Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Africa also still got a lot of good options left, for West Africa I suggest Morocco and the Ashanti Empire.
For Europe is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth indeed a good suggestion, Denmark could also work.
For a one off Civilisation like the USA and Mexico is of course Brazil one of the best candidate.
Mexico promises to be as interesting and certainly a labor of love from the devs. I'm certain they'll be fun to play. But Mexico didn't declare independence until the 1810s, putting it firmly in only 1 of the game's 4 age. The rest of that history is covered by Spain + revolution - already in the game. It's a stretch to try and make the argument that Mexico exerted much of any real presence during this time as it was racked by revolutions and lost half its territory in ill-conceived wars during the time frame of this game. All empires fall, but Mexico was struggling to get off of the starting line at this point. They were very much under US and French influence at this time.
The rest of Latin America has a similar history. The Bolivaran revolutions occurred in the 1820s as the Spanish crown's dealt with Napoleon in Spain and centuries of chronic mismanagement came to a head. The leaders of those revolutions squabbled and fought amongst themselves without much of a vision and the result was independence that transitioned to a significant amount of continued foreign domination of their affairs. These nations are fine to include as revolutions from Spain, but to try and act as if they were major players on the world's stage is just wishful thinking and revision of history. This goes for Brazil too during this time.
The Choson dynasty out of Korea is another one. It never really asserts itself as a nation during this time. Its own history is marked by invasion and domination by China and Japan. The nation itself continued to exist independently only because the geography of the Korean peninsula made invasion so unbelievably difficult. I have nothing but love for the Korean people after decades of tae kwon do study, but they shouldn't be in this game in this scope. If you want to add a turtle ship merc or a minor civ, I'm ok with that, but not as a full civ.
Mongolia falls into a similar category. After the dissolution of the Mongol empire into the Khanates, the Mongol peoples effectively have no formal nation or national identity for the entire scope of the game. They have limited Khanates whose power was expressed at best in a regional scope. The Chinese dominated the history of what eventually became the nation we know. I fully support merc units, but not a formal civ.
The Safavid dynasty of Persia was suggested. What little I know of them is that they were a regional hegemony of Central Asia and that controlled Silk Road trade in the region and which the Ottomans were always unable to conquer them despite multiple attempts. The reasons for that are various but outside of this discussion. Did they exert enough influence at this time, other than as a punching bag for the Ottomans? Do they have enough that makes them unique to justify adding them? Would they play differently than the Ottomans if we built them as a gunpowder civ? So much of this game focuses on colonial history and this has nothing to do with any of that. It feels like it doesn't fit.
There has been discussion of trying to broaden Europe as well. While western Europe is well represented with Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, there's often discussion about fleshing out central and eastern Europe. The Germans cover the vast majority of Germanic peoples that eventually came out of central Europe, whether it's Austria, Prussia, or whatever other descendant of the Holy Roman Empire that gets suggested. It's in the game already. Sweden rises briefly to power during the 17th century. It's in the game already. Italy was a series of city-states at this time waning in influence as control of trade shifted away from Italy towards the Ottoman empire and to the Western European powers. Outside of the papacy, it has little influence and often finds itself part of other empires. The Slavic nations were very much dominated by the Russians or Ottomans at this time. Poland might be the one exception, but it, like Sweden, shone brightly and briefly in the 17th century, then vanished until the 20th century when it was reconstituted as a country. I'm all in favor of adding mercenary units. The Polish winged hussars absolutely belong in the game more prominently than they are now given their history with both Sweden and the Ottomans, but I don't think the history supports further additions of European civs.
Native American civs get floated every so often as options as well. As fond as I am of Native American culture, historical events conspired at this point to make life hard for them and greatly reduced their influence. Plagues wiped out their population. Within just a few generations of Europeans showing up, an estimated 90-95% of the people had died of diseases they had no defense against. Cultural coincidences opened the door to the easy conquest of the Inca and Aztecs, which were the two biggest empires of the Western hemisphere. The classical Mayan period had long past by the time this game is set. The North American tribes fared little better. The major players are all already in the game in some form. Any new North American tribes would necessarily seem very similar to the Iroquois and Sioux already in the game. One I hear frequently is the Comanche, and for the life of me I can't think of how you'd design them differently than the Sioux.
