Africa and America DLC soon?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
61

Just like how the Burgundians dont sit right with me. The Flemish Militia were literally fighting their oppression.

What i would propose for a split based on culture is this:

Stem duchy - Wikipedia

  • Franconia (Austrasia, Franconia, Lorraine, Utrecht)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg/1024px-Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg.png

  • Allemania (Swabia, Bavaria, Carinthia) And calling it Allemania you could also include Swiss because playstyle culturally they sound very the same from what i read. Even though they fought eachother in dark bloody wars.

  • Saxony

Only three, to not make too much civilizations. Otherwise i would split Lorraine/Lotharingia away from Franconia. And split Swabia and Bavaria.

And we already have Bohemians, Burgundians, Italians.
This way we could keep Holland, Flanders, and French Flanders under Burgundians. Then Burgundians wouldn’t have to change.

Besides that the Teutonic Knight and Ritterbruder would be our regional units. Maybe with its own building an order castle.
The Mounted Crossbowman as regional unit. And maybe a regional replacement for the Halbedier. A Gothic Halbedier in full plate armor, with more pierce armor.

Then Saxony/Lotharingia could focus on monastry, trade ships, very strong fortifications, cheapskate farms, light cavalry. And some bonuses for the teutonic order.

Saxony: would have a unique tech called Ministerialis or Dienscleuten. Granting the militia-line a charge ability that gives them +1 armor.
Unique unit: Brabançon mercenary. A swordsman clothed with a leather jerkin. They gather gold from destroying buildings.
They seem to have a quite dark viking-like early story. And later reformed to less warmongering when they were Christianised. The Brabançon, dutch mercenaries from Brabant, were so mercilous in the wars they were banned everywhere.

Franconia: tradecart upgrade is free, cheapskate farms, very strong fortifications.
I need to do more research on Franconia. Mostly seems very eco and defense focused.

Swabia: stone upgrades are free, monastry works faster. Towers and walls are build faster. Pikemen and Halbedier +1 and +2 attack.
Unique upgrade: Swabian Picer. Replaces Halbedier. Has a bonus against infantry +3. And have more pierce armor.
Unique tech imperial: Hapsburger barrels. Hand cannoneers have +2 range.
Unique unit: Mounted Knightmonk. Can attack and slowly heal.
Civ bonus: military foot units have +3 LOS.
Civ bonus: villagers gather wood faster.
Civ bonus: castles and towers gain a lot more bonus from elevationbonus. And have +2 more range and los.

Its kinda downing on me. From what i read northern germany the Duchy of Saxony really feels like the current Goths civ man. Just wow. All they lack is a farming bonus. Or they be represented by the vikings. I guess in the past Scandinavia reached a bit further south🫣

Then the Goths could be remade. Because they’re more a cavalry civ in classic times. Idk that much about the Visigoth military and eco in Aquitania and Iberia though.

And then the current Teutons civ is Franconia. The rich middle kingdom. And in my opinion it already covers Lorriane/Lorharingia (central Netherlands).
Im learning now how much the Avars and Magyars raided central and south germany, just wow. Never heard of that. I guess this is what Kingdom Come Deliverance is based on.

What we would need is an Allamania/Allemania civ that represents Swabia, Bavaria and Swiss. A pikemen and towerdefence civ. Their fully plated pikemen/halbediermen. And fast building of defences and towers. And abusing that height elevationbonus for towers.

62

Flemish militia is now a barrack unit so who knows maybe they too will become a shared unit amongst other civis.

63

Nubians were one of the few people who defeated Arabs in the 7th century.
They were also relevant in trade and had famous archers that are already in the game. They should be added no matter what.

Swahili is more debatabe, but they were extremely important in Indian trade and I’d prefer them over Edo, Kongolese and Shonas. For better campaign potential, too.

Soninke? Why not if we add many African civs? But I feel like they are down in the priority list.

My ranking:

  1. Somalis
  2. Kanembu
  3. Nubians
  4. Songhai
  5. Swahili
  6. Hausa
  7. Kongolese
  8. Shonas
  9. Edo
  10. Soninke
  11. Mossi
6 Likes
64

More like 40 if we count the whole resistance period. Plus, a good bunch of South American civs who interacted with Incas such as Chimu or Mapuche could be added to the game.

1 Like
65

Do you believe that the devs will implement a UT entitled ‘slave trade’? I believe they will do everything to avoid it, even if it was a good part of their income during the Middle Ages.

66

Human resource trade. Fixed it.

1 Like
67

I also hope not, especially since slavery existed all over the world during that period.* So it would be a dubious choice for a UT and not at all unique.

*Yeah… I just checked. No exceptions.

68

I find the worry over African DLC potentially not selling a little weird. Most of the players aren’t historians, let alone historians in specific regions of the world, yet DLCs for them still sell. I barely knew anything about Indian history and still bought the DLC and I doubt I was alone in that. AoE2 has in my opinion been a great game for just introducing people to ‘new’ cultures of the world that might not get much coverage elsewhere.

If the devs believed an African DLC wouldn’t sell, they wouldn’t have made the first one.

10 Likes
69

This made me laugh.

They could probably use the ivory trade as a point of inspiration, since it was also very lucrative.

