Highly disagree with your words, despite me being a sucker for European DLCs and Civs I can’t agree with you that these medieval powers weren’t relevant. I don’t know how you’d think the Pala Empire wasn’t relevant in the medieval ages.
The problem with your views are that you’re basing the relevancy of these civs based on their relevance in the history of the Europe. If that’s the case, then yes maybe the Pala Empire wasn’t relevant in the history of Europe.
I am one of those people who would definitely love a European DLC some time soon. But I can’t ignore the relevancy of other civs who definitely deserves representation.
Hold a moment. Didn’t they fight Chinese and Mongols during middle ages? I hope you will admit both Chinese & Mongols had big impact on Europe. So even for your standard, Vietnamese should be added.
Not every civ has to be a “+100mil landmass empire” to be in the game.
Age of “Empires” has never emphasized on having every possible civ as an empire (Celts, Burgundians, Sicilians, Poles if we don’t count the commonwealth and Bohemians for example).
I don’t know how much “relevant history that changed the world” means for civ choices but both Georgians and Armenians were early adopters of christianity, being isolated christian kingdoms around many muslim enemies and surviving during certain periods of AoE2’s timeline, another example is that Georgia is one of the oldest winemakers in the world, Also both have beautiful looking churches spread around their countries that still exist to this day.
Now I respect and support those who want African, American, Oceanic, Asian and even more East Euro content (for the small group who asks for it) but I fully disagree with those who are against both Georgians and Armenians as civs while giving more pop-culture historical civs importance such as the Romans. We already have Byzantines which are a big part of AoE2’s timeline, so making a gunpowderless version of them with a legionary/centurion UU would be a big waste.
Oh by the way, If we are using the bad logic of having Romans in the game then we should delete most of the civs in the game since they were all under control of the Roman empire
Eh no, races don’t exist. You can argue that culturally are different and deserves different factions, but because genes? Sorry we dropped that long time ago.
I’m trying to say that for e.g. Germans , Scandinavians, Austrians are all Germanic people, but with the Slavic countries arguably it’s not the case. It is an old communist twist of history to unite the Eastern Europeans, but historical evidence suggests West, East and South Slavs all have different origins.
Also, Sicilians, you already have Italians and you have Vikings IE Normans, they are already covered in the game and they are really not significant in the history of the time period. Dutch for example IMO would be a better new civilization.
What I’m saying is, if a civilization or a country has been independent for a sufficient time and has made an impact on history, then it deserves a place in the game. It is Age of Empires after all, other titles may include more obscure civilizations, but I think the idea here is to cover the most historically significant civilizations. After all, Armenia beating Teutons and Britons is weird.
And I’m not trying to argue whose logic is good or bad here, I’m just voicing my opinions for the sake of the game because it is up to the devs to see all opinions and pick the best choices.
Also adding Rome as a civilization would be a good idea, because it’s their fall that started the time period of AOE 2, but only if added as their late version, distinct from the AOE 1 timeline and civilization structure. Maybe as a falling apart, defensive civ, not as an expanding empire like they were in antiquity (like Mongols or Turks who conquered large territories in the middle ages).
Well it is the Russian agenda to portray the east euro countries as “Slavic” relatives, I am sure that communists have rewrote parts of the history to fit their subject. I know it for a fact, because I have studied by their books in school and I don’t think it makes sense. It’s a lie that they made believable and if you dig deeper in the obscure history of eastern Europe you can see that it is wrong.
Now, maybe the Czars had the same agenda even before the Communists, it’s possible but I am not sure. That doesn’t disprove my point.
Pretty much Russians are Vikings with Mongol/Asia influence, west Slavs (Poland, Czech) have mostly German influence and the south Slavs - Former Yugos are descendants of some native Balkan tribes and Bulgarians actually came from Bactria, which is in Modern Afghanistan, so they have Persian roots. It is really obscure part of history and requires dedicated research, but the information is out there.
Point is, the “Slav” thing doesn’t make sense and can be disproven.
You know what…if the gaming industry has not explicitly diversified medieval English and French etc. in almost every historical game (because of a lot of reasons), I would say English, French, Celts (the real world one not the classical civ in middle ages) and Burgundians are much more similar.
The reason why we think medieval English and French are more different than Cumans and Tatars is a modern cultural depiction.
But they were distinct states throughout their history. And their origins are different - the English are a germanic (hence Anglo-Saxon) tribe, the French are natives of the region and somewhat successors of the Romans (hence their Latin language).
So sadly I can’t see your point here.
Historically relevant in relation to what you find historically important you mean? Because theres very few medieval civilizations with a massive impact to the world during medieval (Chinese, Saracens and Mongols are the most important ones and they have been in the game since 1999, although you can consider Turks, Timurids, Spanish and French to also be other very impactful civs). The medieval times was a time of regional powers, and from that point of view theres no region that matters more than the other.
And dont speak of civs being the same ifyou havent really looked at it.
And what these civilizations did after the end of the timeline is quite irrelevant to their importance in medieval times
First of all Cumans and Tatars are different Turkic people. As Turkic is so broad a term, they are not similar just because they are both “Turkic” (like you would not say Franks and Goths are similar) let alone Mongols.
Medieval English and French had similar military system, same religion, overlapping peak territories (not large ones), and even largely speak the same language in the nobility. The whole “English archer vs French knight” myth is more of a modern gaming trope and the difference in their archers and knights in the game are much bigger than in reality. Not to mention other bonuses like shepherd/berry bush/farming which are mostly game designs and could be easily justifiably swapped.
The reason you and I and many people find them more different is because (1) Britain and France are now separate nations (2) They are prominent in the modern era so better represented in media.
Well, I’d argue mostly Europe and the Near East were most influential in this historic period (only 2 exclusions here- China and India). This period preceded the Colonialism, where Europe dominated the entire world, so if we want to keep the game relevant I think it’s only fair we focus more on this if we want the game to become too obscure and vague. I don’t think is an issue if some geographical locations are featured (Mesoamerica is a good example), but just don’t overdo it. If we want to keep the game historically coherent that is.
Sorry, I don’t think I can agree with you on that, there are large distinctions in medieval France and Britain. For one, Britain is mainly a naval power, whereas France is more of a land power (which is reflected even more in their later history). And during the time their territories overlapped, it was the longest war in human history.
