Yeah, all of the articles, websites and records about Medieval Romania and Wallachia are created by the fiction writers.
My comparison with the Aztecs was for your argument about the population. And I told you, how much the population is not the point.
If you wanna judge a civ by the construction, fine.
Who build the wonder of the Huns and Cumans? Where is the real one of the wonder of the Mongols? Even there are the Sucevița Monastery, Cozia Monastery, Curtea de Argeș Cathedral, … to be the candidates of the Vlach wonder.
You have to learn that it is not an only standard.
Lots less advanced than the people having no iron and composite bow. Well.
The example of the Celts, Cumans, Koreans and Vietnamese I stated did not mean that they are not qualified to be introduced as a civ, but mean that even if they were clearly weaker than others and some of them finally lost their countries, they still had the chance after the stronger civs were introduced.
How many years their kingdoms were, how many people there, how splendid the buildings they constructed, how legendary their battles look, how they impacted the region or the world, etc. All these are the standards for ranking the priority. You may read the local data by yourself more easily and consider they should be lower priority, I would agree. However, their chance should not be rejected, especially they actually had enough detailed records.
Battle of Noryang, December 1598.
At the end of AoE2 timeframe, still in the AoE2 timeframe.
Compare to the Arch of Constantine and an imaginary great tent, those even have no problem.
I even had not compared which one is better to be a civ between Aztecs and Vlachs.
I mentioned Aztecs to explain that the population is not the key point.
Wikipedia says their culture flourished from 800 to 1600, so a much more appropriate timeframe for AoE2 than AoE3.
That makes it older than the Slavs’ Wonder (1764), older than Turtle Ships (1592), and only a little newer than the Turks’ Wonder (1574). (Also older than Gol Gumbaz, which confusingly features in a campaign set about 500 years before it was built.)
The original construction seems to have been completed in 1526, which is within the AoE2 timeframe – although perhaps the current building is a 19th century reconstruction.
I’m not sure why this is relevant. It’s been in continuous use for over 600 years – of course it’s been renovated. Several of the existing Wonders have been renovated and/or extended, and the Japanese one has been completely rebuilt twice.
I mean, I’m not arguing in favour of adding Vlachs or Mississippians – just trying to correct what seems to be some misconceptions on your part.
And I’m really confused that you seem to be so defensive about Finns. What do you know about them that suggests they would make a good civ?
Very nice idea and proposal, adding Eastern Europan civs as DLC would be awesome, also new architectual sets will be dope, architectual reorganization is a must, it is really messed up right now.
I hope Serbs get introduced in AoE2 in some of the future expansions.
I also made one post regarding Serbian civ, but you already saw it
Let’s start with the fact that everyone has an opinion about the last 9 civs for AoE 2 (if this limit is seriously still valid). Since the creators in the last two DLCs focused on ordering Europe, it turns out that their priority is just ordering Europe. There is not much to compact at least this region of the world. A compromise of 3 new European civs (HRE Germans, Serbo-Croatians and Romanians) could be sufficient for this purpose. One more DLC and you would have peace with Europe.
The remaining 6 civs are three DLCs with two civs - one Caucasian, one Asian, and one African. Very little, but you have to compromise. If the limit were higher than 55, for example, then more non-European civs could be added - even more from America.
Serbs civ or Serbo-Croatians civ are the impetus for developers to create the Byzantine architecture set for them, Bulgarians civ and Byzantine civ.
The addition of a Caucasian civilisation group would make it worthwhile for a Byzantine build set - Byzantines, Armenians, Georgians and Bulgarians can use it.
This. Europe already is well repreaented, we should make our efforts to represent cultures from less represented regions that still have major powers left to represent.
A campaign with Belisarius,so we have a campaign in the sixth century (530-559),which is a century that has touched almost nothing in the game,except the historic battle of Bukhara (557),a campaign with Charlemagne in the eighth century (774-802) and a campaign with Muhammad in the seventh century (622-628),which is another century that was almost not touched,except for the historic battle of Dos Pilas (648)…
The issue is that the Swedes became independent as a nation in the sixteenth century and became a great power in the seventeenth century during the Thirty Years’ War…in addition the Nordic countries would be more or less represented by the Vikings…
Of course,they can be based on civilizations that have not been explored;for example the Bantu of Zimbabwe (1000-1450) and the Polynesians of the Tui Tonga Empire (1200-1500)…
romania was formed in 1859, which is way over the aoe2 timeline, vlachs or moldavians are the perfect historical names
not a bad UU thou Hospodar means a man who works around the house doing chores, so not rlly a good name, personally, a UU infantry that is as faster or faster as a trade card called Haiduc which can steal the gold inside is more apropriate
yea sure,why not, thou not sure they need it
the arges monastery is also intresting and i think better fitting
it is fine even thou dracula never set foot in the castle itself
no vlach campaign? how about stephen the great (vlad’s cousin), mircea the elder (his grandfather) or a historical battle with Basarab I (the founderer of independent Wallachia)
