The theory has been floating around that the Macedonian and Tughlaq Dynasties were made as cheaper “replacements” for Vikings/Danes and a South Indian/Southeast Asian civ, and many people are upset that the variants might preclude the inclusion of these new civs in the future by virtue of using some of their most iconic elements (Ballista Elephants, Runestones, etc).
So in the hypothetical scenario where a billionaire falls in love with the game and altruistically gives Worlds Edge enough of a budget to make full new civs again, I am curious how people would want these “replaced” civs to be implemented:
Option 1 would ideally be free for people who already bought the DLC but would remove existing content from the game (might be controversial to some who paid for what we got)
Option 2 would keep all existing content but it would result in less uniqueness between civs. It would cost money as essentially a new DLC.
Option 3 would keep all existing content and result in unique civs, but leave the “replaced” civs without some of their most iconic elements. It would also cost money.
Personally I would choose option 1 since I don’t think I’ll get any attachment to those two variants and I think it would result in less overall game-onboarding complexity, but I realize I may be in the minority and wonder what other people would prefer. I posted this poll on Reddit and option 3 already seems to be the most popular, which surprised me. If you vote here, please don’t vote on Reddit because I am curious to see if the sentiment is different between the two communities.
After this DLC, how would you want a hypothetical Viking/South Asian civ to be implemented?
Completely remove the two variants and rework them into new civs, reusing their most iconic elements
Keep the two variants and add the new civs while reusing elements from the variants
Keep the two variants and add the new civs with completely new gameplay elements
I don’t want to burst your bubble, the variants are never getting removed. Removing content almost never happens in entertainment, scrapping work done (especially work that people paid for) just isn’t going to happen. But that’s ok, if the community vocalizes their frustration we can get variant reworks along with hopefully pushing them into getting back to full civ development. In a perfect world, we’d be getting new civs once or twice a year and every single civ would have 1-2 variants (the good ones like Cross and Rose as well as those coming not the crap original variants).
As many people would be happy with the removal of variants, I’m pretty sure more people would be unhappy with removing civs from the game.
Option 3 is the only option that doesn’t remove content from the game. It’s confusing to want to reduce content, considering most people who are unhappy are unhappy about not having more.
I would also suggest having the vote be anonymous. It would encourage people to participate that normally avoid the conversations, as things tend to get pretty vitriolic around this topic.
Don’t worry, no bubble is being burst. I don’t expect them to remove anything, purely because of potential issues with removing content people already paid for. I’m just curious what people’s opinions are.
Sorry, I should have specified, I only meant the two variants which clearly ‘replace’ full civs. I changed the poll to reflect this. I also made the poll private.
What could possibly happen is that of the Macedonian and Tughlaq dynasties are kept the way they are right now and there’s still plans for the Vikings and Khmer to be added, then we could always rework the former two so their assets are moved to the Vikings and Khmer (I.e., moving the Ballista Elephant to the Khmer while the TD gets the regular Springald).
I completely disagree with the ideas in this survey:
1).- First, because they’re making assumptions that aren’t true.
2).- Second, there are so many reasons that I can’t even fit into a single paragraph, so let’s take it one at a time.
I choose first to talk about the Ballista Elephant, and the Khemer asumption.
1) The Tughlag Ballista Elephant is NOT the Khmer Elephant, it’s another unit.
The Tughlag Ballista Elephant, which is a creative freedom from the devs, uses a medieval European-style Ballista, which the Arabs also used (because in the end, everything was inherited from the Romans).
It’s been given the role of super-Springald for the civ variant, and apparently its armor is heavy, like most of the Delhi Sultanate’s elephants.
2).- True Khmer Siege Crossbow Elephant
The elephant with a siege weapon from the Angkor Empire, Khmer, uses a “Chinese Siege Crossbow,” or a Chinese-style siege crossbow.
This siege weapon was used in the same role as the Roman ballista, but in China, and its design apparently reached South Asia, where the Angkor Empire, whose descendants are the present-day Khmer, used this weapon on elephants. At least that’s how several murals portray it.
