A change of heart. I think I won’t mind Avars either. IDK if we can justify them though. My argument is if we can have Huns, we can also have Avars. In fact, I’d rather pick Avars over Huns if I were the lead designer.
Not so much. To tell a good story about them, we should extend the timeframe to 1650 : conflict against Franks, contact with Dutch.
And when you check Aoe3 campaigns, you see that 17th century is nearly inexistant.
Yes, The Forgotten and this Chinese DLC should be the standard for AoE 2… compared to the rest of the DLCs, especially the latest ones (not counting Chronicles), they feel very meh or average…
Yes, for me it would have to be Zimbabwe and Kongo and if it brings 4 civs, Kanem and Sudanese too…
Yes, I would add the Puebloans as well, or if they don’t want to be in the game, let the Inuit act as “skraelings” in Vinlandsaga and Karselfni…
Yes, I think the same… it will be a regional DLC, a VaV DLC and then another Chronicles DLC and they will alternate between the 3…
Yeah, but hey, at least AoE 2 got something… AoE 3 was going to get the Baltic DLC as its 20th anniversary gift, but they cancelled it, and that celebration is now going to be a mourning… 
True, but they shouldn’t complain either… they have the native US civs and the same US civ in AoE 3…
Yes, they are good options… if we get campaigns between 900 and 1550 they can fit well… the AIs are simply getting 15 names for each one and that’s it…
Yes, make The Conquerors and The African Kingdoms in a single dlc… you put 3 American civs (Purepechas, Tlaxcaltecs/Puebloans and Mississippians) and 3 African ones (Kanem, Kongo and Zimbabwe or Sudanese) and out…
Yes, Saxons and ultimately Austrians…
Yes, it’s a classic…in AoE 3 it’s the same…new civs post and boom people come out asking to divide the Germans and the Indians… 
Yes, they also wanted to give us a taste of what we’d see in AoE 3 with the Aztecs and the Mayans… the Spanish are for El Cid, the Huns were put in for Attila, and the Koreans were there to promote the game in Korea…
Sure…that would be the idea…
Yes, I agree… they’ll go that way, plus there aren’t that many classic civs without campaigns (Turks and Chinese - who will surely get campaigns in the next DLC - and well, if you leave aside VaV, Vikings and Japanese)…
Of course, I would see it more as a Saracen split (you include Arabs with a campaign by Muhammad/Abu Bakr in the 7th century and Andalusians with Ibn al-Ahmar, builder of the Alhambra in the 13th century)…
Of course, with the Saxons/Anglo-Saxons you could cover the pre-1000 period of England based on Arthurian legend and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle…a Saxon campaign with Alfred the Great (861-899) fighting Vikings would be very good…you could use the events of York but in reverse…
Yes, I agree… we want more American civs, but we don’t consider that some don’t have castles or wonders and without them they can’t be in the game…
This one is easier, you have the Song of Hiawatha (Iroquois AI in AoE 3) and it is between 1534 and 1580 (contemporary to Bayinnaung for example) about the founding of the Haudenosaunee confederacy…
Of course, the Vandals will most likely be given Mediterranean architecture again…
Yes, I would watch a final Barbarian DLC with campaigns for the Saxons (Alfred the Great), Lombards (Albion), and Byzantines (Belisarius)…
Yes, a Roman campaign with Flavius Aetius at least…
You have the Hiawatha campaign in the 16th century that I posted above… but yes, AoE 3 barely touches on the 17th century (you have the Japanese campaign and the KotM historical maps) but nothing else… about the Dutch, you already have the Burgundians, so I see it as unlikely…
Sure, you have the Mississippians from 800 to 1540, so you could do a Bari-type campaign (in this case Cahokia) that spans several centuries from a small village in the Mississippi forests to a large capital the size of Tenochtitlan…
Reminds me of my AoE 4 maps…
