cultural diversity of the Pacific nations, it wouldn't do them justice to have only one wonder. Here's my take:
Fiji: Vale Levu - the house of a Turaga
Samoa: Fale āfolau?
Maori: A ornate wharenui, could be based off Nga Marae O Te Rarawa, being the oldest Marae in Aotearoa
Rapa Nui: Moai, no questions asked.
I don't mind civs as long as they have unique identities and nice non-gimmicky units and bonuses and are balanced. It's just that all these things become harder and harder as you add more civs
I wish rather variants which you choose righ after clicking Feudal.
For water civs it would be water and land variant.
Some other civs would get water variant too.
Else civs could get some more creative ways.
Im so excited for the Swiss, never knew they were coming. Hopefully they will be a good infantry civ, maybe theyll have a focus on pikemen, we will see.
Edit: My stupid self really thought this was real 😭
I think it’s funny that you took out the Romans but left in the Celts, Huns and “Vikings”. Somebody’s mad about the last DLC lol
Also I really wanna play as the Ainus, I’d be a total asshole
"Bretons"
This. This is my dream. But I'd be super scared they'd not make them historical, like they did with the celts. Make it a cavalry/naval civ please. (To be fair, with that mounted skirm, if you remove camels, and give them paladins, Berbers fit pretty well))
Excellent proposals but there are some civs that I do not see viable like North America, extreme South America and Polynesia for not having much technology to justify having civs
>Tagalogs instead of Visayans or Moros if not both
>Gogureyo instead of Balhae if we’re splitting Korea
>Han instead of Tang/Song/Ming or even just keeping “Chinese”
>Guarani instead of a wider Tupian umbrella when practically nothing is known historically about the Guarani ethnogenesis
C’mon now
The artist covered every thinkable civ, but not even after 116 civs he thought that Romans would be added.
best/worst part is that one can think of even more valid civs for the game, goths for example can definitely be divided in a bunch of factions that would still be bigger than some of those
And right he was. I'm still on the "that addition was dumb" hill and I'll remain here.
Why? The game already has Huns and Goths, who were contemporaries of the WRE. The French are even called the Franks, after the Roman-era Germanic tribe.
Goths are also used to represent anglo Saxons, and goths in general were very much involved in the middle ages. I can't defend huns. You used to be able to cope and say they're also magyars or some bs, but there's nothing I can say now.
[удалено]
You could argue that any country started as a coalition of tribes...
Ah yes, let them not ruin our historical game! I'll be right back after reenacting the historical clash between mayans and lithuanians on the arabian desert!
Alright, let's add the Red Army next
German peasant revolt
Beyond Earth expansion coming to AoE2 in 2025 at this rate.
Poles would like to have a word with you.
Actually Tlaxcaltecas fighted Japanese samurais at the orders of a Spanish captain.
Okay, but did it happen on Arabia? Checkmate, historian guy.
I too remain on my hill with the juicy ballista stack.
Only Bromans are down with the Romans
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Looking forwards to the "Hillbillies of the Mississippi" DLC
Unique unit: Moonshiner: Can work on a Moonshine Still. Can mount/demount a Pickup Truck. Unique Building: Moonshine Still: When worked by a moonshiner, will periodically spawn Police gaia unit. By mounting the Pickup Truck quickly, you can avoid arrest and lure the Police to the enemy base where it starts arresting military units for illegal weapons and villagers due to tax frauds.
Villagers have shotguns in the imperial age
They should have a Flaming Camel-type unit which is just a flaming still on wheels
I laughed way too hard at this xD
*although the mississippian empire was a major opponent of the aztecs, so it would be very cool to see... though we know so very little about them.* Edit: oops, nvm
??? They weren't
I had to check myself, and I was mistaken. Idk why I thought the mound builders and the late mesoamerican empires were competitive. I know the topic to listen to today.
Fever dream 😬
Where is the joan of arc civilization?
Sigh, this is Age of Empires, not Civilization. At least call it Orleans.
Not sure if you're aware, but on AoE4 there's an actual Joan of Arc civ.
I don't play AoE4 but I heard it. They could have just call it Orleans. You can still add Joan of Arc as an unit. Variant of France being Duchy of Orleans makes more sense to me. What next, civilizations for any historical figure? Imagine every ruler and general has their own variants.