3).- The AoE2 version isn’t 100% correct, and in fact, it caused confusion.
The AoE2 version isn’t 100% correct, as it doesn’t use a “Chinese Siege Crossbow” with a double head, but only one. Furthermore, it calls it a ballista elephant, instead of a Siege Crossbow elephant.
Simple, Tughlaq’s elephant remains as is, while the other:
The theoretical “Siege Crossbow Elephant” unit would have its Chinese crossbow on its back, perhaps controlled by someone or not, and could deal siege damage against buildings. Or, it could also fulfill the Springald role, but with less armor and HP than Tughlaq’s version.
It could also have a unique technology to fire two crossbow bolts instead of one; the Chinese siege crossbows could be adapted for that.
Boy did you completely miss the forest for the trees here. You really spent all that time making a gargantuan post that argues about the nuances of a Ballista vs a Siege Crossbow (of which I am well aware), when the actual issue is that when people think of a elephant with a big honking bolt-firer on top, regardless of whether it uses Torsion or Tension, or if it is a Ballista, or Springald, or Crossbow, they don’t think of the Delhi Sultanate, they think of Khmer. As I did when I first saw the trailer. Arguing that “Ackshually, Khmer used a Siege Crossbow and this is a Ballista so they are completely different from each other” is just pedantry and also misses the point that the only reason the Tughlaq Ballista elephant looks like it does is because the devs reused parts of the Springald Asset. Which, by the way, is also complete fantasy in its design, and both looks and operates nothing like an actual springald.
You also completely failed to mention the Macedonian Dynasty vs Vikings at all, so EVEN if the Khmer vs Tughlaqs comparison was meritless (which it isn’t) my point still stands there.
If people’s impression of military units or even history is wrong, they shouldn’t be encouraged to continue with it; they should be educated to see the differences.
Otherwise, we live in a world where truth is not defined by logic, historical evidence, and science, but by the sentimental version of political or sensationalist discourse.
That’s why I’m writing: to spread culture.
That’s not even an argument.
Calling me pedantry isn’t an argument, it’s an insult. Also, it doesn’t contradict what I’m saying, that requires evidence.
Sentimentality isn’t evidence.
The weapon the elephant ballista carries isn’t a springald, or at least not the one modeled in the game. It’s a ballista, and it has certain differences. While they could have used elements to build the ballista from the springald, it doesn’t bother me. If it does to you, it’s a matter of taste.
Does it have something to do with the Khmer? Nope.
I’m a human being with limited time. So I’m splitting my post into parts.
I’ve said that from the start. It’s another thing if you can’t read and assume victory in advance.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. It’s a law of logic.
Just because I haven’t finished criticizing your entire argument doesn’t mean it’s no longer flawed; I’ve just proven that it’s 50% flawed, until now.
And by the way, I’m going to criticize it completely; but all in due time.
UPDATE: Because i dont want to make more comment for your Childish nature, I’ll just update this comment with future quotes to me so as not to increase the spam on this topic.
If you don’t deny anything, don’t say anything. But if you don’t want to deny anything I say, you wouldn’t accuse me of not understanding you or of being pedantic, which you did tacitly; I even quoted you.
If people make erroneous associations, perhaps it’s because they don’t have a complete picture of how things really are.
That’s what my post was for, to promote culture in history.
And if those people think I’m wrong, then they can debate me, I have no problem.
Accusing me of writing something with ChatGPT is very serious. You have INSULTED me in the WORST POSSIBLE WAY, and I won’t forgive you for this quickly.
Although maybe I can: I’ll just think from now on that your reasoning capacity is so tiny that you tend to believe that anyone who contradicts you uses AI. That really is the mentality of someone very, very childish and totally incapable of participating in any serious debate.
The problem with your accusation is that you need proof. I say it again, you don’t know how to use real evidence.
Go back to accusing someone when you actually do some research, real literature, instead of veiled insults.
Let’s summarize what you’ve said:
You’ve called me pedantic for spreading a post about historical culture.
