At the very least the Celts/Gauls should have been added. Nubia, Dacians too. The Yamato or the Choson were not empires either. And even the Minoans are questionable.
2 Likes
The Yamato was pretty much an empire. Its literally the only reason we have Japanese emperors instead of Kings. And Korea was also an empire, since korea wasnt always this homogenous
The Celts didnt have any centralised states, thats what I meant
They would still be fine but there was no need of including them
Empires by their nature should be ruling over more than one ethnicity or nation. Which of these would the Yamato rule? Choson?
Greeks and Phoenicians would have been representatives of the Macedonians and Carthaginians which later got added in ROR.
1 Like
Japan used to be multiple kingdom before the Yamato, so was Korea before the Goryeo. One of the Korean kingdoms expanded into Manchuria too
Korea also had multiple peoples with diferent languages
Yeah adding those civs wasnt needed either, but the Celts dont have priority over them since they werent ventralised
Honestly the ancient age doesnt have that many civs that are necessary so most approachs are reasonable
Although not ‘empires’ I think an Iberian, Gallic, Germanic or Celtic civ as a representative would have been necessary, if anything for the invasion of Britain missions! That said I’m far more interested in Archaic Greece and the middle east, so very happy this is being ported at all!
3 Likes
I am of the opinion that these DLCs should contain DLCs in themselves - as it was with The Last Khans in AoE 2 DE.
It would be really cool to see something completely new in AoE 1, like the civilizations the Romans were at war with: Germanians, Celts, Dacians, Vandals and Norse (Romans didn’t know them, but they would fit in the Northern European DLC).
1 Like
Doubt it, there was a leak with the new civ selection screen and there was no one new. But hopefully we’ll get new dlc’s later on.
I think Vandals and Norse would be poor picks, though. They’re parts of the Germans and were not really active during late in the time period for the former and outside of the time period for the later. Celts would be far more deserving of a split in this game, yet I think they should be first introduced as an umbrella to save time.
Thracians or Scythians would probably fit better, imo.
2 Likes
The Norse are literally the Vikings though. Viking is just a job title basically. Vandals settled in North Africa, not really Germany.
7 Likes
Heeans that they are Germanic peoples and should be fine represented by the Germans
But the Norse are already ingame as the Vikings though. I don’t care about Vandals, I just think saying Norse are closer to Teutons than they are to Vikings is a bit ridiculous.
1 Like
What does “Heeans” mean?
“He means”, but a letter got missed, and the words got merged. (I just needed to write the explanation for the characters)
1 Like
Probably a mobile keyboard. I constantly press the backspace by accident instead of the M. It’s really close the the L as well.
That’s literally impossible if earlier leaks can be trusted.
Hes talking about AoE1 civs I think?
1 Like
Yeah, that’s what the discussion was about.
Ah, ok I didn’t say anything then…my apologies…
Of course, his thing would be to readapt the civs from aoe 2 to aoe 1: Germans (Teutons), Celts, Dacians (Magyars), Vandals (Berbers) and Nordics (Vikings)…
1 Like
Pretty sure Bulgarians are closer to Dacians.
1 Like
Afaik Dacians weren’t really close to Magyars nor Bulgarians, the closest medieval or modern day people to Dacians would be the Albanians.
1 Like