I'm less familiar with southeast Asia, though most of the region was under French, Dutch, British, or Spanish influence at this time. Siam is a notable exception in that it was never a foreign colony, but as far as its influence more broadly on the world's stage? I'm not certain there is enough to justify inclusion as a formal civ. It falls a bit like the Safavids, there, but not a major player at this time. Perhaps if the devs had some unique game play that would make it worth the effort?
And Africa seems to have been well covered by TAR DLC with the exception of southern Africa. Western Africa is well-represented by the Hausa, while the Eastern horn is well represented by Ethiopia. Much of the other players in this history at this time are included as part of their age-up mechanics, such that it'd be hard to pull them out and make them their own unique thing. Southern Africa seems like it should have some representation, but outside of the history of the Boers and the Portuguese slave trade via Angola, I just don't know much. We often think of Shaka Zulu who doesn't show up til the late 19th century, outside the scope of the game. Maybe there's something there, but right now I'm not sure there's something big enough to put on par with the other civs already in the game.
We must remember the standard here: You need enough unique history to fill 300 years of history, 5 different in-game ages, unit names, explorer names, a home city, technologies, cards for the deck, for both land and water units. Sure, you can slap in a lot of totally obscure stuff haphazardly, but that doesn't meet the standard of the game. The major civs need to be well-known, recognizable, unique, and fun. No one wants to play as an "empire" that was weak and dominated by its neighbors or subsumed by colonization or constant internal strife. Would you want to play as Rome in AD 400 while it crashed and splinted? Would you want to play as the Egyptians during the Ptolemeic period when they were a Greek colony? No. Let's keep in mind what makes this game great when we make suggestions. It's not just history, but history + adding something unique and interesting to the game that won't be unbalanced once they add it.
So if they did Europe we could see the following Revolution Options, I think. I've left out Scots, Irish and Welsh as I feel that GB already has plenty of Revolution options
- Austria (Germany, Italy if added, Austria-Hungary if added)
- Croatia (Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy)
- Bulgaria (Ottomans, Russians)
- Greece (Ottomans, Italy, United Kingdom)
- Poland (Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania if added)
- Lithuania (Poland-Lithuania, Russia)
- Bohemia (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania)
- Catalans (Spain)
- Courland (Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, Russia, Denmark-Norway)
- Norway (Denmark-Norway, Sweden)
- Denmark (Denmark-Norway, Sweden)
- Iceland (Denmark-Norway)
- Greenland (Denmark-Norway)
- Savoy (France, Italy)
Possible New Civs:
- Austria-Hungary (REV: Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Bohemia, Indonesia as they held a small bit of it, and Mozambique if added would also work for Portugal. They also held a small colony that eventually became Mozambique)
- Poland-Lithuania (REV: Poland, Lithuania, Bohemia, Brazil as after independence as Poland they attempted to buy parts of Brazil, Peru which is same as Brazil and Mozambique, Courland)
- Italy (REV: Croatia, Greece, Austria, Savoy, Guyana as per an attempt in 1600s)
- Denmark-Norway (Most unlikely I would say, REV: Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Courland)
Possible Native Civs:
- Czechs
- Albanians
- Gaelics (representing Scottish and Irish clans)
- Norwegians
- Danish
- Estonians
- Swiss
- Serbs
- Flemish
- Cossacks
- Bavarians
Possible new units for European civs could be added as well, to give them a bit more content. New mercs could represent more for Europe, and give us a bit more to mess around with as well. Maybe a mechanic from age 4 that allows Europeans to 'Ally' with another major faction, giving them access to a small bonus from that civ? Would be like a mini consulate, kind of how the African civs age up but not as good? Would allow the older civs to keep pace a bit better.
As for the new civs I put up I imagine they would work like this:
Poland-Lithuania (Cav Civ).
UU: Winged Hussars, Hetmans (Unique Explorer), Petyhorcy, Wraniecka Levy (Weaker, but cheap musketeers), Registered Cossacks.
Has access to: Cav Archers, Cossacks and rest of European Line up, except Musketeers, Skirmishers, Halberdiers, Dragoons and Hussars.
