this weird discussion about ethnicities etc. needs to end now, pleas keep focused on the content of the original post.
6 Likes
As far as my layman knowledge goes, the Huns (who are most likely descendants of the Xiongnu, as some recent evidence suggests), much like the Xiongnu themselves, were probably a mix of peoples related to the turks and mongols (I don’t want to say they were straight up turkic or mongolic because there are some people like the khitans who were not mongolic however were related to the mongols), but that is more of an educated guess since we have very little evidence. They also might as well have been mostly turkic, mongolic, or something else entirely. In the game the Huns speak mongolian because is one of the “least wrong” options.
EDIT: Why was “mongolic” and “but” censored? lol
It censors quite innocuous terms with frequency. It is not worth overreading. In fact, they are now visible.
1 Like
I think it just censors the combination of the two words, probably because it thinks I’m trying to say something ugly. I’m just curious to know what that would be.
The censor seems able to anticipate possible typos. Handy, yet it can undermine conversation. It is better than someone razing havoc with intentional misspellings. Yes, the pun was intended.
As much as it could hurt the integrity and identity of AOE2 being a ‘medieval’ game, I love the idea of matching Western Rome against the Eastern Byzantines in AOE2. The Assyrians vs the Spanish? You can’t tell me that doesn’t at least sound like fun.
Ideally, if they’re porting over all or some of the ancient civilizations, it might be cool if they had different type of matches for scenario and online multiplayer settings:
Matches involving only the medieval civs
Matches involving only the Ancient civs
And Matches that include all civs.
-
What would you think if they “adapted” the ancient civilizations into AOE2? For instance; adding unique units and castles (based on regional architecture)
-
Would you hope they add more ancient civs to the game like the Judeans, Kushan, or Nubians?
3 Likes
Western Roman Empire’s decline and eventual fall basically started the whole dark ages, so I have no problem for it being in AoE 2 (I mean, we already have the Celts which already exists since the Republican Era anyways). The problem people have with WRE is that we already have the Byzantines which is already enough in representing the Romans. For me, I have no problem if they decides to reskin or add a few unique units for the Byzantines and change the civ name to Romans, which is indeed what they should be called anyways.
2 Likes
I can.
To me that sounds like the “should the Carthaginians be in AoE if we already have the Phoenicians?” question. Weird, sure, but I think it’s fine.
4 Likes
Carthagians during Punic War period were much different than Phoenicians.
No ancients civs vs medieval. Same client, but the AoE I DE port will be a different gamemode
1 Like
Boooooo! - my hopes and dreams are dashed.
How much of AOE1 do you think they could be porting over?
UU of Yamato could be some swrodsman with bonus against other unique units and as UT, trebuchets could pack/unpack faster, UU of Persians could be a elephant used for war and UU of Romans could be a heavyly covered horseman. As a bonus, Romans could have a cheaper Imperial Age and their buildings could have more HP
2 Likes
Unfortunately, we won’t have any news about this DLC until after February when the game is released on console
2 Likes
You’re so mean hahahahaha
4 Likes
But then again how similar were the early common era Romans and the medieval Byzantines?
This saddens me
Unlike the Yamato, Persians, Shang, and others similar AOE1 civs, I think the Romans and Byzantines are different enough to be classified and included as different civilizations. Latin vs Greek speakers, Polytheistic vs Christian, self-described Republic vs proud Monarchy
2 Likes
Hahahaha
You have to compare the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire when they were both alive. So, are Honorius and Arcadius Empires different enough from each other to warrant different civs? Zeno and Romulus Augustus?
Otherwise, it’s like comparing Richard the Lionheart and King George III England
1 Like
I distinguish different civs by their ideological, ethnic, and geographic distinctions.
Portuguese and Huns are pretty anachronistic. So are the Goths and their partial descendants the Teutons and Vikings. I don’t think it’s exclusively necessary to compare Rome and Byzantium only at the time they existed alongside each other.
Even if it was, during that time, they were already starting to diverge. After Constantine, people in the East and West were dealing with finances and foreign relations in drastically different ways, had different cultures, and even used different official languages.
I believe the renaissance classification of Eastern Rome as “Byzantium” was a proper move. Despite how the Byzantines saw themselves, they were a descendent, coexistent, and different entity than the Romans of Rome. Even if they were more “Roman” than the Romans, they claimed the legacy in a similar abstract way that groups like the Confederates would claim the legacy of the USA and claim to be more “American” than America. Unlike the Confederates with the USA or Umayyads and Abbasids, the Byzantines were a successful aberration. Even if the Byzantines are the true Romans, the Romans living in Rome were a distinctly separate political, cultural, and ethnic entity when they split.
I don’t believe comparing Richard the Lionheart to king George III is apt. The “British” didn’t diverge from and live alongside the “English”. And even if they did, there’s a technological and time gap that dismisses that kind of possibility in terms of AOE2. Maybe a more appropriate comparison could be a Spanish-based or Berber-based Caliphate surviving alongside and claiming the authority of the original Arab-based Caliphate (like the Umayyads with the Abbasids).
The only major problem I would have incorporating western Rome would be diminishing the value of having an “Italian” civilization”
Playing AOE2 is partially an exercise in tempting, avoiding, or enacting Alternate-History anyway right? What if the Burgundians won? What if the Arabs failed to expand? Why not “What if the Western Romans survived”?
4 Likes
Yeah,is how if the devs lowly convert AoE 2 in Empire Earth…
It would be difficult to balance…The units of AoE 2 would wipe out those of AoE 1…
I understand that this would happen… since a kind of Roman fort similar to the castle was leaked…
Judeans is unlikely considering that you already have Palmyra and Babylon covering the same territory as them…Kushans is likely since you have the Hindustanis in the base game…And Nubians I don’t think, but they are likely to put Aksumites, since you have the Ethiopians in the base game…
Good point…
That is true, the Phoenicians were a civ / naval power pulling to the commercial, instead the Carthaginians were a military power that used African elephants as an instrument to terrify their enemies in battle…
- The Carthaginian civilization introduced in The Rise of Rome originated as a Phoenician colony (hence the word “Punic”, the name Romans gave to the Carthaginians). It is evident from the original game’s AI player names and the Phoenicians’ Elephant units bonus that the Phoenicians were originally intended to include the Carthaginians, because war elephants were used extensively by Carthage but not in ancient Phoenicia.
I guess the campaigns, either in descending list as in AoE 1 or on a map with icons type AoE 2 and the 16 civs obviously with their respective bonuses…
Maybe can be a kind of lancer…
And Roman obviously can be neither centurion nor legionary, since they are generic units… It may be but similar to the Primus Pilus of AoE Online…
Yes, and most likely, the dlc will not come out until April, like the Indian dlc this year…
Not too really, the Romans spoke Latin, which was set aside by the Byzantines in the sixth century by Justinian in favor of medieval Greek…second the Romans were more to use infantry (the centurion and the legionary for example) instead the Byzantines adopted cavalry as the cataphract and mercenary infantry as the Varangian guard…
Sure, I wouldn’t have said it better…
Good point… How different can the English be from the Third Crusade with the British of the American Revolution, beyond speaking almost the same language and the technological leap of almost 600 years between them?
Sure, I wouldn’t have said it better…
1 Like
All of it as far as I know.