You have tried to discredit me by saying that I don’t understand your point.
You’ve accused me of using ChatGPT without evidence, based on your hatred.
And now you’re telling me to vote 3 and get on with my life, after insulting me.
Oh, no sir. You’ve practically committed a series of crimes against any logical debate, and against intelligence in general, so coming here to give me advice (“fools on top of that”) is practically another insult.
I’m not going to vote 3 because what you wrote was very offensive.
And an additional note: Yes, what I wrote also criticizes the next post after this one.
Again you’re completely missing the point. I’m not trying to contradict you. I’m not trying to present any evidence, I don’t deny any of your factual statements or arguments. You can talk about the difference between bolt throwing weapons till the cows come home, but that’s not going to change the fact that many people look at Tughlaq and Macedonian Dynasties and feel like they’re a cheaper replacement of Vikings and Khmer/Vijayanagara, and are disappointed thinking about what could have been. If you don’t think this is the case then you need to read the room. And guy, you wrote a ChatGPT-like summary on elephant-mounted siege engines in response to a poll question. If after that you think being called ‘overly concerned with minute details’ is an insult then thicken up that skin. That’s a you problem.
Save yourself the trouble. If you truly have ‘limited time’ you’ll just do what most people who feel like you do, vote ‘Option 3’ and move on.
Thank you so much for doing research showing the differences between Ballista and Siege Crossbows on elephants. I was too lazy to do this research. But I had already mentioned that it’s possible to differentiate them.
I also agree that NOTHING should be removed from any civilization or variant. Because there are ALWAYS differences between Weapons, Armor, Unique Skins, Unit Stats, and Unique Abilities or Upgrades… meaning it’s very easy to differentiate one unit from another.
If it were really difficult to differentiate, imagine what it would be like with Infantry, Cavalry, and Archers/Crossbowmen.
Example: Remove the heavy horses and leave them only for the civilization that used them the most! Imagine how boring that would be. Ahh, but they’re ALL SO similar, so remove them and leave them only for one civilization! BAHHHH, that’s so boring! It would be a really boring game!
If it’s possible to differentiate basic units like knights, infantry, and archers/crossbowmen, it should be obvious to any player that elephants are also easy to differentiate.
Again, thank you for taking the time to explain and do this research.
Let’s move on to the Macedonian Dynasty and the idea that it takes units away from the Danes, which I sincerely don’t believe.
1) The Vikings of the Macedonian Dynasty are SWEDISH. Not Danish, not Norwegian, Swedish!
From Sweden, which at that time was a bunch of isolated towns without a common king, there were many people who migrated to continental Europe around 800 AD. They did this in order to seek new warmer lands to settle, or to fight as mercenaries (supposedly to go to Valhalla after dying in battle).
Those who settled founded the Rus people. Those who went to fight joined the Roman Empire in the Macedonian dynasty period. They were called there “Varangians,” which in Old Norse is the closest thing to the word “mercenary.” It wasn’t a demonym, but rather a description of what they did.
2).- The Varangian unique units have a strong Viking Swedish identity, rather than a Danish one
Of the Vikings, the Swedes were considered the most savage, as they maintained the Norse religion longer than other Scandinavian peoples. The famous Uppsala Temple was in their region, and they carried many Berserker traditions even within the Varangian Guard (there are reports that they performed rituals with bearskins in their free time).
Bogmaðr.- Practically means “Bowman.” The game portrays him as a special Viking archer. Among the Vikings, there was a greater tradition of bows in Sweden, both in the Viking and Medieval periods. It is noted that Swedish Vikings lived off the fur trade, so they learned to use bows from a young age to hunt animals.
Atgeirmaðr - The Norse did not generally use cavalry. However, when fighting for the Roman (Byzantine) army, they were able to acquire horses and fight on horseback.
Atgeir - This is a weapon mentioned in the folklore of the Norse sagas of Iceland as a glaive or bardiche. Its use in writing appears after the Viking Age, so it seems to have been used as a replacement for the weapon’s original name, which was lost in the stories.
