Also Bohemians didnt further complete Europe. Teutons covered them okay enough
Then Slavs cover them just fine noh?
You should read about the clashes they had with the Burgundians.Swiss revolutionized european warfare when angry villagers with pointy sticks defeated armored knights.
- The Burgundian Wars (1474â1477) were a conflict between the Burgundian State and the Old Swiss Confederacy and its allies. Open war broke out in 1474, and the Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, was defeated three times on the battlefield in the following years and was killed at the Battle of Nancy in 1477.
3 Likes
The Slavs are really just the Rus.
Interesting, that could work out as an AoE2 campaign.
Here is a good video about the swiss.
2 Likes
Interesting. I decided to look up the history of these countries and made a topic about it if youâre interested:
2 Likes
With these 2 civ designs for Vlachs:
And Swiss:
I think the DLC is already made in all but name.
We have 2 civs Vlachs & Swiss and 3 campaigns: Bassarab & Bogdan, Burgundian Wars and a 3rd could be John Hunyadi or Suleiman the Magnificent.
As far as other suggestions are concerned:
âMost legendary among these rulers were Mircea cel Batran, Vlad Tepes, Iancu de Hunedoara, Stefan cel Mare and Mihai Viteazu.â
For Michael the Brave (Mihai Viteazu) and Stephen the Great (Stefan cel Mare) I already made suggestions:
Vlad the Impaler is already in the game.
Mircea the Elder (Mircea cel Batran) and Iancu de Hunedoara (John Hunyadi) are not.
The reason John Hunyadi is on this list despite fighting for the Kingdom of Hungary is because his father, Voicu (later Voyk), was a Romanian nobleman in Transylvania who converted to catholicism not to lose his rights when the Unio Trium Nationum (Latin for âUnion of the Three Nationsâ) was established. The 3 nations being: Hungarians, Szekely, Saxons. Basically, everyone except Romanians. The nobility and merchants had to choose: either remain Romanian & have no rights, basically be demoted to peasant, or convert to catholicism and Hungarian culture. Basically, it was like Stalin being Georgian and leading USSR but without Stain being evil.
However, out of all these important medieval Romanian figures, I still think Bassarab & Bogdan are the best choice for a possible campaign, because itâs a story not many people know about.
They are not even that well known in Romania despite being the founders of Wallachia & Moldavia, and defeating a much stronger Hungarian kingdom to do so.
The Battle of Possada that Bassarab won and 3 Hungarian invasions between 1359-1365 that Bogdan won are no easy feats:
I just think they should be represented more, because in my mind, they are on par with Vlad the Impaler and Stephen the Great, despite not being as popular:
For extra read:
1 Like
We do have Dracula campaign, but it should be Romanian - not Hungarian. Chinese/Hungarians/Japanese/Turks/Persians/Slavs should have their own campaigns. Also, War elephant should be removed as a unique unit of the Persians. Elephants were popular there in the time of Alexander the Great but not after. My other suggestion will be to reorganize the campaign map a bit. Move Pritviraj to S. Asia and move Joan of Arc, William Wallace and El Cid campaigns to W. Europe.
Those campaigns come with the original game so doing what you want is impossible as the new tabs only come if you own the dlcsâs.
Pritviraj doesnât though. Besides, it makes no sense to make an Indian campaign on Southern part of Asia map and create 3 more for the same country for S. Asia.
Is it possible to merge W. Europe with the map of the original game then? Or this too is not possible? The thing is is having 2 civs (Burgundians and Sicilians) on a separate map makes no sense. Or there is a potential for those maps to be expanded?
Actually theyâre still visible if you donât own the DLCs
I know because it took ages before I got LotW and DotD
Although the year 1633 makes noise to me as a prologue for a campaign of aoe 2, I think that as you narrate it could workâŚ
I think the reason we have separate maps for Europe / West Europe / East Europe, etc is to make the difference between the base game and the DLCs. The devs likely donât want players to hover over each campaign to see whether they have it or not. This way, they make a clear delimitation between what is base game content and DLC content.
1 Like
But they added Dracula campaign without moving it to a different map. They could have done the same with LotW. Not to mention that in the end, everybody will have every DLC. Point?
I think Draculaâs campaign was there since The Forgotten Empires, and is the only campaign with a civ of their own.
I donât have every DLC. The base game is like 20 euros, which offers the whole game, the campaigns, the skirmishes, the multiplayes, 35 civs, the editor, everything there is about the game basically. And then the DLCs for 10 euros add 2-3 civs and 2-3 campaigns.
Doesnât seem like a fair ratio, and Iâm not talking about AoE2 but all DLCs in general. I usually either get a âFull DLC versionâ of a game or base game and buy no DLC at all. I know some people are into DLCs, but I usually donât buy them unless I really like the content.
And generally speaking, from what Iâve seen in other games, about 20%-30% of players (and thatâs an optimist estimate) also buy the DLC. So itâs safe to say that the vast majority of Age of Empires 2 players donât have the DLCs.
1 Like
Which wasnât historically accurate. Dracula was a Romanian, not Hungarian.
Which are on separate maps which completely makes no sense.
Same here. But if in the end those DLCs will be incorporated into a base game with W. and E. Europe being a total mess, I wouldnât want to get it this way. Not to mention that I have the torrent version of DE and that one is good. Unfortunatelly, torrent version of Dynasties of India comes with all of the DLCs and the mess that I am complaining about.
But in the end, they will get incorporated in a âFull Gameâ, am I correct?
Agreed, not historically accurate.
Not necessairly, it would be even more confusing if DLC content and non-DLC content would be on the same page.
The sense is that this way you can make the distinction.
We canât tell for sure those DLCs will be incorporated into a base game or âFull Gameâ. Not good for business.
We had no problem with that when The Forgotten campaigns were released. We added African and American empires, but we didnât need to break it into West, East, South and hell knows what other dirrectionâŚ
This is not a distinction. Itâs called âconfusionâ, because we all know that Sicily is S. Europe. Look closer on the map: Grossgliederung Europas-en - Central Europe - Wikipedia
And being geographically ignorant is good for business? How?
Not quite. Every DLC that has been released was sooner or later incorporated into a âFull Gameâ, example of such will be Mount and Blade, The Sims, and many others.
Back then we didnât have that many campagins. Adding 6 more campaigns in Europe literally wouldnât fit. And nether adding 4 campaigns in the indian sub-continent.
No, itâs distinction. Because you can make the distinction between what content is base game and what content is DLC.
How is having a Europe map then a W. Europe map then a E. Europe map geographically ignorant?
Mount & Blade is not fully incorporated into the base game. Itâs just that now you have the option to but the game with the DLCs at the same time. Not to mention this is chery-picking, for every 3 examples you give, there are 30 counter-examples.
1 Like
Do I need to repeat myself (sigh), I already pinpointed the map where it clear as day says what is what. W. Europe is France (Joan of Arc), Germany (Barbarossa), Burgundy. S. Europe (if one will be added) should be Italy, Sicily, Spain (El Cid), Portugal, Greece (if added). N. Europe (if one will be added) should be Scotland (already a part of West campaigns), England (teutorial), Swedes and Vikings (if added).
Pretty much what I am suggesting is to remove Europe map entirely and divide the campaigns into W., E., S., and N. Europe. There. Problem solved.
Either way, look here: Civilizations and further splits - #252 by Temudhun
See if we can come to an agreement of somekind. 
1 Like