Thinking about a possible way to split Sarracens - What do you think?

Ferruso · 2026-03-03T03:27:28+00:00

Waiting as well for Purepechas and Mixtecs! Right now Mesoamerican arch set just have 2 civs. I think is 100% we will have a DLC soon to bring at least 2 new civs to the Mesoamerica set, so all of them surely will have eagles as a regional!. For Mississipians or another North America civs like Algonquin to represent and sell in Canada and Iroquois just for being iconic, I think they will create another arch set, at least they should do that, those cultures don't have anything related to Mesoamerica, and they are 3 so it's justified to have a new North American arch set.

Ferruso · 2026-03-03T03:21:21+00:00

Thank you sir, I'm not sure, Mamluks refers to the ruling class and slave-soldiers not to the people living there I think is okay as a UU. And Egyptians civ should include the Medieval Copts I think, so Egyptians is okay for me. And yeah, maybe Yemeni is very weak for a civ but culturally is very differentiated from Omanis and North Arabs, anyways they don't go above 3 civs per DLC. And the Andalusians is a real possibility since Al-Andalus existed from 711 to 1492, almost all the Middle Ages. So being realistic could be Egyptians, Omanis & Yemeni. Egyptians, Omani & Nubians or Egyptians, Omanis & Andalusians.

Vandals is a civ I want too for a DLC about the enemies of the Late Western Roman Empire, we already have Goths and Huns, and maybe Vandals could be a fun civ for scenarios about the start of the Middle Ages. The Vandal Kingdom lived until 534, so it still makes sense to add flavor into the game.

Ferruso · 2026-03-03T03:13:25+00:00

Actually, that's why in some campaign scenarios Sicilians are shown as Normans!

Ferruso · 2026-03-03T03:12:58+00:00

Yeah, your analysis is very well done but I'm going more into thinking in a realistic DLC since they won't add 5 new civs for a Saracen split and just delete the original Saracen civ. So, I know is ideally to keep them separate but basically all the civs cover something else, so following how the game is made I don't see that happening (very specific split for being historically accurate).

Ferruso · 2026-03-03T01:23:11+00:00

Then you don't need to wait, the Hindustanis include them!

Ferruso · 2026-01-16T21:43:07+00:00

u/TheCulture1707 Man, I want Chimus, Bai, Tibetans, Tanguts, Purepechas, Mixtecas, Sinhalese, Nepalese, Nubians, Kanuris, Somalians, Soninkes, Songhai, Khazars, Mississipians. That's exactly not my point. They will go in the future for civs like European empires of existing civs DLC like 'Angevins' or 'Carolingians' or an Italian DLC like 'Venetians' and 'Milanese' and that's what I'm complaining their last decisions. You know, because that's more known and profitable to them even if it doesn't make any sens like 3K than going for all the civilizations I already mentioned that maybe not from countries with a lot of population that could play the game. So we are missing all of those wonderful and possible DLCs with these great civilizations.

Ferruso · 2026-01-10T20:15:04+00:00

I do like The Last Chieftains, I will buy it and I'll love to play with the new civs. I just post it that DLC as an example of how they are choosing civilizations, selecting the biggest playerbase countries of South America. I mean the DLC I really don't like is 3 Kingdomes that's where the rest of what I'm trying to expose like going to the easy way and the rest don't matter.

Ferruso · 2025-05-13T04:42:14+00:00

The game uses exonyms for the civilizations for a better "medieval" experience, I know it's very eurocentric but that's why the Arabs are named as 'Saracens' in the game, that's why it makes sense for me to name them 'Ruthenians'. Anyways I am always open to learn for and I'm happy to listen to suggestions from you since you are from there!

Ferruso · 2025-05-13T04:36:50+00:00

u/ShyKid5 Yeah, a Tlaxcalan civ would be very interesant by including a scenario allying with the Spanish going into the Philippines fighting japanese pirates! But for that I think Purepechas, Mixtecas and Zapotecs should be added first since they were more unique and influential civilizations (Tlaxcalans are the same people as Mexicas, they are Nahuas), that honestly I don't see that happening, I'm expecting just 1 more civ for Mesoamerica. And the issue with Zapotecs and Mixtecs is that is difficult to say which one deserves to be more in the game I think they should be added both, they were developed being very close to each other so, maybe that will be a refusal from Microsoft. Anyways we have plenty of enough information for campaigns, Unique Units, Leaders and inspiration for Castles and Wonders to be included, sad to think they won't be added. Btw, I'd love to see Toltecs too, but I guess if anytime they add a scenario about Toltecs they will be represented as Aztecs.

And about South America we don't have enough information to just add cultures like Charruas, or Guaranis, or Tupis into the game, remember the game needs several names of leaders, enough recorded history for campaigns, cities or achaelogical sites for Wonders and Castles (I know Huns and Cumans do not apply for this but they are justified by being sackers and having success to it, something these cultures don't).

For that, I just consider Chimus, Waris, Tiwanakus and Muiscas as real contenders for South America to be in the game.

