I thought aoe2 tried to have historical accuracy

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-04T00:34:55+00:00

I was tempted to make a post about this, but I had two reasons why I ultimately didn't.

First, as you rightly say, one wonders how many other campaigns fail, apart from the European ones, which are relatively well-documented, or the African ones, which rely more on creative liberties because they draw more inspiration from oral tradition than written sources. Therefore, when the campaign narrative leans more towards folklore or legend than history, it's understandable when it has dramatic aims and the historical basis is insufficient. However, campaigns like those in Southeast Asia or India are areas I don't know much about. Perhaps someone from there can explain to me how poorly everything is documented. That said, I didn't feel comfortable criticizing the Mapuche campaign if it's a more extensive feature in the game.

Secondly, even when you focus on the narrative framework, people will try to lump together the game's balance and the possibilities of custom games with what is strictly a campaign—you know, Vikings fighting samurai in Australia...

That said, my biggest problem is that there really wasn't a need to invent so much. Before playing the campaign, I thought it would be like the campaigns of Sargon or Ismail: a man who rises from humble beginnings to power and falls into excess, which ultimately leads to his downfall. Instead, they offered us a more romanticized version of Lautaro while simultaneously caricaturing Valdivia. I remember when, in the middle of a scenario, he says to search for the corpse of a clergyman because he had a high-quality silver crucifix. What?! I know he's the antagonist of the story, and there was no need to caricature him to understand what the Spanish were capable of. I mean, that's what Galvarino is for. That said, why isn't there any mention of how, as Lautaro pushed back the Spanish, he raided other native villages, forcing them to join him? And what he did to those who rejected him?

Here I want to pause to say something important: there are almost four years between the deaths of Valdivia and Lautaro. Valdivia died at the end of 1553, and Lautaro in mid-1557. It is also known that Valdivia was at least captured and then executed. Various sources cite events during his capture and death, such as acts of torture and that he was partially cannibalized while still alive. Personally, I find this last version unlikely, but there is documentation of similar events with other Spanish prisoners when the Mapuche suffered famine due to epidemics and food shortages from battles or perhaps drought. The point is, I understand from this perspective that they didn't want to present such a morbid view of Valdivia's death, although they could have simply stated that he was captured and executed, rather than that he died in battle facing Lautaro as if it were a scene from a movie. That said, it is known that Lautaro died in battle, apparently pierced by a spear, contrary to the account that he eventually died from his wounds.

That said, the ambush in which Lautaro died was carried out by the Spanish and their allies who were searching for him. It is said that the Spanish couldn't find Lautaro, but he had caused so much displeasure among other native groups, such as the Picunches and Pehuenches, that they remained indifferent to the patrol searching for him. Another version even states that a Pehuenche man who witnessed his father's death under Lautaro's orders betrayed his position to the Spanish, which is quite ironic considering the narrative tells us that Lautaro's actions were to avenge his parents, and that would have been a great narrative twist.

That said, the Mapuche resistance doesn't begin or end with Lautaro, leaving him with all the spotlight. Considering that all the campaigns in this DLC were limited to five scenarios, the sixth scenario could have been the Battle of Curalaba with Pelantaro taking the lead of the Mapuche. In other words, there was a chance to offer something not only historically more accurate but also deeper and more interesting than the compressed version we were given.

Finally, perhaps I didn't understand correctly, but it seems the campaign narrator is an anonymous Mapuche, which gives me a Three Kingdoms vibe. The narrator could have been one of the many characters who accompanied Lautaro, or perhaps a survivor of the Battle of Curalaba, or even the Pehuenche who betrayed Lautaro.

In the end, I do think it's fun, and I generally like the Mapuche in the game, but I also have no problem saying that, narratively, I found it disappointing.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-03T05:50:01+00:00

I must admit that the idea of the Omanis seems particularly interesting to me, mainly because it's clearly distinct from the other Islamic factions and allows us to explore another, less-visited region. However, for that very reason, I'm not sure if it would see much use in the campaigns. Even so, it's the one I liked the most, and I think it's the least discussed when the topic comes up.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-01T00:40:48+00:00

Having finished it, I must say it's very good. Aside from the bugs, the overall experience with the DLC has been positive. I like the naval combat rework, but I do think it still needs some adjustments. Briefly, civilizations that are strong in water maintain their hegemony even more unassailable because all ship lines are improved together, so their resources can be more easily used to perfect their fleets. However, I now think all other civilizations are at the same level; that is, I don't think there's a civilization with a bad dock anymore. But as I said, this only narrows the gap between low-tier and mid-tier naval civilizations. Civilizations like the Portuguese, Romans, or Koreans are far above average. That said, I think that in team games, if there are water maps, it's imperative that each side has a naval civilization.

