Mongols = ViperMight as well just keep the Mongols, all other civs were wannabe empire carvers in comparison anyway.
Other civs = Daut / Chris / Grunt / Halen / Koven
Japanese / Koreans = Some forever 18~20+ since zone days
Mongols = ViperMight as well just keep the Mongols, all other civs were wannabe empire carvers in comparison anyway.
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.
Bulgarians is a better name, since the civ is based on the Slavicised Bulgarians, not the Turkic Bulgars.Bulgarians => Bulgars (correct name. Do devs really think Bulgaria existed as a state in the Middle Ages ?!)
The American civs do fit that timeframe (with the possible exception of the Incas). They existed for hundreds of years before the Spanish arrived (or in the case of the Maya, thousands). And, of course, the Spanish had a long history before the Conquista.The original AOK cover had something written on it like "Rome has fallen - the world is up for grabs again" (my German version, not sure what it said in English). So from an original AOK perspective, the civs where meant to be Barbarian Invasion era (for example Goths, Franks, Byzantines, Persians etc) and later medieval civs (Saracens, Mongols, Teutonic Knights, Britons). The AOC expansion stretched that timeframe a bit, by including Spanish and Meso civs, which arguably belong to the later Middle Ages.
All pre-Imperial Age gunpowder (demos and petards as well as UUs) is bad cmv.(e.g. building conquistadors in the El Cid campaign, which is set in the 11th century AD)
While your complaints about their current state are entirely reasonable, remember that bad gameplay design does not justify removing them because this is easily fixable. In the context of civ inclusion everything is necessarily subordinate to historical identity.Britons not making the list? Most one-trick-pony civ in the game, maybe hardest-to-counter standard game and then also pretty boring to play with and frustrating to play against + they have a bonus which is already their unique tech and is super valuable and they just get it for free, uhm, wtf?
As for Koreans, I think your point has much more merit. Let's just say that adding Vietnamese wasn't without precedence and leave it at that.
Most civs fit pretty well into that 450-1450 timeframe. So from a historical perspective, you could argue for most of them. And I would hate to see AOEZone become like the official forums, where balance is neglected in favor of accuracy ("Battle Elephants for Indians", "give Chinese BBC"...). I can understand if people argue that civs are poorly designed, but the historical accuracy argument is overstretched.