More, more more!! We want more civs!! 11
How did this turn into adding civs 11
There are two civs whose identities are just completely wrong in the game.
1. Indians - Imperial camels makes no sense for a civilization that rarely used camels. Battle Elephants and Infantry was what India was known for. BBC makes sense since Tipu Sultan's army was considered the pioneer in Missile Technology but Hand Canoneers not so much since it was more of a british idea. Also calling them indians in itself is wrong since there were at any time in the medieval age atleast 100 different Kingdoms spread across the subcontinent.
2. Incas - Giving them eagles and trying to classify them along with Aztecs and Mayans makes no sense. Historically, Incan warfare was at best bronze age and never did they reach the technological advancements of other nations in medieval age.
Aside from this, from a technological perspective, meso civs are simply overpowered given how weak they were in real world. One could argue this is ultimately a game but the level of historical misrepresentation sometimes just feels wrong on so many levels.
This is why you don't take historical accuracy into RTS games.
lmao.
Incas start in Feudal Age. No Eagle available. +600 Stone, free blacksmith. Can't advance to castle age.
Any arguments on why you think so?There's definitely too many civs in this game now.
Some civs aren't different enough such as Magyars and Huns
Some civs are already represented as I mentioned
It's bothersome to keep learning entry level skills of new civs when I could be building on what I've got with the present civs
The argument for less civs is that Nili said it, as you see it stands on strong ground.
I think you overexagerated a little. While it is clear that Lithuanians belong to baltic people and are indeed distinct from slavic people, saying that you are "completely different" is not true. Slavic and baltic languages are actually very close, share a lot of similarities and at some point in time, obscured by lack of written records, both slavic and baltic languages experienced same linguistic development. Both languages are considered very close to proto indo-european language, if there ever was one. Older linguists and historians considered balto-slavic group as one.11111111111 I'd definitely recommend some history lessons to take for you mate, Lithuanians are neither historically, neither genetically, neither language-wise slavs, we are balts, have completely different language, different history, and different visual appearance from slavs.
A Pole here who spent a few months of his life traveling around Lithuania:I think you overexagerated a little. While it is clear that Lithuanians belong to baltic people and are indeed distinct from slavic people, saying that you are "completely different" is not true. Slavic and baltic languages are actually very close, share a lot of similarities and at some point in time, obscured by lack of written records, both slavic and baltic languages experienced same linguistic development. Both languages are considered very close to proto indo-european language, if there ever was one. Older linguists and historians considered balto-slavic group as one.
Culture is very close as well. I mean, slavic and baltic people coexisted next to each other for thousands of years. Lets not forget Polish-Lithuanian common wealth for example. Same goes for "appearance". People lived next to each other, they married, loved each other. For example, Lithuanians (baltic) are closer in "appearence" to Poles (slavic) than Poles (slavic) are to Serbs (slavic).
so..O Lithuania, my homeland! thou art like health;
Only he can truly appreciate thy worth
But with all that said there's probably not much point deliberating on this. Adding any new civs to the game would only make sense if they had a gameplay purpose, and I feel like it's fairly obvious that even with the last expansion the designers had to go a bit too far, having to add all sorts of wacky, weird bonuses just to make a civ feel unique.
If 35 might be already too much, then trying to add even a single more could be just straight up bad
I think you overexagerated a little. While it is clear that Lithuanians belong to baltic people and are indeed distinct from slavic people, saying that you are "completely different" is not true. Slavic and baltic languages are actually very close, share a lot of similarities and at some point in time, obscured by lack of written records, both slavic and baltic languages experienced same linguistic development. Both languages are considered very close to proto indo-european language, if there ever was one. Older linguists and historians considered balto-slavic group as one.
Culture is very close as well. I mean, slavic and baltic people coexisted next to each other for thousands of years. Lets not forget Polish-Lithuanian common wealth for example. Same goes for "appearance". People lived next to each other, they married, loved each other. For example, Lithuanians (baltic) are closer in "appearence" to Poles (slavic) than Poles (slavic) are to Serbs (slavic).
if we started doing what you suggest then where woild we stop? Vikings and Celts no castles? How many civs would not get gunpowdwer? I think you are mixing history with a game which is played for entertainment....If AOE 2 resembled histrory, everyone would be playing as Chinese.There are two civs whose identities are just completely wrong in the game.
