Armenians are more similar to Georgians than to Byz with Armenians having better sieg eand georgians having the better infantry
AOE4 Chinese cover 4 dynasties and itās one of their gameplay traits so you couldnāt call the civ the Song or the Ming for example. More generic names like āEmpire of Chinaā were possible (why not āMiddle Kingdomā to use the more poetic name ?), as for the other civs : āMongol Khanateā, āKingdom of Franceā and āwannabe petty ākingdomā (almost choke laughing) of Englandā
That would be cool!
Maybe because āChineseā is more familiar term. I bet if there is more civ for AoE4, they will (most of them) still be different from AoE2 civ name. For example Seljuks instead of Turks, Lombards instead Italians but Japanese and Koreans may stay the same.
Lombards are specifically the Germanic people that invaded Italy after Belisarius crushed the Ostrogoths, until Charlemagne crushed them in return. Then they only controlled some rump state in southern Italy that got conquered by Normans. Not at all equivalent to the Italians that are mainly based on the late medieval and renaissance city states that had a de facto independance from the HRE.
What bothers me about AOE4 civ names is that they are incoherent (people or political entity, choose one), not that some are the same than in AOE2 or AOE3.
1 Like
For me it is the inconsistency - Umbrella term vs very specific term. HRE is a very big umbrella comapred to AoE2 Teutons and now Bohemians whereas Delhi Sultanate and Abbasid Dynasty are very specific compared to Indians and Saracens. Indeed all three of AoE4 can be considered very political entity.
1 Like
Armenia was mostly under the control of another state. The Persian, Byzantine or Arab. The Byzantine general who lost to the Arabs in the decisive battle in 636 was of Armenian origin. So I donāt think the Armenians should be in an AOE2 DLC.
But I would like to see the Georgians as DLC.
As did the Nubians, who were the first to stand up to the Muslims.
There was a King David in both Nubia and Georgia. That could be a namesake for a DLC.
Otherwise a Caucasus DLC, but then not the Georgians with the Armenians, but the Georgians with the Khazars. They were more north of the Caucasus, but they stopped the Arabs in the Caucasus when they overran the Romans / Byzantines and the Persians.
And the DLC after this DLC should be an indian DLC.
Ok. So Kongo, Zimbabwe, Nubia, Kanem, Songhai etc all fit together.
Well, according to Wiki, the Omani empire came into being in 1692 (the end of the game is considered to be 1598, Noryang Point; I donāt know if the monuments count in the timeline) and peaked in the 19th century. They donāt fit the period of the game. From my suggestions above, only Kongo (it appeared in 1390, but the first contact with Portugal is in 1500s) scratches this limit, all the others are medieval kingdoms/empires.
All right. Although I think Kanem (if we were to add one more North African civ) would be more interesting and also interacted with various peoples: Berbers, Ottomans and other kingdoms that can be represented by Ethiopians and Malians. But I confess I donāt know enough about Kanem, and there may be more info about the Nubians.
Tbh, I find this isolation/contact argument irrelevant. The Aztecs and Mayans have had less contact than anyone else and are still in the game.
I also found it well done, although the cathedral is not exactly like that according to the sources.
Edit: Fixed some mistranslations
Brilliant post sir, here is hoping we see Caucasus DLC: Georgia+Armenia+Khazars and then African DLC and ME DLC.
Islanders DLC
Taino
Zaputechs
Mapuches
Polynesians
Asian DLC
Tibetans
Chola empire - Tamils
Afghans
More Asian civs
Red Sun of Africa DLC
Congolese Empire
Kanhem-Bornu Empire
Kingdom of Zimbabwe/Mutapa/ Shona People Humbwa Axeman
Kingdom of Ghana
Songhai Empire.
Swahili
Nubia
European DLC
Swiss
Civ appropriate castles and eventually Civ appropriate units for each civ.
I mentioned the Omani Empire merely as possible justification to add new East African civs into the game. The Omani themselves are already in the game as the āSaracensā.