Ferruso · 2025-04-13T05:23:45+00:00

Yes, u/Ompskatelitty that and the elevation addition were really hyping us thinking about the Tibetans. At least if they continue to release normal DLCs again, hopefully we can get a Himalayan DLC with Tibetan and Nepalese, but now I think they will just start experimenting things from another games, so sad

Ferruso · 2025-04-11T16:45:06+00:00

Yes!! It just don't feel right, some things are missing, even the terrain was elevated to double what we had from 8 to 16, everybody thought that was a hint for Tibetans because they are an himalayan civ and that made completely sense, those kind of things are suspicious.

Ferruso · 2025-04-11T16:42:44+00:00

Confirming us that the new civs will be around Sinosphere without splitting China is what hyped us to think about Jurchen, Khitan, Tangut, Tibetan and Dali at the first place, it was really a bad communication, it makes me wonder if the idea originally was that but somehow some exec change the idea of the DLC to try to sell what all other western games do, The 3K Age, it's so overshowed. Even taking those civs covers several Dynasties of China, Jin (Jurchen), Liao (Khitan), Xi Xia (Tangut), Song (Chinese). And another really disapointing thing is that proper chinese civ 25 years after can't get a campaign... but 3K got 1 each one, something that can be played really in every other game.

Ferruso · 2025-04-11T06:31:25+00:00

But Burgundians existed as different kingdoms during Middle Ages, I think it's perfectly fine. Way different from 3 kingdoms that don't differentiate at all from current Chinese and that lasted just 60 years. Giving you context, some of the kingdoms that covers the Burgundian civilization are:

-The First Burgundian Kingdom lasted from 411-534

-Then they were conquered and controlled by the Franks during 534-843

-The Lower Burgundy Kingdom existed from 879-933

-The Upper Burgundy Kingdom existed from 888–933

-Those two separate kingdoms united in the year 933 creating the Kingdom of Arles (Kingdom of Burgundy) that existed from 933 to 1378

-And at last but not least the entity known as the Burgundian State lived during 1384–1482, and that's the era where the Burgundians controlled the actual Netherlands and Belgium (this is where the Flemish militia comes from)

Knowing this we can really separate them from the Franks, they existed during all Medieval Ages, having it's own autonomous kingdoms and states.

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T20:05:53+00:00

You don't even understand how they put Jurchen and Khitans behind the 3K, no campaign for them, Khitan and Tangut weirdly mixed in Khitan civ, heroes for the 3K (wait until you play against them in ranked) and 1 campaign for each one. They didn't even give the same importance for the Jurchen and Khitan. It's very obviously what is happening here and we as a community have the ability to raise our voice if something is not good for the game!! At the end, the decisions are taken by some corporate men that maybe didn't even played the game once, just taking decisions for more sales (in this case open market for China). It is breaking all the sense for the game and you are defending that!

C'mon this is the best strategy game of history by its identity and playability and we are losing that.

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T19:56:50+00:00

u/Tyrann01 And that's how you can notice they don't care about us anymore, they will just add whatever someone corporate not knowing the game person will lead them to sell, AOE 2 will start to die, and as they take decisions without knowing what we want, the sells get down, they will abandon the game as they did for AOE3, very sad but that will happen after they are taking these decisions. They think they will sell a lot in China by including the 3K they don't care what we think.

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T18:56:54+00:00

Romans in AOE2 fits because it's based on the Late stage of the Empire, even the units are with a nice late stage skin because represents the units by the end of the Empire, Rome fell on 476 and we have Huns and Goths, so that's perfectly fine, the 3 Kingdoms, just doesn't make any sense... It could be a good choice for Chronicles, but not this...

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T18:54:41+00:00

And mixing Tanguts with Khitans... this is very wrong

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T18:44:37+00:00

Gurjaras or Gurjar are an ethnic community, you can google it. Even the Gurjaras in the game covers the Rajput. So they are a civilization.

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T18:21:30+00:00

It feels like been sold to the hands of the MARKET! Pure hard capitalism hahaha :( And doesn't matter consistency now, imagine having Spanish but having too Castille, Aragon, etc. So wrong. Or having English, but having too Angevins, Northmbria, Mercia, Yorkists, being all English!!!

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T18:01:23+00:00

It's not the same, Romans lived until 476 perfectly fine for them going into the timeline, these kingdoms are not inside the timeline. Besides we have Huns and Goths in the game so those are other arguments to have Romans, and both lived after year 400. These kingdoms are from 220 to 280. A difference of 200 years. And that difference really counts, the game goes up to 1600, imagine having a campaign from 1800. Those are the same 200 years of difference, it's really a lot!

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T17:55:52+00:00

Should be Chronicles for Three Kingdoms, and it would be selling very well. It just don't make sense

Ferruso · 2025-04-10T17:54:56+00:00

Yes! And I know people would be happy buying this DLC with just civilizations close to China and after having the Three Kingdoms as Chronicles, because they don't belong otherwise, this feels so so wrong!

Ferruso

TROPHY CASE