Sure, AoE 2 goes up to the end of the 16th century (1598)… from the 17th century onwards it’s all AoE 3 (that’s why the Japanese campaigns, the historical maps, the Ice, Fire, Steel, Indian and Shadow campaigns and obviously the historical Hausa and Ethiopian battles and those of the United States and Mexico)… that is, if you take out the historical maps, the 17th century and until the middle of the 18th century are empty… with the historical maps you at least cover quite a bit between 1618 (Thirty Years’ War) and 1721 (Great Northern War) and then you only have a little more than 30 years until Fort Duquesne (1754) and the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) (which I think the Baltic DLC would have covered and at least until the Franco-Prussian War of 1871)…
Yes, the Mississippians were literally Aztecs, but on forested plains…
Hernando de Soto can be like Cortés in Moctezuma… an enemy who appears out of nowhere and, without you realizing it, conquers your capital and you have to fight him to recover it…
1532…if you want to compare it with some campaigns, 11 years after Moctezuma and 6 before Bayinnaung…
Yes, I think they’ll eventually do it for Chronicles, but within 7-8 DLCs (considering that Chronicles DLC lasts for about 120 years)…
Yes, in addition to the fact that you have the barbarian and steppe civs that were not your typical medieval society nor were they super empires at the beginning… The Goths and the Celts at the beginning, the Huns, the Mongols, the Cumans, the Tatars, the Jurchens and the Tanguts probably now… and in AoE 3 you have civs that seem even less like medieval civs, like the Lakotas and well Malta, which was directly an island protected by Spain…
Of course, at most they should be called Sudanese to encompass more Sudanese kingdoms…
They removed all mention of slavery in AoE 3 so as not to hurt feelings and they’re going to add it to AoE 2?..Yeah, right… 
It sounds worse…
True, but The African Kingdoms has the Arab conquest of Spain in 711, the fall of Aksum in 960, the birth of the Mali Empire in 1235 and the Portuguese overseas expansion in 1505 from the 8th to the 16th century… that’s why it sold well… compared to The African Royals in AoE 3 which had a harder time selling, since it only included the fall of the Hausa in 1804 and the Ethiopian reunification in 1855, both in the 19th century (and well the Battle of the Three Kings in 1578 with the Moroccans but you can’t use them outside of there unless it’s with mods)…
Easy, alternate between normal DLC, VaV and Chronicles… 
They were neighbors of the Mali and the Songhai…
Sure, sure…you’re right…
Yes, the Mongols had walls, but only in their capital, Karakorum, but the rest lived in yurts on the plains… and about the Mississippians in this case, they do fit as civs for AoE 2, since they are Aztecs but from forested plains…
That’s a good point, maybe they’ll just put them in AoE 4 and make it more asymmetrical and not worry so much about making it similar to European civs…
The Mayans are not an outlier, they existed until the 10th century (and the post-classical Mayans until 1697 at the end of the 17th century, which is why they also appear in AoE 3 too)… they were even included in AoE 3 as a Mexican revolution (technically from Yucatan) and that they represent the Cruzob Mayans of Chan Santa Cruz (1847-1915)… 
The same applies to Tenochtitlan…
Technically, Yamato is from the 3rd century like Palmyra so it’s fine in AoE 1…
Yes, we don’t have to worry so much… they would be like the mesocivs we already have and out…
Yes, that is, they have representation in AoE 3, but they don’t have representation in AoE 2…
Yes, oral legends bother you, but some information from the De Soto expedition between 1536 and 1542 might work…
Yes, you could make a North American DLC of Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, Mississippians and Puebloans and that’s it…
Yes, they are good options, but they’ll leave it for the end of the game when they have no more civs left to put in xd…
Sure, AoE2 could have Siamese (Sukhothai) and AoE3 could have Siamese too (Ayutthaya and the Burmese too since Bayinnaung takes place in the 16th century and the Manipur cavalry too)… I wish they hadn’t said they abandoned AoE 3 but instead delayed the Baltic DLC to October for the 20th anniversary and that next year they would have focused on Asia (Persia-Oman and Burma-Siam) but I suppose they will leave it for AoE 4 or AoE 5 (if it’s colonial again)…
Yes, in AoE 3 they are historically correct, but competitively very weak…
1 Like
He probably meant Tuskaloosa or maybe the Lady of Cofitachequi.