– In the case of the Swedish Vikings, it is known that they migrated to the region of Russia, where they became the Rus. One of their characteristic weapons was a type of bardiche. If this weapon is called the atgeir, it is being represented by the Rus (Swedish) light infantry mercenaries who fought for the Roman (Byzantine) Empire of the Macedonian dynasty.
3).- Reasons why the Macedonian dynasty is a good way to represent the Swedish Vikings
1).- Cultural identity.- Unlike Norway and Denmark, which had Ragnar (750) or Harald Fairhair (850), Sweden did not have a dynasty that conquered almost all the Swedish peoples until the year 1000 with Olof Skötkonung. Even as king, he was the last to convert the kingdom to Christianity. The identity of the Swedes in the Viking Age (800-1050) is more reflected in their influence abroad than in their own land.
2).- Landmarks.- A Viking Swedish civic would hardly have had any landmarks, apart from the Temple of Uppsala. By Varangian times, they were neither a united people, nor a nation. Being within the Byzantine Empire, they can use its landmarks, structures, and shelter, as they did historically.
3).- The Mercenary Path. The best trace of the Swedish Vikings is not found in Sweden, but in the stories on the runestones they left behind, mentioning that they fought abroad.
4).- Runestones. Vikings who went to fight as Varangians, if news of their death reached Sweden, would erect runestones to commemorate their journey. There were also stones for those who miraculously returned after several years. While the best preserved are in Sweden, the Varangians themselves also left runestones for their friends or as testaments if they found a stone to write on. In some cases, they did so in talismans or wooden carvings. Unfortunately, these carvings were perishable, and most were lost. Of the durares, remains have been found in Roman marbles, including bricks from the Hagia Sophia written by Varangians.
5).- Subsidized Mercenaries - Unlike the Byzantines, who fought with their own equipment, the Romans gave the Varangians special equipment, including heavy cavalry, heavy armor, better axes and swords, etc.
4) Differences with the Danish Vikings
Danes
Some ideas I have
Shieldwall (Skill) - Requires Spearmen with a shield; they cannot be bardiche users like Atgeirman.
Shieldmaiden - Viking women who also fought in war, perhaps alongside their husbands and as support in camps. Mentions of Viking invasions mention women who also fought in battle. They could make them like Raylegh from Age Of Mythology and have them be anti-archer javelin throwers, and with a shield obviously (for anti-range armor).
Huscarl/Housecarl - Royal guard of the Jarls. This would be the Nordic heavy armored infantry, but fast and anti-archer (AoM version).
Axeman Raider - Dark Age (I) light infantry, fast as onna-bugeisha and can earn gold by killing villagers.
Ragnar (Jarl) - They had Ragnar Logbrok, and he was worth 1,000,000,000 Vikings. Well, not necessarily Ragnar, but they could have a Jarl as a general unit.
Plunder: Civic bonus. They earn gold and food by burning enemy buildings, like the Mongols. A bigger bonus if they destroy Holy buildings.
Jormvikings: Available in the Imperial Age if you choose the Jormsviking fortress as a landmark in the Viking option. They replace Handcannoners.
After that, I had the idea that they would be preserved in the Viking Age, but as some say, they could become the Danish Kingdom with optional conversion to Christianity in the 3rd Age. The trick is that to be more representative of the medieval period, they would have to lose some aspects of their Viking heritage, such as “Berserker” or “Super-looting,” but of course, that could be just the joke that makes them choose one route or the other, just like the Japanese with their two types of temples.
5).- Discussion
That being the case, I don’t see any way for Danes to include units from the Macedonian dynasty or Swedish Vikings in my concept.
Perhaps they could have the Viking infantry bonuses that Byzantines already have in common with the ability to build Transport Ships. So, with the Axeman Raider, you could raid in Dark Ages (I) on sea maps very quickly: You build an Axeman quickly, have him build a ship, and send him to raid the enemy.
The Berserker ability could work differently in different Danish units than Swedish vikings.
