Hmm, I would need at least 27 choices actually
(there were 13 in AoK)
Hmm, I would need at least 27 choices actually
Talking about civilisations that should be made available in multiplayer. And for that I would chose 5-8 civs that are made available, getting completely reworked and used in a dat file made especially for MP purposes with a distinct tech tree for every civilisation of this 5-8 civs.(there were 13 in AoK)
But why? This would be an entirely different game.Talking about civilisations that should be made available in multiplayer. And for that I would chose 5-8 civs that are made available, getting completely reworked and used in a dat file made especially for MP purposes with a distinct tech tree for every civilisation of this 5-8 civs.
I personally think that the amount of civilisations is just too much. Like really too much. 7-8 or even 12 would be completely fine for having many different strategies, interesting civ drafting, different played out maps etc. Like having a distinct tech tree for each of these would feel different, but I think it would also feel fresher, than over 30 relatively generic civs with a few difference in unique techs. Also it would be way easier to balance these and civ wins would be less common. So yes, it might feel different in multiplayer. But I think it's worse to have 37 civs with just tiny differences.But why? This would be an entirely different game.
I think the fact that civs share mostly common techs with some specificities is what makes the game interesting and different from something like StarCraft 2. And the process of learning how to play other civs is less steep. I feel like if we had such a system, people would end up specializing in one civ and this would be the end of variety in drafts, maps, etc.
Maybe it could be an interesting thing to develop for AoE 4 though, and I'd be curious to see what it could look like.
I personally think that the amount of civilisations is just too much. Like really too much. 7-8 or even 12 would be completely fine for having many different strategies, interesting civ drafting, different played out maps etc. Like having a distinct tech tree for each of these would feel different, but I think it would also feel fresher, than over 30 relatively generic civs with a few difference in unique techs. Also it would be way easier to balance these and civ wins would be less common. So yes, it might feel different in multiplayer. But I think it's worse to have 37 civs with just tiny differences.
I personally think that the amount of civilisations is just too much. Like really too much. 7-8 or even 12 would be completely fine for having many different strategies, interesting civ drafting, different played out maps etc. Like having a distinct tech tree for each of these would feel different, but I think it would also feel fresher, than over 30 relatively generic civs with a few difference in unique techs. Also it would be way easier to balance these and civ wins would be less common. So yes, it might feel different in multiplayer. But I think it's worse to have 37 civs with just tiny differences.
As I always say, the bad content additions started with Conquerors. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this personally, aside from the part about only cutting one.Honestly there is only one civ that should be cut and I know NONE of you are going to like it: Huns
Reason 1 - Huns belong in AoE1 not AoE2
The Huns are the most period incorrect civ in the game. The game spans the years 500-1500 (roughly). The Huns disappeared even before the year 500 came around. The Huns became famous in the west for fighting the Romans...a civilization in AoE1.
Reason 2 - Huns were not a civilization
The Huns were barely even a civilization because they were literally just a horde of death and destruction. All other civilizations in the game and in history contributed towards art, science, culture etc. The Huns contributed death and disease.
Reason 3 - we know so little of the Huns
Or at least that's what we know of them. And that's also part of the problem, if they were more than that, we just don't know which also is a contributing reason NOT to include them in a game based on history. At this point any inclusion of the Huns make them basically a fantasy civ like the Orcs in Warcraft 3.
Reason 4 - Huns are no longer around
Every civ in the game has present day populations / speakers including the Inca, Mayan and Aztec people. Every civ except the Huns. There is just no legacy to celebrate.
Why remove Goths, which were in the original game, rather than Spanish and Italians, which weren't?Also, like Huns, they don't make sense for the time period, especially since with Italians and Spanish now in the game the historically Gothic-influenced kingdoms are accounted for anyway
As I always say, the bad content additions started with Conquerors. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this personally, aside from the part about only cutting one.
? persians used elephants in battle at least into the 7th centuryI don't disagree, but stuff like the Teuton Death Stars and not even having farm reseeds tells me that bad content was there from the beginning.
And for ahistorical stuff, the Persian war elephants and Goths with huskarls were also kind of iffy.
I think you would remove Huns rather than Magyars (see @Hunyadi_ post above) and Portuguese instead of Italians because at least Italians for all the criticisms they deserve provide are somewhat "distinct" whereas Portuguese are painfully redundant with Spanish both in flavor and geographical region.- Magyars, Tatars, Berbers - copies of Huns, civs that failed to have their own flavor, being just generic versions of other more flavorful civs. They wouldn't be missed at all if they were removed.
- Bulgarians, Sicilians - Civs that failed to catch AoE2 identity, being entities from other games and that just bloat the game with unnecessary information. Good for casual players who don't care, but bad for people that aim to know the game a bit more seriously (which doesn't mean being pro of course)
- Italians - another rather bland civ. Portuguese and Spanish already fill Italians' role satisfactorily
- Incas - they feel like a worse version of Mayans and Aztecs, and they indeed are. They were added just to fill the desire of some players of having every kingdom and duchy into the game, making it feel like Crusader Kings 2, as well as the previously mentioned civs. Also they are a more toxic version of pre-DE Koreans with their all-in tower rush, which wouldn't be missed at all if removed from the game.
All those removals wouldn't be much missed content-wise, and would make the game feel less bloated, more fluid to learn and easier to balance.
I only analyzed it only through a gameplay perspective rather than a historic one. If we are strictly historical, I think a lot more civs could be removed/merged/separated for different reasons. But in a pure gameplay perspective, I think huns are a way more interesting civ to play than magyars, who are just a generic version of huns.I think you would remove Huns rather than Magyars (see @Hunyadi_ post above) and Portuguese instead of Italians because at least Italians for all the criticisms they deserve provide are somewhat "distinct" whereas Portuguese are painfully redundant with Spanish both in flavor and geographical region.
I think you have to look at it from a historical perspective first because the gameplay is relatively arbitrary. Magyars could be redesigned after Huns are removed I mean. Also I would be interested in your thoughts on this from a historical perspective.I only analyzed it only through a gameplay perspective rather than a historic one. If we are strictly historical, I think a lot more civs could be removed/merged/separated for different reasons. But in a pure gameplay perspective, I think huns are a way more interesting civ to play than magyars, who are just a generic version of huns.
I don't think portuguese are that similar to spanish gameplay-wise. Portuguese have distinct navy and military, with their organ guns and even feitorias, which are a very unique feature for them, and that still maintains the game identity.
Or a relevant nomadic civ that is not in the game could get all the Hun bonuses.I think you have to look at it from a historical perspective first because the gameplay is relatively arbitrary. Magyars could be redesigned after Huns are removed I mean. Also I would be interested in your thoughts on this from a historical perspective.