A small essay: I'm starting to dislike the disparity of regional asymmetry between civilizations (I mean, some regions are too standard compared to others)

I have no difficulty believing this. I’m in the 1800+ ELO range and got slapped by the Slavs’ CA while playing with the Teudons. If I may digress, the reality is that they would have needed the faster Skirms bonus, not the Lithuanians.

I don’t agree to share Ghulam, it was an Afghan thing and suits Hindustanis as their special identity.

1 Like

Problem with Teutons and many other civs with a default bonus on their infantry, scorps or towers is that these units and strategies are currently quite weak and favor the defender. If that’s somehow balanced, they’d be fine. But don’t know how they’d balance these.

If you put it that way, yes, it sounds really odd. But it’s quite accurate. Y value consistency because the lacking of it represent randomness, arbitrary design, half-arsed design directions for the game, etc, that makes the game feel like an unpolished mess of a game rather than the perfect gem it should be.

As Quasibrodo said:

Yes, assymetry doesn’t necessarily translate to flashy innovative mechanics. Unique buildings, units and reinvention of existing mechanics work well enough.

I’m not comparing them. Just putting them toe to toe in terms of “gems of the RTS genre”.

I don’t know if my english is really that bad or what. I’m literally saying the game must not be treated as a legacy product being kept alive for nostalgia only.

I says introducing BEs for SEA civs was fine because BEs represent rl battle elephants. And then, I immedately pointed out that Indians not recieving them automatically breaks the consistency of BE representing the use of battle elephants.
That’s one of the points of the post, the introduction of new elements and concepts are understood as an abstraction of a logical reality but then this vare same logic that justify the existence of this new introduction is broken, leaving the new introduction without any reason for existing beyond “it’s cool”.
It was different with Steppe Lancers. What do they represent? Steppe mounted warrior? Doesn’t Light Cav and Knights represent that? They’re not a UU either, so they’re not allowed to over-represent an already existing abstraction for that civ (just like the burgundians knights could be an abstraction for coustiller but there’s no problem with coustillers co-existing with them because it’s a UU). And if they represent a special kind of mounted steppe warrior fighting with a particular nomadic style (or smth like that), then why other step civs like huns or DE launch mongols do not recieve them?
I’ll tell you why, because SLs exist only because as a way to engage players with novelty and make them play the DE/DLC. And that’s something completely incompatible with the logic of the game representing abstractions of real-life historical realities.

Yes, there is. Rethoric question: why are Indians so different and assymetrical in comparison to other civs? Are they aliens or what? What do that marked difference design direction implies when trying to understand it in the language of the game, where, again, elements are abstractions of historical and logical realities? Why are Indians so much different to Europeans or Africans than East Asians to Europeans and Africans??
The answer: No real justification within the logic of the game. Only the pursue of novelty and innovation for the sake of it. And, again, that logical is incompatible with the logic of the game representing abstractions of real-life historical realities.

I didn’t directly criticize innovation as something bad. I said I enjoy playing Armenians and Gurjaras. What I’m point out is how these new additions add more and more layers of “in-game language elements” and they’re not adjusted retroactively. This is a non-issue when it’s a civ-specific plain addition or bonus, but it become serious when it affects the fundamentals of the tech tree (like bohemians lacking CA) and even more when it’s tied to a region (Caucasians lacking regular monasteries).

No? Ghulam is a word of arab origin. They were first employed by Abbasid Caliphate privates and then turned to proffessional armies for the first time with caliph al-Mutawakkil during the 8th or 9th century, don’t remember exactly. Soon they became the common army organization from Egypt to the Hindustan, so, not an afghan thing exclusively. Later on they would be called Mamluks more often that Ghulams (inb4 ghilman is the plural in arabic. I’m speaking english), again, all the way from Egypt to the Hindustan.

1 Like

If you read the Wikipedia page on Ghilman you will realise how strongly these slaves soldiers are associated with Central Asia and especially Ghaznavids and Ghurids (the parent nation from which Delhi Sultanate evolved).

I don’t think origin of the word etymology with Arabic adds any substance here. By that logic you can associate entire muslim world with Arabia only. Be it Indonesia, Afghanistan or Morocco.

Mamluks is not the same as Ghilman. It refers to Caucasian / Eurasian Slaves.

Thanks for using the correct plural. A lot of people don’t.

1 Like

Why are you apologizing there’s nothing you need to apologize cause it’s not your fault. I realized some people here just argue for the sake of arguing or for trolling, and they bring up bizarre hypotheses or claims but without ever substantiating their claims with any evidence whatsoever. This just adds one more person on my ignore list.