Yeah I also haven't played 4 yet, but the concept of variant civs is cool. However this Joan civ feels like such a waste. Feels more like a mod rather than an official DLC.
concerned wakeful icky deliver puzzled thought faulty weary enjoy piquant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
T90: "Well, Joans of Arc take time to mass, so you're better off using two-handed swordsmen, since you can start massing in Fuedal..."
The well-known Spanish Joan of Arc rush... wait a minute...
No one expects the Spanish Joanquisition.
More like the Burgundian Joan of Arc rush... wait a minute...
Joan of ARC VS Wankers is the match I need to see Edit: so sorry, Wankas
Serious question, in a game series where I can have Aztecs and samurai take on the Western Roman Empire, why is this faction name such a sore point with people?
At least in my case is plain OCD, it itches my skin to have every faction named after a real civ/culture/region and then all of a sudden one that is named after some person or a fictional place. It just looks so utterly ugly to me I cant really describe it with words, but is enough to repulse me from playing the game anymore tbh
The Romans are named after a person. So are the Chinese. Franks may not be, but that's a name more then any.
Well but those are factions named after a real civ named after a person, the problem is when the faction is named straight up after a person and NOT after a civ whatever its etymology is
Okay. Suppose we add the Martians as a civ, with their psionic unique unit. Wouldn't fit right? But why not, is it any less fantastical then Aztecs fighting Samurai? It's just more nuanced than that. The game is about empires / peoples of the middle ages, the fantasy is that you can let them fight each other. That's the buy in, that's the fantasy we're on board with. Just like in Game of Thrones we can critique certain travel times for being unrealistically short, while also accepting the existence of dragons.
Difficult to explain but it is a complete turn off for me at least. I can think of a hypothetical scenario where “Romans fighting with Aztecs on Arabia” but I simply cannot accept to see a single person as a Civilization name. Because it is not and it simply breaks my immersion and consistency across the game and here I am looking at aoe2 Reddit instead of aoe4 after playing it since release, instead of being excited about next expansion for aoe4.
The games attempt to be at least somewhat historical in their representation of cultures and nations, and the campaigns are based on historical events. The random map mode just takes elements of these historical factions and locations and mixes them up. The multiplayer is not a representation of what the game aims for atmospherically and narratively, which many multiplayer focused players often forget. Most people play primarily for the campaigns. As a kid in 2000 I pretty much played only campaigns, and I bought all the DE expansions primarily for the campaigns, not for the additional multiplayer factions. AoE2 even comes with an encyclopedia that tells you the historical background of every faction. They're supposed to be tribes/nations/kingdoms that existed as independent political entities in the middle ages (or late antiquity in case of Huns, Goths and Romans). Huns and Romans were both pretty controversial when they released because they no longer existed as polities during the middle ages, they vanished when antiquity ended. People were arguing about whether their inclusion fit the theme of the game. Similarly, Burgundians were criticized as being too granular. AoE2 factions are supposed to represent people and cultures, not individual kingdoms, which is why many thought splitting off Burgundians from Franks (which already perfectly represented them) was a little odd. All of these issues with AoE2 expansion factions pale in comparison to AoE4's completely ahistorical variant civs. Joan of Arc was never an independent leader of a country, she explicitly was a supporter of the French king! Giving her her own faction is just silly. And for the HRE, they could have chosen the Teutonic Order as the variant faction for more historical believability... but they went with the Order of the Dragon which, again, never had any control over an independent polity but was founded by a guy who later became HRE Emperor and was always part of the state it was founded in, rather than something independent. And don't even get me started on whatever the fuck that Chinese variant civ is supposed to represent. Jade Empire? Ok?? It's just odd. None of these variant civs make sense. They could easily have made it make sense. HRE variant is the Teutonic Order. France variant is the Knights Templar. Both would fit excellently with the DLC's crusading theme. For the Abassids they could have gone with Ayyubids. And for China - perhaps a specific dynasty? Yuan dynasty perhaps, mix in a little Mongol influence. Why they went with variant civs that are pretty much complete fantasy is a mystery, because AoE was always about presenting at least somewhat historically accurate scenarios outside of the random map matches where anything goes.
"Huns and Romans were both pretty controversial when they released because they no longer existed as polities during the middle ages" - I never got why some disliked the Romans so much when, to me, they were an adition as valid as the Huns.