For the Norwegians, they could have their own unit called the Berserker, since in them, the unit was not just a mental trance , but the official Guard of some jarls.
Finally, as I mentioned, some Viking elements could be shared among Viking civs, not all, but some.
Of course, the ideal is for each civ to have its own uniqueness, and proper historical representation often allows for that.
I chose option 2 out of “fear” that not only bare assets but even concepts would not be duplicated for the sake of uniqueness which, for me, comes after authenticity.
Emblematic case: the Ballista Elephant.
So, regardless of what the weapon on top is, the concept of the unit is being a Heavy Ranged Siege Elephant. Ignoring the heaviness, the Khmer unit would certainly be a Ranged Siege Elephant, so I wouldn’t want the Devs to go “we’ve already done that thing with the Tughlaq Dynasty, so no more of that and no more Khmer”.
I’d rather have 2 of those kind of units still. The Ballista Elephant is by all means a Springald replacement, the Khmer one wouldn’t necessarily be that. But probably should… Anyway 2 similar “unique” units are better than no Civ, Khmer in this case.
Varangians
Since these are of Swedish provenance, let’s make the Danes as a Civ! Which is what I’d wanted anyway. If there would be overlapping units, maybe the Riddari, so be it, it’s fine, they would have different names anyway I suppose.
Other notable case: Knight Templars Commandery units
Genitour, Genoese Crossbowman, Venetian Galeass… These are straight UUs for the Kingdom of Castille, the Genoese and the Venetian Republics.
I’d much rather have these duplicated than no Spanish, Genoese or Venetian Civ. It’ll still be a KT trope to have access to these units with the Commanderies age up system, just like the Byzantine do with mercenaries. Or like the Maltese in AoE III.
If they ever get funding to do this. I hope they make the new civs with the elements from these variants, but flesh the elements out further. So like Vikings have Runes, but they are a far bigger system for them
Well there should definitely never be a new civ with “vikings” in the name.
Hoepfully we do get something Scandinavian at some point, but I think there’s plenty of room for them to make one without worrying about the Macedonian Dynasty at all really.
Also there could easily still be a Khmer with a similair elephant unit, if they add one someday.
I will have to respectfully disagree with many of the things you said like the issue regarding the Ballista Elephant because I think that unit should belong to the Khmer rather than the Tughlaq Dynasty. Also, I should add that the siege crossbow does happen to be synonymous with the ballista because the ballista does look like a mechanical crossbow. Maybe this video might inform you a bit. However, I do agree that nothing of civ content is going to be removed. What could always happen is that some of them (both, regular and variant) can be given reworks like what some civs in AoE2 were.
It doesn’t matter if they’re synonymous or not.
Just because they’re similar doesn’t mean they’re the same.
Let’s take an example:… look at the bow and arrow… a very common weapon, yet different in various civilizations…
Arrows could have varying tips, different shapes, and could be made of bone, iron, or even steel, which directly affected their weight and damage effects. They could also be poisoned.
Now, bows could vary in size, shape, and material… Some could be made of wood, others with bones, horns, and even animal tendons, which drastically improved their use. It could be a traditional bow, a longbow, or a recurved bow, remembering that all of this will affect power and range.
I won’t even mention crossbows, which also have different types, constructions, and materials, which also affected their reload time, power, and range.
– Obviously, there isn’t just one way to make a ballista. That’s what needs to be understood. There are documentaries that show various types, even “portable” ballistas. I watched a documentary once; I don’t remember if it was a Chinese ballista or a Vietnamese one. But it was different from the European one, and I also watched another one where they mentioned a third model.
So, I want to see as many different weapons as possible in Age of Empires IV. For those who love medieval weapons, this is a real treat. You can even learn about things you’ve never seen before, which is great.
What I do know is that there is no single type of ballista.
**I don’t care if the Tughlaq Dynasty has an elephant ballista. ** That’s not the point. What really matters here is whether we’ll have the Khmer civilization in the future? That matters! The rest is just a waste of time on pointless discussions.