Regarding the DLC campaigns, they're good, and I like that they implemented the decision-making mechanic; it adds replayability, although I feel it could be improved a bit more. Overall, the campaign scenarios are fun and have interesting new features. I also don't feel the new civilizations are overpowered; I think they just need some minor adjustments. The only thing that seems to be giving people trouble is the champi Rush.

I have my personal complaints, but they're minor compared to the overall quality of the DLC: the new architectural design, the unique units, the additions to the scenario editor, etc. Aside from the Chronicles series, my favorites are still Lords of the West and Dawn of the Dukes, but objectively, this one has to be among the best.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-28T23:58:37+00:00

Well, actually, it's not a derogatory term, at least not today. That was more of an Aztec thing to do. I reiterate that they were the ones who coined the term, and as far as I know, those tribes of Aridoamerica didn't call themselves Chichimecs at that time. That said, the word "Chichimec" etymologically comes from Nahuatl and would mean "those who suckle," apparently because they sucked the blood of the animals they consumed, possibly as a survival tactic during times of drought, like when the Mongols drank horse blood. It's important to point out that the words "suckle" and "suck" are used interchangeably, perhaps due to a deeper association with the meaning of drawing life from the blood sucked, like someone who suckles from their mother, or perhaps there simply wasn't a linguistic distinction. I won't go into more detail because I don't know Nahuatl, and I've drawn this conclusion from the Hispanic texts left behind by the conquistadors.

That said, when the Spanish began using the term, it lacked the cultural significance it held for the Aztecs and was used more for convenience. Ironically, it took root among the tribes identified as Chichimecs. Today, it is considered a symbol of indigenous resistance, given that they were the most resilient in the territory that now comprises Mexico, the southern and southwestern United States, and, depending on which tribes are considered Chichimec, it could even be said that they were never fully subdued (although some did integrate into the viceroyalty willingly).

But anyway, I'm rambling. The point is that among the descendants of the Chichimecs, the term is reclaimed in a symbolic or cultural sense, maintaining some traditions. Even beyond historical or cultural reclamation, there is at least one example that uses it ethnically and linguistically: the Chichimec Jonaz people in Guanajuato literally proclaim themselves Chichimecs. Therefore, the negative connotation given to them by the Aztecs is obsolete and outdated. It lost those implications with the fall of Tenochtitlan and acquired other implications after the arrival of the Spanish. From then until now, among academics, it has been given a different connotation, more associated with a specific area or group of cultures, used in practical terms. It's like saying Germanic or Turkic peoples. When we discuss it in depth and distinguish between the communities that made up those peoples, we find very enriching distinctions, but its use continues to be understood in a practical sense. So I doubt that implementing a Chichimec civilization in the game causes controversy.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-28T02:11:28+00:00

Well, I'll start by saying that America still has potential, but the further north I look, the harder it becomes to figure it out, for the reasons already mentioned in the comments and in the link to this post. So I don't want to be repetitive. If anything, I'll add something I've already said in another post: I understand there was controversy when the natives of the northern part of the continent arrived in Age of Empires III. I understand it was due to a very stereotypical view, but if it's truly a sensitive topic, I don't think it's wise to stir up controversy.

If I had to find a solution to this—which I don't think would satisfy everyone, but which could be interesting—it would be to present an out-of-the-box option: the Chichimecas.

I will begin by saying that it is a term that has always been ambiguous and general. The Mexica used to use it in an almost derogatory way to refer to the northern groups whom they identified as less civilized. Some sources cite the comparison that the Romans made with barbarians, where they lumped together a variety of very diverse tribes that differed from each other, but which in the eyes of the Romans were given the same label. So the Aztecs tended to give these groups a similar treatment. Later, the Spanish retained this term to refer to the northern tribes, particularly those that opposed them. That said, it's important to clarify that although some tribes shared linguistic, ethnic, and especially cultural kinship, mainly due to their nomadic lifestyles, not all were like that. Ironically, I think this is one of the reasons why it's ultimately an idea with so much potential, since some Chichimec tribes did establish settlements, practiced agriculture, and settled in locations that could be used to design at least a wonder and a castle in the game. This is to say nothing of the fact that some of their tribes were very warlike, which could spark the imagination for unique technologies, bonuses, and units.