1. Indians - Imperial camels makes no sense for a civilization that rarely used camels. Battle Elephants and Infantry was what India was known for. BBC makes sense since Tipu Sultan's army was considered the pioneer in Missile Technology but Hand Canoneers not so much since it was more of a british idea. Also calling them indians in itself is wrong since there were at any time in the medieval age atleast 100 different Kingdoms spread across the subcontinent.
2. Incas - Giving them eagles and trying to classify them along with Aztecs and Mayans makes no sense. Historically, Incan warfare was at best bronze age and never did they reach the technological advancements of other nations in medieval age.
Aside from this, from a technological perspective, meso civs are simply overpowered given how weak they were in real world. One could argue this is ultimately a game but the level of historical misrepresentation sometimes just feels wrong on so many levels.
and north america...for god's sake, the Inuit kicked out the Vikings from Greenland.I've said it many times before but I would love them to add Polynesians as a civ. The southern and eastern Pacific and southern Africa are the only major geographic areas not represented in the game.
Anyway, the premise of this poll seems very eurocentric. Part of the point of the expansions was to redress the base game's bias toward the global north (and Western Europe in particular). If we're going to discuss removing civs, all of them (including Britons, Franks, Goths etc) should be on the table.
if you know its just a game, then how can it be disapointing? you must understabd that the game should aim to be balanced...right?Do read my last lines. I understand that its an RTS game.. I just said its disappointing.
Lets get rid of those:
- Britons
- Byzantines
- Celts
- Chinese
- Franks
- Goths
- Japanese
- Mongols
- Perisians
- Saracens
- Teutons
- Turks
- Vikings
That's simply not true. Now time to get all my history competitions in highschool revived.
First of all language:
Modern side of things:
I legitimately cannot understand a single word from any slavic language (obviously besides the ones that are the same in like 20+ languages), and that goes for most Lithuanians who didn't learn Russian in school. I'm fairly sure we would share more similarities to English languages then slavic languages in the modern sense as we borrow a lot of new words from English. In addition, During both Lithuanian/Poland commonwealth, and during Soviet occupation we were undergoing "relearning" phase. During the commonwealth, Poland was aggresively introducing Polonization into Lithuanian lands, forcing the nobles to speak Polish, more or less forbidding publishing books in Lithuanian language. The same thing happened with Rusofication period during Russian tzar occupation. The polonization thing + the Lithuanian/Poland war after WW1 and thievery of capital Vilnius is one of the main reasons why Polish people were until recently still widely hated in the country (especially north of Lithuania, people quite openly make fun of any Polish accent/polish heritage, especially when I was growing up there). Lithuania also tried to remove as many slavic words from the language post rusofication period, and make new Lithuanian words (relating to technology etc) or borrow these words from English/Germanic/other languages. In addition, Lithuanian is considered much older language than slavic languages, is considered the oldest indo-european language, and share a lot of grammar similarities with archaic languages such as Sanscript. The part about language being obscured by lack of written records is absolutely correct, which is why we wanted to restore the language, and the language mainly survived not in Lithuania, but in Prussia (Which not to be confused with Russia, was completely different country in more central Europe)
I think you guys misunderstood me. I said, that slavic and baltic languages experienced/lived through same language development somewhere in past. It is absolutely understandable, that today, after two thousand years of development, baltic and slavic are not mutually understandable.However, what I meant is, that at certain point in time, two groups were living close to each other to such degree, that their languages were developed in similar ways, with a lot of common phonological, lexical and morphological similarities. According to Jānis Endzelīns, lithuanian linguist, slavonic languages are closest to baltic languages. According to Casimir Buga, there are many slavic loanwords in lithuanian from pre 1200AD era. Antoine Meillet, french linguist refuted balto-slavic unity in prehistoric era. Reaction came from Reinhold Trautmann who claimed there was existence of separate balto-slavic branch. Nevertheless, the issue among linguists is about existence of separate balto-slavic branch, not the fact, that balts and slavs are linguistically close. That balts and slavs were very close since ancient times is indisputable. Some scholars suppose two groups strongly influenced each other during their ethnogenesis during classical and early medieval period. (1)Knowing the history of PLC I personally was surprised by how extremely different the Lithuanian language & culture were different from Polish/slavic in general. The languages are as far apart from each other as it gets IMO, with the main similarity being that both draw a lot from latin. Within the slavic language group there's a thing where people from 2 different countries(say, Poland and Slovakia) can kind of understand each other while speaking their own language, when I tried to understand what a Lithuanian person was talking about in Lithuanian I wasn't even close.