2 Likes
Could the Mississippians be a civ? Sure, the Mississippians can be an umbrella to cover the North Americans and bring a story like Quigualtam.
Would the Mississippians have priority? Doubtful. I mean, new American civs are welcome, but there are still other nice American candidates than Mississippians.
We can see that the Chimú and Purépecha are the top 2 in the wish list. They had bloody rivalries with the Aztecs and Incas, and have enough historical records and research for designing their civs. The Chimú could share a new Andean stone architecture set with Inca, and the Purépecha could share the current Mesoamerican stone architecture set with Aztecs and Mayans.
If the American DLC could be bigger then the 3rd one should be the Muisca, the real El Dorado. I feel 3 is the maximum of potential new American civs as we still have to leave slots for Africa (such a big blank!!) and Asia. If there could luckily be more civs, then we still have the Mapuche, who could have unique Native American lance rider units, or other Mesoamericans like Zapotecs, or an Oceanian umbrella civ like Polynesians as long as the theme of DLC could be expanded to New World instead of just Americas. (Even though I’d probably prefer Mississippians than Polynesians, and I think whether Mapuche, Mississippians or Polynesians could share a same wooden architecture set with Muisca.)
Personally speaking, keeping the North America (and Oceania) a mystery in the game is a viable approach, especially since there are so many potential American, African and Asian civs for the forseeable future. Honestly, it’s likely that we won’t see Mississippians in the game, for reasons not about their history and technology.
Personally, I much prefer the Anglo-Saxons umbrella. That way you also cover other barbarian civilisations of the period very well. Just as I would not mind at all if the Vandals were added. In any case, these two additions should only be consequential if they fix the Goths once and for all.
They could actually do an already discussed Barbarian Invasions DLC, where they give a regional unit to the Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Huns and Vandals. Probably infantry or archer units strong against other infantry units.
Since the Vandals will be a cavalry, cavalry, and more cavalry civilisation, and the Huns have always had problems dealing with Huskarl+Alabardiers spam, and the Goths without HCs might have problems dealing with Heavy Infantry civilisations.
EDIT. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the developers added the Anglo-Saxons under the name of “Saxons”, and then used them as an umbrella civilisation to cover all the various Anglo-Saxon tribes.
Could argue Tuscaloosa resisting Hernan de Soto’s expedition, but the most fleshed out idea i’ve seen approaches that encounter with you playing as de Soto.
Am I the only one that wants Tlaxcala to be its own civ? Sure they were Nahua like the Aztecs but they were still pretty darn important in the story of Mesoamerica, from before Spanish contact to after the Spanish established hegemony in the area.
Could also help dispel the “Spanish took out an entire empire with 200 men and no help” idea that some people have, showing the Tlaxcalans first resisting the Spanish, and then supporting them in multiple wars.
1 Like
THAT’S IT! Thanks so much!!!
Tlaxcalans just overlap too much with aztecs. Culturally and even in warfare they were pretty much the same, they just allied with the spanish rather than fight them.
I mean we did get burgundians which is basically just spicy franks designwise, but I don’t think we should have ever gotten that civ in the first place.
2 Likes
Baipu or Pu are more related to Baipho or Yi, i think
I agree with Hoop, both the Aztecs and Tlaxcalans were very similar, both being part of the Nahua culture. It would be like splitting the Maya. If we get more Mesoamerican civs, I’d prefer other more distinct cultures like the Purepecha or maybe the Zapotecs
1 Like
That’s my point, they’re entirely outside the AoE2 timeframe.