Royal Guard: Winged Hussars, Petyhorcy, Cav Archers
Austria- Hungary (Light Infantry Civ)
UU: Windbusche Jaegar, Grenzers
Has access to: All European Line up, except Skirmishers, Cossacks and Cavalry Archers. Also can gain access to Uhlans to replace Hussars through a card.
Royal Guard: Grenadiers, Windbusche Jaegars, Pikemen
Italy (Late Game Civ, Age up system same as US, comprising the gradual unifying of Italy through the ages. This unlocks cards, units and the like the same as the US. Uses Savoys flag initially. Ageing up however will be more critical to their lineup, as they will have all generic units and get replaced by the better unique units as they age up)
UU: Genoese Crossbowman (If allying with Genoa), Galleass (If allying with Venice), Condotteri (shared with any player on your team, mercenary), Architects (If allying with Florence), Carabinieri (If allying with Milan), Saker (If allying with Savoy), Cacciato a Cavallo (if allying with Naples), Bersaglieri (If allying with Sardinia)
Has access to: All European Line up, except Cossacks and Cavalry Archers. All units are mediocre and weakest of their counterparts and will be replaced as they age up, giving them a true turtle-ing style.
Royal Guard: Depends on Age 5 state choice
Denmark-Norway (Naval Civ)
Admittedly I don't know enough about them to comment, however I would imagine them to be very Naval based due to their attempts to have a very strong Navy despite their small size.
1. Siam- The dominant power in SE Asia and one of the few nations to escape western colonization. They were highly capable of playing all the great powers against each other, and would add a new cultural flavour to the game.
2. Persia- One reason the Ottomans couldn't commit their full forces to bear against Europe was because of the Persians constantly nipping at them from behind. While not a superpower, they were certainly a regional power with a grand and resplendent Shia Muslim Empire and while still falling into the British sphere of influence, were able to maintain their autonomy to an extent.
3. Kongo- The forgotten Kingdom of Africa, they had powerful armies, and grand warrior Kings and Queens, and had built a true subsaharan Empire, both fighting with and against the Portuguese and Dutch.
4. Brazil- I mean, if we have Mexico, then why not the Titan of South America?
5. Poland-Lithuania- Even if the game is trying to push itself to be more late 1700's-1800's; the start of it is still the age of Pike and Shot. And it was that era that Poland really shone as a regional heavyweight. Not including them is a disservice (and good lord, European civs in this game need some love.)
What I'd LIKE to see, but aren't as needed:
As playable civs:
Zulu
Maori
Korea
Afghanistan
Austria
Burma
As Revolutions:
Greeks
Ireland
Serbia/Yugoslavia
Armenia
Vietnam
Italy
I really disagree with the premises of this post, its really not a particularly important thing that every single potential civ be some kind of ultra powerhouse during the entire period the game covers. It certainly does not apply to some of the civs that are already in the game. Its more important that they provide some interesting representation and gameplay.
The Germans for example were not a coherent group at all during the time the game takes place and they also weren't a major power in their own right, certainly not a colonial power at that. The best the Germans could do in that arena was piggy back off the Spanish Hapsburgs to have some limited involvement in the Spanish Empire, most notably a German colony in Venezuela, but this was ultimately a fiasco and pretty much the limit of German colonial activity before the establishment of the German Empire, but that was in 1870, which I think most people would agree is after the game's time period. The Austrian empire was also not a colonial empire and limited its influence to its corner of Central and Southeastern Europe.
The Japanese similarly are a nation that's represented in the game without much complaint despite the fact that in this entire time frame the only major foreign war they engaged in was their vicious but ultimately failed invasion of Korea. Outside of that the extent of their overseas activity is the much smaller in scope conquests of the Ryukyu Islands and Hokkaido, and maybe some mercenary activity by Samurai around East Asia. The Japanese spent almost 250 years straight not getting into any wars, being internally very peaceful, and being highly cut off from the rest of the world.
If the Japanese can get in then the Koreans certainly can. The Imjin war was a huge conflict for them which they ultimately managed to win, and outside of that they had to deal with some Manchu invasions. Ultimately they maintained their independence and sovereignty until the end of the 19th century, which, again, is well outside the time frame of the game. They are a fine pick that will probably show up in the future.