The reality is that devs have followed various strategies over the years. Who knows what they will follow this time.

70

Thanks. I have successfully cracked a joke.

Good to see my top 3 coincide with someone else. Not the order though. Mine is Nubians, Somali and then Kanembu. Then Kongolese, Benin/Edo, Soninke, Swahili, Songhai, Shonas, Hausa. I never heard of Mossi though.

71

The Mossi are from modern day Burkina Faso, from what I understand they were never fully united by they were a major thorn in the foot for the local Muslim powers and had great cavalrymen.

72

They are actually a very bad representation of that timeframe, they look like that when gunpowder is introduced. Before that they had surprisingly effective armour that look like this:

But like everywhere in the world where gunpowder is introduced, armour changed drastically or almost disappeared (why would you spend a lot of time and resources in something that doesn’t work anymore in the current situation).
They had fortified towns that the Europeans called forts and castle because it functioned like that.
Their campaign would be of course about Hiawatha and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. An oral story that is back up with archaeological findings.
I also have a handful of Historical Battle scenarios for the Mississippians and Iroquois.

The Mississippians and Iroquois had both copper.
Using stone feels like a disingenuous argument to “measure” how “great” a civilisation was, people use the building materials close at hand. For example China and Japan also prefer to use mostly wood.
That a civilisation used more perishable material that worked well for them in their own lifetime but that did not survival as well to the present day, should not make a civilisation lesser.

That monk would be great for Nubians as well.

5 Likes
73

Yes, as in the rest of the world, there were many trades in Africa that we can use, the most widespread being metals (gold/iron/bronze/copper), textiles, salt, palm oil, ivory, and food products in general.

I once made a small spreadsheet gathering the information I found in my research. It is far from complete and is absurdly summarized in the filled-in areas. If you want to take a look, it’s here.

(Btw I work more on the Portuguese version, my language. This was a version that I had translated to share, hence the gaps, as can be seen with Songhai.)

1 Like
74

True, Weapons and Armour have always chased each other. Which is why, in the late Middle Ages, European knights had practically become pieces of steel on legs before the refinement of gunpowder units.

Effective against the weapons they faced. In a continental confrontation over the same historical period, they would have been practically naked. But then again, one prepares oneself against the threats one encounters.

BUT if you want to maintain a certain balance between gameplay and story, you could make a very very aggresive civilisation in the early stages of the game, and then absolutely atrocious from the Castle Age onwards.

75

I was not argumenting that metal-working, or stone construction, or being an empire, is exclusive on its own. But if a civ is missing in all categories, I feel like we are making too many exceptions to include it in age of empires 2.

  • All nomads civs didn’t build much, but they quite technologically advanced (especially regarding war, which is the point of aoe2) and had a huge impacts on other civilisations
  • Aztecs didn’t smelt metals, but they formed an empire and built massive pyramids
  • Incas were quite isolated, but they also formed an empire, and collapsed because of another empire

If aoe2 keeps growing, maybe at some points it will be needed. But even at 50 civs, I feel like there are better choices (like other african civs). Honestly I would rather have other steppe civs, even if we already have a lot, because they are a much better fit than Mississipians. Mississipians may play differently than existing civs, but if its because they play with feudal age looking units against hand cannons and paladins, it is not a good addition.

While wood was certainly more practical in this region (as it was in a lot of regions), the fact they didn’t use stone at all (for like, building monuments, or defending themselves against exterior menaces) make them a weird choice for a game about conflicts between empires.

Are we comparing really “no stone architecture” to “thousands of kilometers of fortifications”?

Again, I’m not saying certain peoples are “lesser” than other, I’m saying than some civilisations are worse fits for aoe2. See my comments about celts in aoe1. People have complained about Romans, who are slighty out of the timeline but still make a lot more than Mississipians sense regargind the civilisation’s avancement.

76

They are already represented more than enough with their massively overpowered existing civilizations. Realistically, most European civilizations would have demolished them. It’s the same with many other non-European civilizations.

Just because they had a large population doesn’t mean they deserve the same level of attention and representation.

77

You’re using outdated memes. Native Americans have used metals like copper, and bronze, and even iron from meteors.

1 Like
78

I didn’t see any memes on the subject. But from what I’ve read online (which may be wrong, correct me in that case), copper was mostly used to make ornaments (not really the subject of aoe2). I didn’t find sources for bronze usage, and there’s quite a difference between “iron from meteors” and an iron age. It’s like saying Mongols should have stronger fortifications because they built Karakorum.

79

This is such a ignorant statement it can only come from either someone trolling really desperately, or someone who is clueless as to what they’re talking about. I’d recommend watching Ancient America’s Youtube channel as a starter as his channel provides a wealth of videos on New World cultures and the incredible civilizations that sprang up from those cultures.The Americas has over 10s of thousands of years of history and societies worthy of respect and frankly we barely do the bare minimum when it comes to even acknowledging them.

2 Likes
80

This is not a troll, I’m just wondering what are the arguments to include Mississipians in age of EMPIRES 2 where we get to CASTLE AGE and IMPERIAL AGE. To be clear:

I’ll do

Read my first post, you’ll see that’s not my issue

1 Like