And we know nothing about them in the timeframe of AoE2. At least certainly not enough to create a civ that wouldn’t be almost entirely fiction/guesswork. It seems that you just personally have some problems with Finland, because arguing that Vlachs makes any sense for inclusion is laughable at best.
2 Likes
We know almost as much about them as what we know about Finns.
Absolutely not. If Finns themselves rather have Vlachs over Finns I dont think theres much to argue.
Or maybe you are just wrong and you refuse to acept it for some reason? They are better than Finns
1 Like
I’d wager that you are wrong. We have almost no knowledge of the missisipians civ from before the start of the colonial times. They’d be a good fit in AoE3 though.
It’s easy to see why the civ would make no sense.
- Area is already well covered by a bunch of civs: Magyars, Bulgarians, Slavs, Cumans, Tatars, Byzantines, Turks. It’s pretty much overkill to add yet another civ into the same geographical spot.
- The civ achieved nothing noteworthy, even in the Dracula Campaign, it’s made very clear how much reliance there is on armies, supplies and troops of non-Vlach origin.
- Vlachs did not make up even a majority of population in the areas where they were allowed to exist.
This is objectively less sensible than adding Finns.
If we absolutely had to include a new civ into the same Geographical region, I’d prefer either Saxons or Pechenegs.
No Im not. We know almost nothing worthwhile about Finns in the middle ages. Most of what we know is just how they were conquered.
Maybe you are just unaware of anything about Mississippians, but they didnt exist past the AoE2 period. All we know about them is what falls into AoE2.
Wrong. Just wrong
Dont use that when obviously making a subjective argument. Its pathetic to do so.
No, Finns did less than Vlachs. There was even less Finns than Vlachs.
I dont want either of these three civs, but Finns are just a terrible civ choice.
3 Likes
We have made contact with them after arrival, so it clearly must have existed in some form.
No. Just not.
I have no problem with that. My problem is that you are trying to defend a civ that would mostly only get included because they managed to do some skirmishes once. I really dislike it when people try to defend the indefensible.
Yes they existed until 1600, aka the end of the AoE2 timeline.
Would like some evidence because I havent found anything to say this.
The civ isnt worth adding, but they had actually an state and rulers and a unique culture and thats more than what Finns get.
So basically AoE3. It fits there thematically, not into AoE2.
I’ve already pointed out why it’s not the case, so feel free to scroll up, I won’t reiterate.
For example in neighbouring transylvania (which was generally a safer and bigger region) they made up ~20% in 1500. I can only link you sources that are not written in english though. For wallachia itself I dont have any population count data, but it was disputed between magyars and bulgarians until the cumans settled it, which then got disrupted by mongol/tatar invasions, so it’s unlikely that anyone in particular was thriving in the area. There were also other tribes intruding in the area, pechenegs, slavs, so for all that we know, vlachs would not have numbered highly until the late medieval period, and even then… as well as the fact that vlachs were known to be very migrational people.
The Finns really just happened to live in a remote corner of the continent that no one was interested in, because it had no wealth to plunder and no fertile soil. Wallachia, on the other hand, had those things as well as lying in the middle of a major trade routes, so the two aren’t comparable.
Between the two, the Vlachs at least have some substance that can be used to make a civ. On the other hand, you are right that their region is already well-covered, and it would not be necessary to add them for now.
5 Likes
Does it? I think that it really doesnt that much.
And I disagree.
To this day, minority populations are greatest in Transylvania and the Banat, historical regions situated in the north and west of the country which were former territorial possessions of either the Kingdom of Hungary, the Habsburgs, or the Austrian Empire (since 1867 the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary until World War I).
Considering most of the current population of Romania is actually Romanians, I think you are just generalizing Transylvania (which wasnt really anything, I agree with you on that) into Wallachia
Cool but that doesn’t mean that adding Vlachs isn’t a terrible idea.
Yeah, play the game a bit, you’ll see. It has a lot of similar minor tribes, as sort of neutral factions that you can capture to get a boost (this mechanic doesnt exist in AoE2, but basically you can capture small tribes and recruit their units), could fit as one of them.