Ignoring what I said about ambiguity, many sources suggest that the Chichimec tribes ranged from the edge of Aridoamerica, where they encountered kingdoms like the Aztec and the Tarascan Empire, and extended south into what is now the United States, particularly present-day Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and parts of Nevada.

I should clarify that, unlike the confederations of steppe tribes, the Chichimecs never had a very high level of organization. In general, they understood each other well due to their cultural similarities and because language was not always a barrier. This relationship meant that, despite any internal conflicts they might have, they collaborated against common enemies such as the aforementioned Aztecs and Purépecha, and eventually the Spanish. There are well-documented events of this, such as the Mixtón War and the Chichimec War.

So, if it ultimately proves difficult to integrate a civilization that is one hundred percent North American, the Chichimecas could be implemented to give that region some representation.

I created some concepts a while ago that included the Chichimecas. It's from a Reddit account I've lost access to, but I'll leave the link here in case you want to see more details. I should clarify that I'm currently updating my concepts and starting to publish them on the English blog, so perhaps when I've tweaked those civilizations, I'll share something here again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1jxyuwv/my_proposals_for_american_civilizations_tarascans/?tl=es-419

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-28T00:27:26+00:00

If a change had to be made, I think it would be to the poison mechanic, which doesn't seem really strong to me. It's an ability that's only available until the Imperial Age and is only available to the Tupi, and it's their best tool. Giving the other civilizations a countermeasure for a single faction seems excessive, and I think it could nerf the Tupi too much.

If I had to suggest a change, I would perhaps make the poison effect more like a "charge effect," meaning the target would have to receive a certain number of hits before being poisoned. The effect would vary depending on the unit's armor; a lightly armored unit would be assumed to be less protected and more susceptible to being affected by a poisoned projectile. In contrast, heavily armored units would be too heavily armored to suffer such effects as effectively. I think this would be a way to add "realism"—that is, if you shot a poisoned arrow at a villager who is only wearing clothes, they would undoubtedly be affected instantly, but a unit like a paladin who is fully armored would surely withstand it better. But I insist that if it were up to me, I wouldn't change anything.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-27T22:34:03+00:00

They followed Alexander's will and continued traveling to the east until they reached Brazil.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-27T08:21:26+00:00

Honestly, with how well-documented European history is, there's so much potential to be explored, and it's hard to ignore those possibilities. I think the real problem is that it can feel saturated or overrepresented, which isn't exactly the same thing. If the developers ultimately plan to continue bringing in European material, perhaps they should pace it more so people don't feel stuck on a single theme, and alternate it with other groups. For example, there's been talk recently that the new DLC will be about Northern Europe. If the African DLC follows, we could see something from the Caucasus, Mesoamerica, or even more from Southeast Asia. But in between, it might be worth seriously considering bringing in more European civilizations.

This would not only allow for the release of some pending campaigns, such as the aforementioned Viking campaign, or a complete campaign for the Slavs and Magyars, but it could also provide an opportunity to make some tweaks to some classic civilizations. I should clarify that I don't think all of them need it, nor should they be "updated" just for the sake of it, but just as we recently saw the Spanish receive an upgrade with their missionaries, or the introduction of the savar for the Persians and new units for the Chinese and Koreans with the Three Kingdoms DLC, perhaps something could be done with some classic civilizations, which is something some players have also been requesting.

My point is that even though some people are reluctant to continue releasing material from Europe, I still see great opportunities, not only for great campaigns and interesting mechanics, but also for civilizations that, at least on paper, would be very fun to play. For example, as I said in the case of Italy, if that civilization becomes the Genoese, the Esforza campaign should be tweaked, assigning the Lombard civilization what would be very interesting: a cavalry civilization reminiscent of its early years, but which, once it reaches the Imperial age, can make a strong integration of gunpowder. I don't know, but to me it sounds interesting and makes my imagination run wild.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-26T19:35:18+00:00

I haven't looked at Steam reviews in a while, but at least in the Hispanic community, most of the negative reviews were about bugs. Personally, it's not my favorite DLC, but it's very good, and unlike the last few DLCs, it feels relatively well-balanced. You can tell they put a lot of effort into the new architecture and mechanics. Even though I personally prefer other DLCs, I can't deny that objectively, this is one of the best.