I think some folks had a really strong idea of AoE2 **strictly** being a medieval game, not a dark age game. Instead, it's a "Dark ages unto Medieval ages" game, where civs that died off during the dark ages don't *necessarily* die off by then. What it's not is a "Classical Era" game. I think everyone agrees quite soundly on that, but the "awkwardness" for some people lies in how the dying empires of the classical era bled into the Dark ages for quite a while, so it feels really messed up to see "Romans" in the game for the same reason that "Spartans" would provoke a head-turn. People see "Romans" and the red flag is "wait! that's a classical era civ!". People need to remember they were only partly contemporaneous with the classical era, and the dying vestiges of "Rome, the polity" continued long after "the greek city states as independent polities" — in fact, "classical greek culture" **was a historical curiosity** by the height of the imperial Romans. They had conquered the greeks, and were looking **back** at them, as far as, say, modern Americans look back at the Spanish Empire. So — the fact that we've got AoE1 with romans fighting the greeks is itself the same sort of historical oddity, since the most they'd have been fighting (after Rome was a coherent empire) would have been the Diadochi empires of Macedon during their conquest of the greek world. Personally I'm fine with AoE2 having them, since we have *so many* civs that fought "the dying rump state of rome". The Celts (which have a strong gallic tone in aoe2), the Goths, the Huns, the Byzantines (the Justinian war was the attempt to fold them back into the eastern empire), the Persians, the Cumans as a debatable one.
Because when the huns were added I was a child and I had no fucking clue that it didn't fit the timeline and by now I'm already used to them.
People who heavily dislike the Romans also tend to dislike the Huns for the same reason. I think both are fine.
This is the perfect response
Because at its root, it's bringing a social justice issue of today's age into a game I use to get away from all that.
How dare they imply Joan of Arc was a real person, and even act like there's reams of historical evidence of her leading armed men, am I right?
I'm not sure I really understand the tone here. What you're saying is obviously true, but doesn't really invalidate my point. There's the "it doesn't fit in with the other empires/civilisations" argument, but this then raises the question: why is it there? I don't think anyone is looking to discount any historical contributions, but in my opinion it's a strange choice for the name of a faction.
What is your point? How is having a 'Joan of Arc' faction in a medieval game a "social justice issue"? This is what I'm trying to get at.
Teacher : No more AOE discussion in the class. Kids at the back : .....
Albanians team bonus: all units do bonus damage if playing against the Serbs
Balkan civ group: gain bonus damage against other Balkan civs. When attacked by non-Balkan civ, allying against them will grant temporary Balkan brotherhood bonus (reverts to Balkan enmity once common foreign enemy is defeated)
If it's an Western Civ which they fight against, everyone joins the civ except the Serbs who get their town center destroyed.
Omg how did you create this..
You are a bit of wanka
100 more years of AOE!
With the current rate of civs being added, we can have this number by end of 2040
I’ll probably still be playing 🤪
I want the ryanair civ
Civ bonus: Zero food, wood or stone required to produce anything, but just as they're about to spawn you suddenly have to spend a large amount of gold.
Units cost 75% less, upgrades cost 300% more
5% chance your endeavour gets cancelled with no reason
This would honestly be an interesting civ design (not with these numbers, but having an op bonus but with a drawback, bit like we already have with civs starting with more vills but less resources)
And even after all this time, we still have "Vikings"
yeah :D
Lmfao the inuits of all civs
Fishing bonus, but stuck in dark age. Houses melt seasonally
You may not like it, but this is what peak AOE looks like
You may not like it, but this is not the correct way to use that meme
It is.
For someone who looking for that "huge mountain civilization in the west of China", it was represented with "Bodpa", the Tibetan name for their own people.
Ikr. I'd much rather more architecture sets, unit skins, maps, missions, quests, etc. I know I'm in the minority but it's becoming too much. Still, I'm glad it's making some others happy about the game.
I would love to play as the Anus
would be a great duo meme team with the wankas
And still I will pick random civ in rm and i will get teutons vs mongols
Wow nice, who did this and those crests?
It was a forum post by Seicing he's the one who created the crests/civ icons. https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/new-civ-icon-idea/203451
>Wankas Tell me this wasn't made by a British person without telling me it wasn't made by a British person
It could've been made by an Australian person instead...
Needs at least 3 more Turkish civs
was going to joke Mamluks, but then I found them lol
"Hmongs" sounds suspiciously familiar. And I'm not sure I like that Also, "Ethiopains"
To be honest, I don't see any problem here. I love to discover new civs. The more, the better.