AoE3 campaigns in general are almost non-existent. Why not make a historical campaign for the game the civ actually fits in?
Funnily enough, I wouldn’t mind as much splitting Mayans into, say, Yucatecos and “Guatemalan” mayans, there’s a very marked split between them and they don’t even speak quite the same language. Besides, there’s more than enough material to make both civs. (You could give the guatemalan ones Hornet Thrower UU and make them more siege focused or something.)
2 Likes
Not really, Baipu/Pu was a blanket term that referred to all Non-Sinitic tribes that resided in SW China, and this included not only the Yi and Bai but also various Austroasiatic, Hmong-Mien, and Tai-Kradai tribes in the region.
1 Like
It would be nice to make use of the Maya ‘siege towers’ used in the Yucatan peninsula.
In Guatamela the Maya also set up lots of pit traps and barricades when they fought the Spanish and Mexican natives who invaded in the 1530s.
Fuentes y Guzman also mention some obsidian stones that were thrown that cut deep (in addition to arrows, lances and 2-hand long “swords”). Sandra Orellana speculates they may be some kind of throwing knife. Curious to note that they were also poisoned.
6 Likes
Yes, it would have been interesting if “La Noche Triste” had been “La Noche Feliz” where the Aztecs and the Spanish forged an alliance, where the Spanish gave the Aztecs firearms and steel armor in exchange for converting to Christianity (and even if it happened like Japan and isolated itself until the 19th century) they would end up modernizing and fighting in both world wars (as seen in Empire Earth 2)…
Yes, potato fields/farms would fit better in AoE 3…in fact, potatoes saved the Irish from famine in 1847…
Of course, it’s not like the game is going to break because you have 100 identical civs… 
Sure, but the Japanese had technology similar to that of Europe, or at least China… the natives didn’t even have that; at most, some reached the Bronze Age… 
Hey, that’s a good name for a spinoff, too bad Empire Earth/Eternal and Rise of Nations already exist…
Of course, it’s not like it’s going to be a big deal…just another mesociv or directly a new subgroup (Woodland Natives) (there you include the Iroquois/Hauds and the Mississippians)…
Yes, that is, if you measure it in European chronology, it goes from 800 to 1540 (hence, it fits the AoE 2 timeline)… now you just need a UU and a unique architecture, the 2 crowns and bonuses and obviously the campaign and that’s it…
Yes, I already put the reasons above…
Exactly, at most you might be missing the wonder and AI civ (this would require searching for more information or a native Mississippian expert)…then meet the rest of the requirements…
Technically both…but the Iroquois had more participation from the 16th century onwards…
Yes, they occupied the entire eastern United States. In fact, it would have been the same size as the United States before the Louisiana Purchase… In fact, while searching, I found a possible wonder… The temple that appears in the center of Cahokia in the image above is called “Monks’ Mound.” and is the largest Pre-Columbian earthwork in the Americas and the largest pyramid north of Mesoamerica. The beginning of its construction dates from 900 to 955 CE. Located at the Cahokia Mounds UNESCO World Heritage Site near Collinsville, Illinois, the mound size was calculated in 1988 as about 100 feet (30 m) high, 955 feet (291 m) long including the access ramp at the southern end, and 775 feet (236 m) wide.[1] This makes Monks Mound roughly the same size at its base as the Great Pyramid of Giza (13.1 acres / 5.3 hectares) (Wonder of the Egyptians in AoE 1). The perimeter of its base is larger than the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan. As a platform mound, the earthwork supported a wooden structure on the summit.
Unlike Egyptian pyramids which were built of stone, the platform mound was constructed almost entirely of layers of basket-transported soil and clay. Because of this construction and its flattened top, over the years, it has retained rainwater within the structure. This has caused slumping, the avalanche-like sliding of large sections of the sides at the highest part of the mound. Its designed dimensions would have been significantly smaller than its present extent, but recent excavations have revealed that slumping was a problem even while the mound was being made.