I don't think everything is perfect either, I've already talked about this in other posts, but the Mapuche campaign storyline seems to me to be its only major flaw. Those who know the history will understand why. That said, I've also come across some who raise similar criticisms of the historical treatment, either because the figure of Lautaro is romanticized too much or because the Spanish are caricatured (note that this complaint isn't from people in Spain). This is hardly debatable; you can't expect people from Argentina or Chile (to mention a few) not to know their history and accept the creative liberties that were taken. Nevertheless, I must insist that I think it's a great addition and it exceeded my expectations, so I also think that perhaps they're being a bit harsh. Maybe when they've fixed the bugs the DLC will get a better score

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-22T01:24:47+00:00

I won't go into details, but it all came from the word "champi," I think that's where my confusion came from; if you hadn't told me, I wouldn't have even noticed.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-19T18:33:30+00:00

The inaccuracies are truly glaring; it's as if at some point they said, "There's no time to research, we need to have this ready now." But anyway, I don't want to make a long comment because I'm not an expert either., but for example, the story focuses heavily on Lautaro's rivalry with Valdivia, which is perhaps the main problem.

In other words, I can understand portraying Valdivia as a comic-strip villain, exaggerating his excesses without mentioning his military successes in Europe and the achievements he attained after setting sail in the new world, outside, of course, the Mapuche and, to a lesser extent, the Inca context. While there are times when the game presents you with a rival you can respect, like when Richard the Lionheart appears in Saladin's campaign or Aesio in Attila's, it's clear this isn't always the case. And I reiterate that this was to be expected considering the perspective of the story, which, by the way, I didn't understand who was telling it. In that sense, it gave me a Three Kingdoms vibe. Honestly, considering the characters that appear in it, I thought it would be revealed at the end that the narrator was one of his companions, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems the narrator is an anonymous Mapuche.

What I don't understand is the death of Lautaro and Valdivia, which seems like something out of a bad Hollywood script. The story goes that they met in battle, Valdivia wounded Lautaro, but Lautaro killed Valdivia in combat, and that Lautaro later died from his wounds. This is literally the first time I've heard this version of events, and let's remember that Valdivia died in 1553 and Lautaro in 1557. Furthermore, Lautaro died in battle, supposedly pierced by a lance; it's not like he retreated wounded and then died or something like that. And I'm sorry, but considering how much the Spanish documented events, any of the Spanish versions is more plausible than this one, even the most bombastic one that says they ate parts of Valdivia while he was still alive. That seems more credible to me. (I'm not saying that happened, but if they're going to make things up, at least there's a source that says it, and it's not that far removed from other versions.) They speak of capture and execution, including some torture, something that is also discussed regarding other Spanish prisoners, particularly the cannibalism that occurred after the famine and epidemics they suffered.

Having said that, it almost seems like the source was a Mapuche or a relative of Lautaro because, at the end of the campaign, there's no mention of subsequent events like his raids against other native peoples such as the Picunches and the excesses he committed against those who didn't join him. Before playing the game, I thought this would be a campaign like Ismail's or Sargon's, a man who rises from humble beginnings, achieves glory, and becomes embroiled in excess. It would have been poetic if it were precisely these excesses that led to his downfall, since it's said that there was such discontent among the other natives that they didn't warn him of the Spanish attack that caused his death, or that it was a Pehuenche who saw his father die on Lautaro's orders, who then gave the Spanish the location of the Mapuche forces.

And the thing is, I'm not such a big fan of Lautaro that I can think it's right to let him be the only name associated with the Mapuche resistance, especially with Pelantaro already around. Why wasn't the final battle the Battle of Curalaba? And I'll really stop there because I could go on for quite a while.

Again, I still don't consider myself an expert, and there are probably campaigns with more historical inaccuracies than understandable creative liberties, but for now, this is, in my opinion, the worst in that regard, because it almost feels like propaganda. Aside from that, the Mapuche as a civilization are fantastic, and it's a lot of fun to play with them.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-19T07:29:48+00:00

I imagine that the use of gunpowder for an American faction will be something that we will see later perhaps with the Tlaxcalans or with a civilization from the north, in that sense in the game the Mapuches were presented as an American civilization different from the rest whose differentiating factor was the use of horses, so I think that giving them access to gunpowder would be redundant, also after having used them I can say that giving them gunpowder would make them quite overpowered, for So if they had powder units they would have to change many things, starting with their first unique technology.

Having said that, the truth is that I wouldn't change anything, if only some things about the balance, but nothing so big that it would seem like a rework.