To clarify: I mean that the new proposed civs ought to have been relatively encountered by other medieval peoples and associated in some why or another with the medieval ages. Mayans, Aztecs, and Incans were encountered by the medieval Spanish and Portuguese, and they also had their own āmedieval agesā going on by the time they had direct contact with the Europeans. The Huns are a good example, because they were a tribal people, but when they came to Europe (the Black Huns) and the Middle East (the White Huns) they and their descendants began to gradually adopt into the emerging medievalism that was developing in the Dark Ages from the remanent Western Roman territories and the emerging Gothic (i.e. German), Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Burgundian and Slavic kingdoms.
Many of the African and North American civs that have been put forth as potential ānew civsā would indeed have eventually encountered the Europeans themselves, but those peoples remained largely underdeveloped compared to their Mayans, Incans, Aztecs, Malians, and Ethiopian cousins, all civs who have built large cities and complicated social structures to accompany them.
Furthermore, such peoples like the Zulu and Swailhi peoples remained largely tribalistic until the Modern Age was trust upon themā¦ and those peoples never developed a āmedieval cultureā of their own, much less one that was uniquely theirs.
1 Like
I have put some thought into the Swiss being a new civā¦it might workā¦but then again, one can also argue that the Teutons already represents them.
Ghana and Songhai are already represented by the Malians, especially given that they shared extremely similar roots, language, and even monarchs.
Afghans? Not possible. During the 500s-1700s the āAfghan peopleā as we know them today were not firmly established as a unique, separate people because the region of Afghanistan as it was back then in the Middle Ages, was fully of Persians (Iranians), Arabians, Turks, some Mongols/Tartars, possibly a few Indian (Indus/Aryan) peoples, and the descendants of the Bactrian Greek Kingdom.
When the great Mongol Empire began to crumble, along with the Ilkhanate of Persiaā¦that is when the Afghan national identity began to form up, but even then it took many centuries until the 19th century for it to happen.
Tibetans are a complete possibility ā¦they DID have their own independent empire at one point, which is a plus in my book for being āuniqueā enough, though I need to conduct more of my own historical research to see if Tibetans are truly viable as their own Age II civ, for me to completely agree. I only hope that the Age II devs are just as thoroughāif not more so than meāin their historical research!
Polynesia, while a VERY cool region to study the history of, unfortunately was not very well developed in the architecture department. The Polynesians did form a medieval-esque society structure with Kings, retainers, and peasantsā¦ but they did not build (or own) vast cities and structures. It would be difficult to justify a Wonder for them.
3 Likes
I myself have pointed this out in my argument in adding Armenians. I am a Byzantinist after allā¦ I know that Armenia was largely controlled and represented by the Byzantine government. But I have already outlined several reasons why making the Armenians have their own independent civ can be justified.
As to your comparison with Venice, the fact of the matter is that Venice would literally be bringing Italians Civ 2.0 to the game (or Italians Civ 0.5 because you would be splitting a civ in half!) since Venice is just another Italian-speaking civ (technically Latin, since that is what they speak in-game).
Compare that to the Burgundians, who the devs were clever in making them a Franco-Flemish civ, French speaking (as the Dukes of Burgundy were French-speakers and shared common culture with their northern French neighbors), but also very Dutch, with the Flemish Revolution and Flemish Militia, powerful navy (to represent the forerunners of Dutch maritime might) and gunpowder bonus (Flemish warriors were renowned for thier early advances into cannons and early guns, on par with the Italians)
Or the Sicilians, which at a glance is an āItalian civā but which is actually a Normano-Italian/Sicilian civ, representing the great Sicilian Norman Kingdom that dominated the central Mediterranean, and who made Popes kneel in subordination, who defied the Teutonic Holy Roman Empire, and cowered the Byzantines. One could also put forth that āItaliansā are actually āNorthern Italians civā while Sicilians are āsouthern Italianā.
Hence why I think both would go well together in a new DLC.
I very much agree with this. I like how Age I and Age II use umbrella terms to describe several peoples as āone civā as a way to save on adding endless civs, when for a videogame, simplicity is usually best over complexity.