For me it serves as a strong candidate…
Yes, but I think it means they didn’t tell the chronology the same way, but yes, it’s already very far-fetched not to want to include them for that reason…
It depends… some oral legends say they settled in the Ohio Valley in 1142 and that it wasn’t until between 1450 and 1570 that they established the Haudenosaunee Confederacy… for me, if the devs find info about them between 1142 and 1570, they would fit perfectly in AoE 2…
Yes, there are several civs that would still need to be divided, but for the future (Balkans, Central and Northern Europe)…
Yes, it’s suitable for several American architectures, and not just one…
Tuscaloosa, leader of Cahokia…
Yes, the Huns are more for AoE 1…but hey, they’ve been in the game since 2000 and it’s not going to change…
Yes, or at least the first encounters with the French between 1541-1543…
You have the Japanese campaign and the historical maps as I mentioned above, but you play them once and then forget about them …it’s a bummer that they abandoned it…they could have included campaigns for Suleiman, Gustavus Adolphus, and Napoleon in some future DLC… 
Exactly, you could even put them in the same campaign, although they wouldn’t cross paths with each other, but rather with De Soto… 
Yes, there are several options… you don’t have to be closed off and just have to figure things out…
Sure sure… I see it more as simply Saxons (covering both continental Saxons and Anglo-Saxons) then you can use them in various scenarios against the Romans (Vortigern), Franks (Charlemagne and Hastings), Vikings (York and all the Viking scenarios of VaV) and Teutons (Barbarossa)… The Saxon campaign would be of Henry the Lion (Barbarossa’s cousin and first antagonist and brother-in-law of Richard the Lionheart so it would be interesting, he was also Duke of Bavaria in case they ever include the Bavarians as a civilization)…
Of course, it would be similar to Moctezuma but more elaborate…
Yes, it can be like Moctezuma but in reverse or on the other side… you start defending yourself from the Aztec attacks (which you do in the first Moctezuma missions) and when the Spanish arrive with Cortes you can ally with them and launch your final attack on Tenochtitlan (which would be at the same time or a little after the end of Moctezuma) in the fifth mission…
It’s also helpful to have campaigns viewed from the perspective of the enemies of classic campaigns:
William Wallace: Edward Longshanks
Joan of Arc: The Grand Dukes
Barbarossa: Saladin (we could also have Henry the Lion)
Saladin: Barbarossa
Genghis Khan: Kushluk (or the Khitans)
Moctezuma: Tlaxcala
Of course, I think they can eventually do it… put in 3-5 American civs so no one bothers anyone else… there would be 3 North Americans (Iroquois, Mississippians and Puebloans) and 2 Mesoamericans (Purepechas and Tlaxcalas or Zapotecs)…
Yes and no…read my point above…
Only the original ones (except for the Siege of Malta in Blood, the Seven Years’ War in Ice and Bolivar’s revolt in Steel) and the second half of the Chinese one… the rest existed and happened (the American Revolution in Fire, the war against Red Cloud and Black Hills in the original version of Shadow, the Japanese unification in the Japanese one obviously and the Sepoy rebellion in the Indian one)…
Oh, interesting… yes, it could be for a Mayan rework somewhere and give them knife throwers and archers and let them use poison… would the siege towers remain the same or would they receive a Mesoamerican reskin…
What about South America? It’s still very empty.
The American civs I would like to see are the Purepecha, Chimu, Muisca.
If we get 5, I would also add the Zapotecs and Mississippians.
1 Like
I’d choose Mapuche as the 4th one, but nice pick.
1 Like
Yes, I was focusing more on North America…but those are good options too…it’s just that I saw them more for a South American DLC itself, dividing the Incas as happened with the Indians in Chimu, Muiscas, Wari/Diaguitas/Aymaras and Mapuches…
South America between 1000 and 1471 (where Pachacuti’s campaign ends)…