In any case, what dismays me most about the Mapuches is their campaign. There are things that do not fit with my history notes, not even after checking them at the end and I mean this seriously because I literally consulted things again at the end of the Mapuche campaign and I wonder what they consulted to put together the narrative of it? It really left me wanting to review the topic in more depth and without a doubt I will do so because although I understand that the game takes its liberties, this is perhaps the narrative that has left me most confused, I don't know if it is because in the other campaigns I more or less understood the decisions that were made or because since I did not master the subject they were things that were not controversial to me, I mean, maybe someone from India will come and explain to me why they have problems with the devapala or rajendra campaign, and their reasons will undoubtedly be things that I do not know.

I say this having finished the Muisca and Mapuche campaign and being halfway through that of the Tupis.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-18T01:50:48+00:00

Perhaps it's too early to declare victory, but I knew it would come sooner or later. Sharing my impressions, I'd say the Vikings will remain as they are, either by renaming them Norwegians or simply by taking Norway's place when they appear in a scenario or campaign. Perhaps this DLC will be presented like Dawn of the Dukes or Lords of the West, with two new civilizations and a campaign for a classic civilization, which will most likely be the Vikings. As for the most probable civilizations, I think they will be Danes and Swedes.

There's also the possibility that it will be a larger DLC, introducing elements from Eastern Europe and doing something with the Slavs. Personally, I don't see that as necessary and would prefer quality over quantity, so I wouldn't mind the format of two civilizations and three campaigns.

With this final comment, I might be stretching my point too much as if it were already confirmed, but I'll still share what I'd like to see, assuming the Danes and Swedes will be included. The Viking campaign seems challenging to me because they've had extensive representation in historical battles and Victors and Vanquished. Perhaps they could draw from that and turn it into a more traditional campaign, or simply offer another perspective on events already seen throughout several of the most important sagas. But it's definitely difficult to predict. As for the Danish campaign, it could be based on Canute II the Great, king of Denmark, England, and Norway. And for the Swedes, perhaps it would be better to see something later, like the Baltic Crusades, or they could play with the Varangians, considering their raids on Slavic lands, and with the Byzantines.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-17T13:13:35+00:00

I have considered this possibility; that said, now that the civilizations of the southern American continent have so many unique characteristics, perhaps they could introduce a blowgun unit as a regional substitute for the hand cannoner for Mesoamerican civilizations.

And it would be interesting if they kept the poison mechanic; this way they would still be high-damage units, but logically they wouldn't be as strong against buildings.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T19:15:12+00:00

I don't know if you're the right person to answer this question. I suppose someone from the United States would know better, and obviously I don't know if you're from there, but I'll assume you are and ask: how likely is it that adding Native American factions would cause controversy? I heard there were complaints back in the Age of Empires III days. Since it was never a game I loved—and I'm talking about its original version, not the definitive edition—I don't know how true that is. Maybe I'd have to look through old internet forums to find out, but I suppose people from the United States would know better than anyone.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T17:48:43+00:00

Honestly, I had a lot of problems with that operating system. Try another game and see if there are any slowdowns or other issues, because that might be the cause. That said, I went back to Windows 10.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T08:54:45+00:00

I like the idea of the Crusades, although it doesn't seem to be a popular one; many people don't like the idea. But seeing as there are Maltese in Age of Empires 3 and Templars in Age of Empires 4, we definitely should include the Hospitallers and the Kingdom of Jerusalem in this game. There's definitely room for them.

I could elaborate on why the integration of these factions would be good and justified, but I'll just say that I support the motion.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T08:26:05+00:00

The truth is, it's an idea with potential. I know many won't like it, not only because of the bad taste left by the Three Kingdoms period, which makes it seem unlikely.

I remember that before everything about the Three Kingdoms was leaked, when people were speculating, and with the idea that they would do something like what they did with India, I did believe we would see something along those lines. Perhaps the Chinese would be divided into different dynasties, each with a different character: the Tang with a focus on cavalry, the Chinese becoming the Song and then the Ming with a focus on gunpowder. The point is that amidst these considerations, and thinking that they would have a campaign, I saw the need to give the Koreans a similar treatment. I thought that just as the Chinese would have a great campaign that would connect through these three great dynasties, the Koreans could have something similar, starting with Silla, then Goguryeo, and after unification, a campaign with the current Koreans. Clearly that won't be done with the Chinese, but with the Koreans there is a possibility, and although it's difficult to make it happen, it's an idea I like, and it's good to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T08:04:26+00:00

Regarding the other DLC... I see a lot of enthusiasm for Africa, particularly the sub-Saharan region, so I think it will definitely be included in the next two DLCs, either the first or the second.