Interesting point. Your comment inspires me to conduct more research into thisā¦ 
2 Likes
The Swiss isnāt very high on my priority list but since we have the Burgundians, the Swiss could be a good addition. They have a good uniqe units (Swiss Pikeman) ,the Burgundians conducted several wars against the Swiss with Frankish allies, the Tutons currently represent the early Germanic tribes in dark age,the Tutonic order as well as the HRE, to have them represent the Swiss as well just means we lose the potential to enjoy so many more battles. Sicne the Franks,Burguntians,Swiss,Italians and HRE all fought against one anoter , so to add the Swiss will just add more depth to the game.
I know the Afghan region was at some point part of the Persian Empire, and the Indian empire as well as the Tartar Empire and Mongol Empire, but that area did have an indigenous populous although they might not have been called Afghans, these people provided a substantial amount of resistance and support to the respective empires mentioned above. Once more, to add the Peoples of the Hindukush would just add one more civ to use to create interesting battles of that highly contested area.
The Islanders dlc aims to flesh out the Messo/Carib regions, giving us more battle possibilities other than just Spain,Ports,Aztechs,Maya and Inca. I would love more diverse battles in the Caribian + Central+South Americas.
The Polynesians are just so distinct that they will make a highly interesing naval civ, they had trade from SEA all the way to the Inca, thus they can give us interesting battle scenarios from fighting against the Khmer all the way to fighting the Aztecs+Incas. They will have a higher focus on water than those civs thus they will have a specialised water advantage.
Polynesians/ TuŹ»i Tonga Empire.
Tribal infantry and naval civ
Civ has no war gallies nor fire ships but instead have tribal war catamarans that is 0.5 pop space.
UU castle/Luakini: Aliāi/Maori warrior - Wielding an elongated wooden club bristling with shark teeth all along its edges. Can traverse (swim over) narrow rivers and small bodies of water .
UU Dock: Catamaran - fast moving trade cogs that fires defensive arrows whilst traveling along trade routes.
Unique tech 1: Haka - Infantry gain + 1 attack and + 1 armour.
Unique tech 2: Faāamatai : Stellar navigators allows all coastlines to become explored and all great fish to become visible .
Civ team bonus : Increased fishing ship gather rate.
Civ bonus: Shore fish last longer.
Wonder : Moai (Stone heads )
Barracks: Full line for sword and spear.
Champions wield Fijian Totokia spiked clubs
Spearman have a higher HPthan normal.
Archery range : Full skirm line .
Hand cannoneer
No cav
If enemy or allies obtain Chemistry , then the Polynesians receive it as well for free. (Canāt research chemistry out of own volition.)
Siege : Bombard cannon
Battering ram.
Onager .
āVillages, on the other hand, were built on the coasts of smaller islands and consisted of thirty or more housesāin the case of atolls, on only one of the group so that food cultivation was on the others. Usually these villages were fortified with walls and palisades made of stone and wood.ā
āHowever, New Zealand demonstrates the opposite: large volcanic islands with fortified villages.ā
āNavigators, in particular, were highly respected and each island maintained a house of navigation with a canoe-building area.ā
āPolynesian navigators may have reached the Americas at least 100 years before Columbus (who arrived 1492 AD), introducing chickens to South America.ā
āRecently, an analysis of the DNA of 1,245 sweet potato varieties from Asia and the Americas was done. Researchers have found a genetic link that proves the root made it to Polynesia from the Andes around 1100 AD. The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer more evidence that ancient Polynesians may have interacted with people in South America long before the Europeans set foot on the continent.ā
āThe Hawaiians used the water from the rain that ran through the mountains as a form of irrigation.ā
1 Like
If weāre only adding 2 new civs, then the priority shouldnāt be in Europe or even the Caucasus, but rather elsewhere in the world like Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Americas.
Anyways, hereās my proposal for a list of civs that could be added into the game, with their potential unique units. Notice that the civs which I put in brackets arenāt my first choices, but could be added if we have enough space.