The Mongolians as an independent faction are absolutely suitable for this game, the Dzungar Khanate was one of the most powerful states in central Asia for almost a century and only fell due to concerted attacks from the Qing dynasty. It pretty much ruled all of current day Mongolia in addition to large parts of Xinjiang, Tibet and parts of modern Russia, it was absolutely a military force to be reckoned with and it was very much independent of China until the mid 18th century.
The Safavids were a powerful regional force that pushed their borders beyond that of modern Iran, but more of interest to me after them is the empire of Nader Shah, an Iranian military mastermind who completely turned around the faltering Safavid empire, then overthrew them and placed himself on the throne. He first consolidated control of Iran proper, then repeatedly gave the Turks crushing defeats that allowed him to move into the Caucasus and Mesopotamia, as well as also advancing into Central Asia and Afghanistan, and finally launching a massive campaign into India that savaged the faltering Mughal empire. A Persian civ is very much a good idea considering their dramatic military history in this era.
I don't care too much for more European civs, I suppose I wouldn't say no to Poland or Italy at some point but games like this always over-represent Europe and they've gone through most of the ones that made for great colonial powers already. For any more Native Civs, personally I think that the Mapuche are worth serious consideration, they were probably the most effective native resistance to colonial encroachment in all of the Americas and were never conquered by the Spanish, only later being subjugated by the independent states of Chile and Argentina. They were shrewd and adaptable, able to incorporate new Technology like guns and horses very effectively into their society, I think it would be cool to have something else for South America.
Southeast Asia is its own kettle of fish but suffice to say that all of the nations there had an extremely eventful history during this period that can't just be summed up as getting conquered by Europe. Its a hugely important time period for the likes of Burma, Vietnam and Thailand, all of them fought huge wars internally and externally against each other and sometimes interlopers like the Chinese and European colonial powers. Their military were rapidly modernized and their states consolidated, Vietnam conquered most of its southern territories, Thailand took over large parts of modern Cambodia and Laos and Burma briefly established a huge empire encompassing everywhere from India over to the Vietnam border. They only started to get infiltrated by European interests in the 19th century and really conquered by them in the mid-19th century, I think they are the best place to look for a new expansion. Also, Indonesia has its own eventful history worth considering but that's also extremely complex and involves things like Dutch and Portuguese colonialism in addition to local kingdoms.
Africa has lots more options and I suspect that the devs were deliberately avoiding doing much in Southern Africa in case they want to do another DLC there specifically. The Kingdoms of Kongo and Benin are obvious options as is the Zulu kingdom, all fall within the timeframe and were independently powerful, while also interacting with Europeans. You could also consider the Moroccans and Egyptians in North Africa, and maybe the Omani empire that controlled quite a large chunk of the East African coast.
Finally, for South America, maybe they are a little late in the timeframe, but I would be interested in seeing some ideas at least for somewhere like Brazil, Chile or Argentina. Regardless of anything they were regional powers and ended up being some of the largest countries on Earth, there's various things you could probably do with their wars with their colonial overlords, wars between the various states in the region (ie, the Paraguayan war, or the War of the Pacific), internal conflicts and subjugation of the native tribes, like the Mapuche as mentioned earlier. The inclusion of Mexico has kind of opened the door to civs like this and I imagine some South American players would be happy to see them.
All in all, I definitely think there's tons more room for lots of interesting, powerful civs if they want to go and make some more DLC, I don't think it even needs to be that way necessarily, like to use your example, honestly, I think it actually would be an interesting idea to play something like a faltering Roman empire in the face of the Germanic invasions, there are tons of interesting stories from that time. But maybe that's just me.
That is how they were in Cossacks 3 where they had nice unique units in 1st age but other civs out pace them later on.
Safavid
Navajo
Poland-Lithuania
Venice
Zulu
Siam
Comanche
Berber
Kongo
Poland-Lithuania and Venice could be accompanied by European Maps and Zulu and Kongo by South African ones
The following I'd like to see as Revolutions:
British -> Jacobites (Irish + Scottish)
Indians -> Marathas
French -> Revolutionary French
Turkish -> Greeks
Germans -> Prussians
I'd rather see Germans split into Austrohungarians and Prussians, but I deem it unrealistic that they fundametally redo an existing civ as they cannot monetize this work
Unique unit: Mountie: Best dragoon in the game.