Yeah well, Hungary went on a downwards spiral after losing to the Ottomans, so most of the populace they’ve lost were replaced by other ethnicities.
1 Like
Nah, I think you are just wrong. The civ choice isnt good but its still better than Finns.
Yes, but the other two Romanians and Moldavan principalities never got integrated as a province and are more populous. I still think you are ovegeneralizating it.
If thats what you consider Mississippians to be then Finns certainly shouldnt exist as anything but that as well
Yeah, but I’m not, as pointed out above.
It’s not that I would want to diminish Mississippians in some way, but it would themtically fit well into AoE3 as one of those minor tribes. While it would be awkward at best in AoE2, but certainly a lot of people would think it to be out of place.
That is pretty much the best we can go by. Either way, the fact that we know so little is exactly a good point further underlying the fact that they were simply not a very significant factor most of the times.
1 Like
Yeah you are. I cant find the name of a single Finn warrior.
Thats like… really bad for an old world civ.
2 Likes
We can go back and forth like this all day 
I feel like we are both just wasting this thread away with this pointless discussion about Vlachs.
As far as I know some names are mentioned in early viking chronicles. But they are certainly not abundant, that you are on point about.
No matter Vlach should be introduced or not, some your arguments may seem imprecise.
For someone, the area was already covered by Magyars, Slavs Byzantines and Turks in AoFE.
Bulgarians? Slavs. Cumans? Magyars. Tatars? Turks.
Even Goths might cover Magyars and Slavs well in AoC for someone who cared nothing about European history. It depends on how you define the word “cover” so this argument is imprecise.
What did Vietnamese achieve? Conquered by the Chinese for the thousand years?
What did Celts achieve? Conquered by the English in the end?
What did Cumans achieve? Becoming the refugees of Mongol invading?
What did Koreans achieve? A big market of the RTS game?
I do not oppose the civ above being introduced, just mean that it also depends on how you define the word “noteworthy”.
In the history of Romania and Wallachia, the foot archers were the important part. Their Țintaşi (Vlach Marksmen) played a big role in their battles.
Vlachs (or called Romanians) has records enough to design the tech tree, make the campaigns, choose the UU and UT, name the AI leaders, etc. It is actually qualified to be introduced a civ, just worth discussing how the priority it has.
Were Aztec people majority of Mexicans then?
No matter the dynasties of Jurchen Jin, Mongol Yuan and Manchu Qing, the majority of the people were Han Chinese.
To be honest, how special its culture and warfare were is important than how many people there.
10 Likes
A crazy mechanic for the Țintaşi could be a charged shot much like the Coustiller considering they were bow and arrow marksman
May move slowly or have low HP for balance.
For reflecting the ambush, the attack from Țintaşi may not show their location automatically if they are out of your LoS.
I’d like more glass cannon units so low hp
This is a cool idea.
The question is rather, what exactly would be the point of adding a civ that basically barely even existed at that point in history? Your later comparison with the Aztecs is shaky at best. The vlachs never managed to construct something comparable to Tenochtitlan. It’s quite funny argument about not caring about history, I have actually lived in that Geographical area, and personally visited museums, castles, ruins, etc. so while I do not claim to be an expert, I can confidently tell you that your comparison just doesn’t hold, the civilization was a lot less advanced than the Aztec civilization by basically any measure.
While the Scottish are represented by Celts in this game, by no means is it the only faction it represents. It’s a much bigger umbrella than people from the northern part of Britain!
And a pretty big empire before that! Lands controlled by the Cumans were actually pretty vast! And well, even the refugee Cumans easily displaced Vlachs when they needed to, so that’s just a good point about why adding Vlach civ would be a really poor choice.
A kingdom that lasted for centuries, despite being close to much more powerful adversaries…or one of the most famous Admirals in Naval history…
I don’t know enough about Vietnamese history to tell you, but I am glad it was included, it’s nice to get civs from all regions of the world, rather than start adding migrational tribes mostly concerned with herding their livestock.