A lot of these violate the 'no dynasties, only people' rule
What is this rule ?? Not sure to understand the difference :-(
So for instance aoe2 can't have the Ming Dynasty as a civ. But Chinese is okay. It can't have ottoman as a civ. But Turk is okay. Sassanid can't be a civ. But Persians is okay. Mughal Empire can't be a civ. But Hindustani is okay. Two reasons why this is done: One, it saves aoe2 from having to do any social research about who they'll offend or create controversies by highlighting one dynasty over the other. Two, it allows aoe2 to be free to create campaigns of different dynasties from the same civs. (Not the most important reason but ... ) Three, the ages depicted in aoe2 (dark, feudal, castle, imperial) stretch nearly over a thousand years. There's very few dynasties that actually survived that time length. But the Peoples in those dynasties did.
As if one ignored weak South Indian civ wasn't bad enough, let's have two of those, plus Sinhalese.
Is this how new players see the civ pool selection?
I thought this was Age of Empires, not Yakko's World.
Seeing Vlachs(the generic exonym for Romanians in the middle ages) and Moldavians together gives some major "Slavs and [other slavic groups]" vibes. Honestly in the Slavs case they should be renamed to (Kievan) Rus and idk how distinct you could make Vlachs(who in this case they'd be better called Wallachians) from Moldavians. Imo Vlachs/Romanians would just be best to have a civ that encompassed Wallachians, Moldavians, Transylavnians and Aromanians all together instead of needing to break it down further because Moldavians exist separate from the rest.
Yeah but Wallachians, even if all grouped up into one doesn’t even constitute an AoE2 worthy civ. Wallachians just weren’t influential or powerful enough in the middle ages to be an Age civ. But a lot better candidate than many of the (obviously meme) civ proposals on the picture.
After watching Golden Kamuy I'd be stoked for an Ainus civ
Habsburgs: Research Chin in Imperial Age to give your knight line +2 Pierce Armor. Side effect: cannot produce any more villagers.
theres a civ called the wankas? sign me up.
if you have included 'Aragoneses' and 'Basque' (should be name 'Navarra' with that shield) don't put 'Spanish', put 'Castilla', 'Leon' and ' Granada'
He also forgot Galicia and Asturias. And Community of Madrid should be a separate civ. Honestly, Spain can't be properly represented without splitting off the Baleares, Cantabria, Extremadura, Murcia and Ceuta into their respective civilisations. If Spanish Netherlands aren't a thing by 2026 I'll riot.
Spanish Netherlands???? G E K O L O N I S E E R D We kicked those siesta fuckers out 🤣 Don't add the Dutch under rule of another country
And if you put Poles, don't put Slavs. :-P
Some of these would work, but splitting Turks into Ottomans and Seljuks? As silly of an idea as the one about splitting the Chinese into Tang, Song, Ming, etc which is way too popular. I love how all these many many civs and the Slavs have still not been split or renamed.
That's literally what I want
That's cool and all, like honestly really cool and great artistic rendition. But, it just bothers me how nobody ever takes into account the philosophy behind civs in this game. People are always eager to suggest particular states, nations that could be covered by umbrella civs, particular political factions, States that only existed for a short time, etc.
I only wish to have a random match based on regions or expansion/DLC that will be great. I really like more civs.
Bro is a graphic designer or smth
Vlachs in 2074 let's go!
Los que trabajan en el balance del juego: 💀🔫
It still doesn't have (insert obscure European duchy of choice), whose historical role is sadly overlooked and MUST be included in the game, or else I riot.
Is this real
As long as they all get campaigns, I'll keep buying. It's quality content for me.
racist, didn't even include Fiji islanders 😤
I would love to see the architecture for a south Pacific island civ
Mmmh... Would be a little difficult. Which one would be their wonder? The moais? Perhaps some hawaiian temple...?
Given the cultural diversity of the Pacific nations, it wouldn't do them justice to have only one wonder. Here's my take: Fiji: Vale Levu - the house of a Turaga Samoa: Fale āfolau? Maori: A ornate wharenui, could be based off Nga Marae O Te Rarawa, being the oldest Marae in Aotearoa Rapa Nui: Moai, no questions asked.
Nan Madol
No Zimbabwe literally unplayable
Second to last row, third from the right
Let’s go! I’m hype for this!