Tbf that was true once plate armor was invented.

Fair enough, I guess, but in context it seems like a poorly chosen example. Developers of old games have to decide to what extent to preserve the original game as it was, and to what extent to alter and add to it. The developers of StarCraft chose the opposite extreme to what you’re advocating for – preserving the game almost exactly as it originally was (apart from remastered graphics and music). Admittedly, that is one way to maintain consistency, but to me the result is what you explicitly don’t want for AoE2: a legacy product being kept alive primarily for nostalgia (though I won’t go as far as to say “for nostalgia only”).

Nothing wrong with your English, something wrong with my inference skills. You didn’t explicitly say that you think AoE2 is “a legacy product being kept alive for nostalgia only” – I inferred that because I didn’t think you would bring it up at all unless that’s what you thought.

True, it’s not at all my fault. It just felt a bit alarming that my post had somehow sparked what seemed like an unpleasant argument.

The “Vikings” should just represent the Vikings rather than Vikings and maybe the Scandinavians. Anyways for me I need the Slavs to be renamed to Rus (yes both Kyivan and Muscovian), nomadic architecture for the nomadic peoples, Persian architecture to be changed, unique castles for everyone, regional monks, maybe unique monasteries, new ships for Mesos. Can we also have 3x3 farms for everyone?

It is strange to me how nobody talks about the Celts

2 Likes

Simple reason is there are no other civis representing other celtic factions.

I believe it is time for some healthy name changes (I hope I have not offended anyone):

  • Celts → Gaeli / Gaeil (I do not know the exact spelling in English).
  • Teutons → Germans?
  • Saracens → Arabs?
  • Vikings → Norsemen
  • Slavs → Rus (AoE4 docet)

That attacking is a more effective strategy I like, but if for example we took away the Teutons’ CA and gave them, say, +0/1 armour to skirms, I don’t think it would be a bad move.

EDIT. Removed a brain fart

It’s just Gaels in English.

AoE2 uses people’s name, not state names. Also, Burgundians, Bohemians and most of Italians were part of the HRE. Germans may work, though.

Muslims is a religious name, not an ethnic one. And Turks, Persians, Tatars, Malians, Berbers and Hindustanis all converted to Islam during the game’s timeframe. Also, I think the Saracens would currently represent pre-Islamic Arabs such as the Qurayshites or the Himyarites. Arabs may work, though.

Yeah, or just Norses. Scandinavian might work too but is maybe too modern.

Could work, though I think Rus’ would be the correct writing. Russians and Ruthenians are other possible candidates. That being said, Slavs still represent the Serbians, Croatians and other non Bulgarian South Slavs despite two splits having already happened.

1 Like

Muslim is not a people group might as well call franks crusaders.

HRE is a political entity,None german parts of the HRE already ingame.

2 Likes

Fair point, Germans would still be much better than Teutons

Yeap, brain-fart by me

1 Like

Teutons are Germans.

3 Likes

Technically, yes, but the Teutons were an ancient Germanic tribe like the Cimbri who created no small headaches for the Romans in ancient times. Due to their military successes, historians (Marco Anneo Lucano) began to speak of Furor Teutonicus (ferocity of the Teutons) for how much it remained etched in the collective memory.

Thus, in the centuries to come, the Latin word Teutonicus was used to refer to the population living in the Carolingian Empire that did not speak a Romance language, and during the Middle Ages, it was used as a translation for “Deutsch”. Even today in Italian, “Deutsch” is translated as “Tedesco” and the “Deutscher Orden” (Ordo Teutonicus in Latin) into “Ordine Teutonico”, but when we speak of the of the ancient Germanic tribes we use the term “Germani” (Germanic peoples) which is more accurate, and is not a synecdoche.

EDIT. To reiterate the concept, “Ordo fratrum domus hospitalis Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum Ierosolimitanorum”, which is the extended Latin name of the Teutonic Order, we translate it into Italian as " “Ordine dei Fratelli della Casa di Santa Maria dei Tedeschi in Gerusalemme”, because the Teudons are something else.

So if Teuton is a good name to refer to them in the Middle Ages, it makes sense in a game set during that period.

Teutonicus, however, is practically an adjective. The correct noun version of the word should be given in each individual language. In Italian, the Teutonicus people, are Tedeschi, not Teutons. In French, as far as I know, it is Allemands.