Sounds better but its less acurate. They had caliph not an emir.
Then it was Ladoga Rus, it was from there that it originates and ends its journey in Moscow. Actually, like borscht. 
The civ overall seems to represent a lot of various Russian periods and principalities, Kievan Rus refers to the period of Kiev’s domination, that ended in the 15th century under the Mongol rule which saw Moscow rise above the other principalities, as well as Lithuania expand into the Slavic regions. While there is the golden gate of Kiev as an early landmark, as well as those trade ships to represent Novgorod, there are also units inspired by later Rus history like Strelets and Horse archers, as well as other landmarks, I believe I saw the Kremlin as one of them which was built at the end of the 15th century when Moscow was truly expanding. I think the name Rus suits best since the civ covers alot of Russian history, and it was only until the later period beyond the Medieval era that Russia became an Empire or Tsardom therefore naming the civ the Russian Empire or Tsardom would not work. I think its similar to how the French were named Franks in aoe2 to represent early Frankish history with throwing axemen etc, while still having later French history incorporated like strong heavy cav etc.
2 Likes
Well Aoe is about taking for the most part historically accurate civilizations, and throwing them into those types of made up scenarios. While I disagree with the original post, historical accuracy is the key to civilization design and I really enjoy that the community is questioning and debating design choices.
This is pretty necessary and standard AoE design. Paint with a broad brush.
1 Like
This alone is a problem. I hope a mod is made to fix the names that everyone adopts post launch honestly.
3 Likes
Honestly they should have kept some balls and just use Caliphate. KKK boss is called Grand Wizard or something and it doesn’t mean there are no wizard in games because of it no more.
2 Likes
What the hell you talking about. (facepalm)
Ukrainians dug the Black Sea ahahahah
Are you out of your mind?
1 Like
Seriously, they write about this in textbooks. Previously, they claimed that the ancient Ukrainians were under the Persians when Tsar Darius ruled, now, according to their new discoveries, they are as ancient as Babylon itself. Funny to tears.
2 Likes
Lol “no comments” on this. Yeah Rus in AoE 4 is more focused on the Grand Duchy of Moscow, we like it or not, but since there is so much more efforts to add a new faction in AoE 4 comparing to AoE 2 i don’t think there will be other Eastern Slavic factions like Poles or Lithuanians any time soon or at all.
Poles are Western slavs not Eastern one.
1 Like
You forgot to mention that they can turn dead animals and trees into gold, and that ships have magic fish teleportation powers.
That seems historically accurate.
I mean, so is call of duty WWII-- lots of games use historical backgrounds. Because it’s a game-- I would cut it some slack as the main intention of the game is enjoyment.
It feels like if you were to absorb all the educational aspects of the game… They wouldn’t be wrong-- you would just be the guy at the party dropping a “well, technically” on them.
The moment I realised that this game was going to ■■■■ all over history was when the game director said something along the lines of:
‘We’re going to be so historically accurate. Most games will research and speak to experts to understand the history. We didn’t do that, we went to these places instead.’
That was absolute mental, why would you NOT listen to historians? It just sounds like they spent the research budget on a massive holiday basically.
1 Like
And Lithuanians are Balts not Slavs.
1 Like
They are not slavs but back than they were bigger and had sizable Slavic population.
2 Likes
north americans are pretty bad at world history so it doesn’t surprise me that this game is so lite in that regard
1 Like
I’m not sure how historically accurate everything is, but I am confident that is not the way they said that, no idea where you are getting that from. For example:
Duffy says the team consulted scores of experts and academics and linguists to try and mitigate the sense that Relic was speaking for other cultures… The team’s goal is progress. “Trying to be as accurate and as faithful and as sensitive as possible to the history was really important,” he says. “No one will ever get it all right. But I think trying is the important thing.”
I don’t understand some of you guys. Isn’t it obvious that in some cases they’re avoiding civs being a particular kingdom or country because sometimes the kingdoms fluctuated a lot though the whole Middle Ages and it makes more sense to create something that represent the folk/nation itself rather than a political entity? Choosing Kievan’s Rus, Novgorod or any other eastern kingdom over any other would be problematic. It’s way easier to just add the Rus. Just like we didn’t have civs for every Italian and Spanish kingdom in AoE2, but just Italians and Spaniards.
Yeah, I have to say it doesn’t really help that AoE4 is such an amalgamation of different designs when it comes to chosing what each civ will represent. Some stand for one people each, which sometimes were divided into several states over the century. Some are multiethnic states. And then there’s the Abbassid Caliphate, which is oddly specific and relatively short lived as a great power.