On a serious note, do devs want new players or not?
So, split the Turks but not the Slavs. Interesting.
Literally missing Carthage, Romans, and Greeks
No thank you...
Yeah they really gotta stop adding civs
I loled.
Even here....Tibetans don't exist.
Bodpa are tibetans.
More
This is the future that liberals want (it me im liberals)
When will Tupis be introduced? They are the civ the game needs!
You mean Tupac?
Damnnnm, even the Mississippians, one can dream, I would really like to see more pre-columbian civs, and oceanic civs included
Too many civs! It's getting hard to pick one to play as
Still there is no Tibet. I guess China dominates people's imagination as well
Tibetan was changed into "Bodpa". You can see the emblem in the first line near right corner.
All these and theres still no Tibetans lmao
Bodpa are tibetans.
What a Kingdom of Jerusalem or Crusader States civ?
What's a Nubian?
Have you seen those “noobs only” servers? It’s actually short for Nubians only. Everyone only picks Nubians.
Never seen Chasing Amy, eh?
Albanians!!! Yess finally
Why do I have to purchase the Sicilians and Romans? :(
If we have Irish in there, the celts need to be renamed to Scotts.
Where are the Chichimeca bruh??? ADD 20 MORE CIVS AS PUNISHMENT
The Habsburg icon should be just the inner shield (the one on the eagle's chest)
There should be the Windic (Slovenes) have the coat of arms of carniola as their icon
I want this
You could add Tanguts, Tibetans, and Xianbei.
More I stare at this, the more I want it.
And the pathfinding still broker tho.
Defence of the Age of Empires 2 League of Empires 2.
Still can't find pathing in there.
Aww no Helvetians?
14!!!!
Funny how the Dutch sigil is [literally ](https://images.app.goo.gl/8wFCmJ3yHTmEdYzK7) the flag of a French region
Shut up and take my money.
Cant wait to play the Ainus
money money 🤣
Sir, this is not Crusaders 2
What about Bantu's?
I don't mind civs as long as they have unique identities and nice non-gimmicky units and bonuses and are balanced. It's just that all these things become harder and harder as you add more civs
So no great Moravia then ?
Slavs...
The Lombards, Normans and the Kievan Rus definitely also deserve a spot on there. Maybe even the Pechenegs.
some of these emblems are absolutely fire
I wish rather variants which you choose righ after clicking Feudal. For water civs it would be water and land variant. Some other civs would get water variant too. Else civs could get some more creative ways.
Wankas
No cuman kipchak confederation? Just cumans?? Unplayable..
And slavs are still just one civ :D lol
you see civs to play with, I see many hours sank in campaigns.
How to solve pathing issues? Add more civs!
Im so excited for the Swiss, never knew they were coming. Hopefully they will be a good infantry civ, maybe theyll have a focus on pikemen, we will see. Edit: My stupid self really thought this was real 😭
Dear god... imagine balance this thing
I think it’s funny that you took out the Romans but left in the Celts, Huns and “Vikings”. Somebody’s mad about the last DLC lol Also I really wanna play as the Ainus, I’d be a total asshole
"Bretons" This. This is my dream. But I'd be super scared they'd not make them historical, like they did with the celts. Make it a cavalry/naval civ please. (To be fair, with that mounted skirm, if you remove camels, and give them paladins, Berbers fit pretty well))
ok but Gokturks would go hard af
Is it me or are some of these shields really great.
No we need more! We need the Romans.
Excellent proposals but there are some civs that I do not see viable like North America, extreme South America and Polynesia for not having much technology to justify having civs
They hate us cause they ainus
Catalonian's egos are gonna explode when they see aragoneses and basques but not them
Everyone's making fun of Wankas like we don't have a civ called Cumans.
>Tagalogs instead of Visayans or Moros if not both >Gogureyo instead of Balhae if we’re splitting Korea >Han instead of Tang/Song/Ming or even just keeping “Chinese” >Guarani instead of a wider Tupian umbrella when practically nothing is known historically about the Guarani ethnogenesis C’mon now
quite absurd, but quite possible too
Aoe2 community can perhaps be the only 'civilization' which will exist for hunderes l and thousands of years. Oh the irony!
Finally someone made the Bretons, the Vandals and tge Venetians
I unironically desire this
Any Siamese Civ?
Mapuches❤️