Potential DLC 1: Silk and Spice Kingdoms
Siamese: UU1 Elephant Gunner, basically a gunpowder elephant, a bit similar to Conquistadors but much bulkier, slower, and has a lot more HP. UU2 Imperial Battle Elephant, an unique upgrade to the Elite Battle Elephant that is only available to the Siamese.
Chams: UU1 Champa Pirate, fast raiding infantry that has bonus damage against Civilian Units (trade carts, villagers, and trade cogs). UU2 Mong Dong, fast raiding ship that fires hand-cannon bullets against enemies, has bonus damage against Infantry and Suicide Units (Petards, Flaming Camels, and Demo Ship).
Tamils: UU1 Urumi, ranged infantry that has aoe damage. UU2 Thirisadai, a heavy warship that throws stones at the enemy, basically an onager on water, available only in the Imperial Age, and has no elite upgrade. It also has the ability to attack ground and kill trees just like an onager.
(Nanzhao): UU1 Luojuzi, fast skirmisher that has a speed on par with the Eagles. UU2 Bo Tribesmen, trainable at the Barracks when Castle Age is reached and has no elite upgrade, unique infantry that attacks faster on high grounds and on marshy terrains.
Potential DLC 2: Forgotten Lords of the Steppe
Tanguts: UU Camel Slinger, a slinger mounted on a camel kind of like a combo of the Incasā slinger and the Berbersā camel archer, and deals bonus damage against Infantry.
Jurchens: UU Tiefutu, a short-ranged and slow-moving horse archer that has high pierce and melee armors, and its attack ignores enemy pierce armor.
Khazars: UU Arsiyah, a horse archer that deals bonus damage against Cavalry and Camels.
(Khitans): not really sure about what their UU is, itās a bit hard to make them distinct from Mongols or Tartars I reckon. Please donāt mention the Crossbow Cavalry because such a unit didnāt exist in records about the Khitans.
And with Tanguts and Jurchens added, we could introduce a new regional unit called Fire Lancer, which is a shared unit between them and Chinese. Trainable at the Barracks when Castle Age is reached, and has no elite upgrade, and deals bonus damage against Siege.
Potential DLC 3: Riches of Africa
This one I have the least clues about since Iām not that familiar with African history.
Swahili: not quite sure what their land UU would be, but I reckon that they should have a naval UU to reflect the fact that they were quite active in the medieval Indian Ocean trade.
Kanembu: Again, not quite sure what their UU would be.
Kongolese: UU Ngao Mbeba, inspired by Civ 6, a heavy infantry that carries a large shield on one hand and wields a sickle-like blade on another, has a high pierce armor and deals bonus damage against Swordsman (Militia and its upgrades). So far the African UUs that we have, such as Gbeto and Shotels, are rather fragile units despite their high attack, this one is the opposite, slow, expensive, and less spammable. Since the swordsmen line has recently received some buffs, I reckon this would be a good unit to counter swordsmen rushes, especially the late game double-handed swordsmen rush of the Malays.
(Zimbabwe): not sure what their UU would be.
Potential DLC 4: Forgotten Natives (couldnāt really think of a better name)
Polynesians: UU1 Ula Throwing Club, a bulky Polynesian guy of Dwayne Johnsonās type wielding a throwing club, a ranged infantry comparable to the Gbeto and Throwing Axeman, but is slower and tankier than both, and deals bonus damage against Cavalry and Siege. The Ula is a throwing club commonly used in one form or another in the South Pacific, particularly in Fiji. UU2 Pahi, a war canoe that launches javelins at enemies, and functions similarly as a skirmisher on water, dealing bonus damage against Archers and Ships.
Chimu: UU Chimu Maceman, a heavy infantry with high pierce and melee armors and deals bonus damage against Siege and Buildings, kind of like a walking version of the Tarkan.
Anasazi: not sure what their UU would be, potentially some sort of spammable but weak archer unit.
Mississippians: not sure what their UU would be.
