[Anonymous Player]

There’s an obvious lack of representation for the two other major groups that were part of the Aztec confederacy.

Adding more Meso civs would be a great way to bring them back to the top of the meta and make the campaign even more interesting.

Unfortunately, many of the ideas people are proposing are not well thought out and don’t require new civs to be implemented.

For example, China already has a lot of nearby civs that can represent its factions.

Similarly, the Middle East has a lot of depth with Tartars, Saracens, Gujara, Persians, Berbers, and Turks.

Rather than focusing on these minor details, we should be pushing for more ambitious ideas for the DLC.

Ideas such as water overhauls, unique techs for every civ, and giving more civs team units/buildings so there is more unit diversity.

We need to be inspiring the developers with creative ideas that will really shake up the game and bring positive growth to the franchise.

Additionally, we should petition to give SE Asia the Elephant Archer and Siege Elephant, and to sprinkle the Stepp Lancer more generously.

[VelcomeToCinder]

​

Yeah you can’t actually have those features be DLC.

Because DLCs are optional content that people can ignore, what you are asking is more along the line of old expansions that were mandatory purchase.

A random person can for example ignore Lords of West if they don’t want Burgundy and Sicily or the three new campaigns, that content itself doesn’t affect the core off the game.

But how would naval overhaul work as DLC, would it be pay to win feature?

One player uses old ships and the other premium player reaps the benefits of new gameplay?

This is why DLCs feature new civs and campaigns and why people ask for those.

You can keep asking for updates to feature naval overhaul or 3rd new unique tech.

But that’s a separate discussion from DLCs.

[VenomTox]

I just want decent pathing…

[Tyrann01]

>tartars, saracens, gujaras, persians, berbers, turks

Like, half of these are not Middle Eastern.

Muslim =/= Middle East.

And hell, Gujaras are neither.

>Because Korea, Mongolia, Japan, tartars and SE asian/indian civs can easily “represent” factions within or nearby china to actually flesh out a campaign for them (a chinese campaign is sorely lacking in the game which is facts.

We don’t need new civs to make that happen either.)

It’s more that civilizations like the Jurchens, Tanguts & Khitans are really important to East Asia during the Middle Ages.

Jurchens especially, they griefed pretty much anyone they could reach.

>Also can we please start petitioning to give SE Asia the Elephant Archer and siege elephant thx and maybe sprinkle the stepp lancer a bit more generously as well while we are at it.

This I do agree with.

Plenty of civs that used these irl, but don’t have them in-game.

But don’t get too over-zealous with them, Khmer, Vietnamese & Malay didn’t use archers on the back of them often (if at all).

Instead opting for a halberd, like the Battle Elephant does.

Burmese & Persians are more likely candidates for it.

[Blocklies]

I like the idea of more American civs but what are the new American civs gonna be focused on though?

We have a defensive civ, infantry civ and archer civ, what else could we make?

An eagle civ?

[Sivy17]

Let’s be real.

We’re due for a Celt split: Irish, Welsh, Scots.

[Adventurous-Bet2683]

I mean if this Rise of Rome Add-on to Age 2 does well maybe a rise of America add-on after.

[Author]

Posts