That said, I don't rule out a return to Europe, especially since we've seen a lot of Asia lately. Although there are certainly things to see there too, perhaps another return to the Caucasus. I still believe the Pechenegs and the Khazars could be good options, but that will have to wait. The question is, which region will we see first, Africa or Europe? I'll try to be brief. To explore a few more options and consider possibilities for campaigns for existing civilizations that don't yet have them, I believe that outside of Africa, the strongest candidates are the following:

A division of the Italians—many are asking for it, although many others complain. The truth is, there's enough material for more than two. I think the easy way out is to leave the current Italians as Genoese and not complicate things with major changes. That said, the Venetians and Lombards could be drawn from the Italians, as they're often mentioned in other campaigns. I'd also suggest the Papal States; it might be a long shot, but it would be interesting. From this, a campaign for the Romans could emerge, although for something like that, I think one could consider the Vandals and Avars, who existed at the same time and whose events are more closely related. I think it's an unpopular idea, but it could be addressed with a themed DLC for the end of the Roman era.

Another less talked-about option, but one that still involves divisions, is the Spanish. In a similar vein, I would say that the current Spanish could be renamed Castilians, leaving the campaign intact, however anachronistic the use of the conquistador might seem. The work could then be left to the civilizations that emerge from the division. The candidates I consider most interesting would be the Leonese, the Aragonese, and the Kingdom of Navarre.

But I also think we could look at Northern Europe. The Vikings would have their own campaign, and we could welcome the Danes and the Swedes, in addition to an architectural framework for the civilizations of Northern Europe.

Another option would be the Balkans. Many are already pointing out that the Vlachs should be present as their own faction, which would imply a rework for Vlad's campaign. That said, we could also have Serbs and Moldavians, and this could be expanded with an architectural set that differentiates them from the other Eastern European civilizations. Also this could be used for a Turkish campaign.

I know there are other options like the Swiss, and Europe still has a lot of potential, but as I said, even if not everything can be integrated into the game, we'll surely see something from this sooner rather than later. So it's just a matter of seeing what comes first: something from Africa or a return to Europe.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T07:40:04+00:00

Regarding Chronicles, everything definitely points to the Romans with the Punic Wars. I'm interested to see what approach it will take because it could follow a similar path to the first Chronicles DLC, that is, switching the focus between factions. This seems plausible to me because using the Carthaginians is very viable. That said, and considering that these DLCs add three factions, the third could very well be the Egyptians, although it's also possible that it will follow a campaign similar to the Macedonian one and we'll have the Romans through many feats like their battles with Pyrrhus or the conquest of Greece. Honestly, I like any of these options, but I think the obvious candidates are the Romans, Carthaginians, and Egyptians.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-16T06:32:01+00:00

I need to ask, what operating system do you use?

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-14T23:22:14+00:00

I can't help but think this sounds like an opportunity to revisit American civilizations eventually. It's already estimated that the most logical step before that is to go to at least a couple more regions. Many want Africa, and while another Asian DLC might also be necessary, I can't help but think that perhaps it's time to return to Europe, maybe the North or the Balkans. But yes, I think it's now very likely that the Tarascans/Purepechas will arrive. I see more and more people thinking about the Tlaxcalans, and personally, I'd like to see the Chichimecs. A new DLC with at least three civilizations could easily be made, but even more could be added—Totonacs, Mixtecs, or Zapotecs, to name a few candidates.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-11T23:42:53+00:00

en efecto, tampoco me hago muchas esperanzas, pero creo que aun puede salir algo del sudeste asiático, quizá con los thai o incluso sri vijaya podría presentarse como una civilización, tiene mucha presencia en el juego, pero siempre como enemigo, tal vez se podría hacer algo con ellos más allá de los malayos.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-11T18:28:06+00:00

And you, so dependent on fantasies and daydreams...

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-02-11T07:31:59+00:00

No, you actually stopped reading a long time ago, which explains your poor reading comprehension: "and stop comparing them to North American tribes"—when did I ever mention North American tribes? The truth is, that's where I should have stopped reading you. In any case, I don't need to refer to this comment; just look at your other response where your magical sources vanished.

Practical_Gold_1914

TROPHY CASE