3 Likes
Honestly, this canāt be repeated enough in this thread. If we should get only two more new civs, which I really hope not, the focus should be far away from Europe.
With only 2 new civs to add without adding a completely new architecture set, Iād probably just add two South Asian civs and focus on giving them the last missing graphic assets theyāre missing like an unique King, unique sails and probably some unique trade cart models too.
Alternativelly afterwards the focus should be in Africa and America.
Iāve already mentioned this in another thread:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/suggestion-unique-south-asian-indian-sails-and-king-graphics/
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/south-asian-king/
Iāve heard of the Falcon warrior:
Iāve made some concepts in another thread:
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/a-new-world-dlc-suggestion/
Seems like good justification for them to have Eagle Warriors, close enough at least.
1 Like
unique upgrade for eagle warrior? lets go
1 Like
The closest we could get to an āAfghan civā in Age II would be the Kushans who were a relatively mysterious people, Indo-European in origin, who came to the region of what is now Afghanistan, when the Bactrian Greek Kingdom existed (remnant of Alexander the Greatās empire). The Kushans displaced the Bactrians, but archeological evidence suggests that they simply assimilated the Bactrian culture into their own, making the Kushan Empire grow very quickly and most powerfully. They had enough power to even invade and control parts of India as well.
However, the Afghans we know today are far distant from the Kushans, given the huge waves of Turkic-Mongolic peoples that swept into the region that gave birth to the TRUE Afghan people. Stillā¦some descendants of the Kushans might have survived all those centuries and entered into the gene pool in the -Stan countries, but it only a guess on my part.
3 Likes
@CelticKeeper @KarstHillFort77 @Szaladon
Interesting suggestions, and I appreciate your effort to illustrate how they would theoretically work in Age II.
Stillā¦I am concerned about the hard push for āmore African and Asianā civs not that it would be a BAD thing to add a couple more civs. In all my posts, I have been open to the possibility of including more non-European civs in the gameā¦ but that I think that Age II has really hit a brick wall and is scrapping the bottom of the barrel, so to speak, of adding any more feasible new civs in a game that already is bloated with a roster of nearly all the great medieval-esque civs that can possibly represent the Medieval world in all continents.
Even if no MORE African civs are added into the gameāwhich I know many of you would hate to admit to-- Ethiopians and Malians already covers Africa pretty well (so do the Berbers, despite thier Arabic-architecture).
Mayans, Aztecs, and Incans were the premier civilizations of both North and South American continents; no other Native American peoples surpassed them in culture and sophistication.
As for Asia, one or two more civs can be added (like another Indian civ, to make that architecture style not wholly-unique to just the Indians) but Asia is already pretty much covered.
One must also consider that AOE players here keep begging for more and more Age II civs, when they conveniently forget that Age III could very well use more civs. Not to mention, Age IV still is unfinished and is already right now the main focus of the developers.
Keeping Age II at the current number of 39 civs, I do believe, will not hinder Age IIās continued popularity.
The closest thing from an AfghƔn civ is prob the Ghurids
1 Like
EDIT to myself: A History of the Kushan Empire ā Brewminate: Weāre Never Far from Where We Were
The Kushans are too old to be in Age II. They actually would be best for Age I in truth. However, they nonetheless were a spectacular civilization.
Hmmmmā¦ on a quick glance you are right @TungstenBoar . The Ghurids would be the āmedieval Afghansā as it says here Ghurid dynasty - Wikipedia that they were the ancestors of the Pastun people (who ARE the Afghans). However, it also says that they were a Persianized civilization, which makes it feel like the Persians civ we already have in-game represents them. The Persian Khwarazmian Empire conquered the Ghurids and culturally dominated them.
Furthermore, the Ghurids would likely be another Middle Eastern architecture civ, if they were to be their own civā¦ and there already are plenty of Middle Eastern-themed civs. If the devs were to include another Subcontinent architecture civ in the game, they ought to add a civ that is more related to the Subcontinent itself: either another Indian civ or perhaps the Lankan people of Ceylon (Sri Lanka today).