Age of Empires IV: Raiders of the North

[GorbMort]

@Dreamer19

They could add Spanish and Viking with no problem and nobody would’ve complained about it.

Rule #1 of the Internet: somebody always complains. This is not a convincing argument

@Dreamer19

The Spanish are a much more important civ than Scots.

You should really take care to understand that what you personally prefer, or what even a number of people prefer, does not translate into anything objectively. If you could even rate civilisations objectively in the first place?

History is important, and Scotland is both well-known, and has a good amount of unique culture to represent.

This doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t also want Spain in, but honestly the pairing of Vikings (even pop culture Vikings) and the Scots makes more sense than the Vikings and Spain. Spain and Mesoamerican civs would be a good pairing.

[TheLiberator236]

@Dreamer19

No need to bring politics to the topic, regarding Nationalism and such. So, if they add the civ that you personally want, you automatically become an ignorant Nationalist? That’s not serious.

Thats AoE III for that hehe

[smiki5five]

@Blast9867

Now looking at Timurids, that would be a variant of the Mongols

I’m not sure NGL. Timurid Empire was basically Turco-Mongol-Persian, tough to pick what civ should it be variant of. One could even argue for Sogdia, because Timur ruled from Samarkand.

[MedicMaaan]

@Dreamer19

They could add Spanish and Viking with no problem and nobody would’ve complained about it.

Never underestimate this fanbases ability to complain!

[Dreamer19]

Rule #1 of the Internet: somebody always complains. This is not a convincing argument

You should really take care to understand that what you personally prefer, or what even a number of people prefer, does not translate into anything objectively. If you could even rate civilisations objectively in the first place?

Of course, people can keep complaining no matter what you do, the thing is if they complain rightfully or not.

What is objective is, what are the most expected civs, based through player feedback on this forum, and Scots are not one of them.

The Pairing argument isn’t convicing too, since on the Sultans Ascend DLC, Japanese and Bizantines got added, and they’re completely different.

[GorbMort]

@Dreamer19

Of course, people can keep complaining no matter what you do, the thing is if they complain rightfully or not.

There is no “rightfully” or not. There are just opinions. Someone wanting Scotland is just as valid as someone wanting Spain.

@Dreamer19

What is objective is, what are the most expected civs, based through player feedback on this forum, and Scots are not one of them.

Something I’m sure the devs are well aware of. I’m not a fan of appeals to popularity, but it makes sense given that interest ties into DLC sales.

However, there’s no need to put down the Scots, or object to the people who might want them, just because you didn’t get your choice.

@Dreamer19

The Pairing argument isn’t convicing too, since on the Sultans Ascend DLC, Japanese and Bizantines got added, and they’re completely different.

The Sultans Ascend is named after the campaign, and not the civilisations that arrived alongside. But even if it wasn’t, is the idea of pairing civs not a good one?

[cs-mark]

My issue is why have vikings with no campaign to follow it? There are plenty of stories they could put in a campaign

[MatM1996]

@Dreamer19

Not to mention, that they said when the dlc got announced some months ago " …including The Vikings, which we know you’ve been asking for " What about the Spanish then? It is the MOST requested civ for more than 1 year.

@Dreamer19

We’ve been asking for the Spanish for years, for its relevance on the AOE “Universe” and its Historical weight. Besides, all other European powers are included already in the game, so the Spanish should be in the game.

They must be saving it for a Reconquista DLC (Spanish and Berbers) or a New World/The Conquerors 2.0 DLC (Spanish, Aztecs and maybe Koreans)…

@cs-mark

My issue is why have vikings with no campaign to follow it? There are plenty of stories they could put in a campaign

Yes, that’s strange, but it must be because they’ve already launched a campaign and it takes them time to do them…at least now we could see a Viking campaign against Scotland and maybe Anglo-Saxon England (the same as the Norman campaign)…

[IchinoseShiki00]

This just made me realize something: it means I can finally play as Ulfric and kick Tullius’s ass!

[SamuelWallace17]

@Dreamer19

What the players need it’s to be heard and listened, adding a civ that doesn’t even have a single vote on polls is dissapointing and completely pointless. Of course I like that they add a new civ, but it isn’t what the players wanted.

They could add Spanish and Viking with no problem and nobody would’ve complained about it.

The Spanish are a much more important civ than Scots.

Honestly, Scotland is still fine. The bottleneck is usually just their slow production output.

Scotland isn’t the reason Spain hasn’t been released yet, as there’s no real conflict between them. The bottom line is, we simply need more content.

It’s not just the highly anticipated new civs. We also have the HRE and JDA reworks, as well as the adjustments to Chinese Spirit Way & Dynasty Units. There are just so many updates that are long overdue and have been delayed for way too long.

[GoldenArmorX]

@cs-mark

My issue is why have vikings with no campaign to follow it? There are plenty of stories they could put in a campaign

Well, in Age of Empires II there aren’t exactly long campaigns of Vikings either (6 levels).

In any case, the Norse Sagas from the last DLC, “Victor and Vanquised,” were pretty great.

I suppose a long campaign would require more civilizations:

• I mean, if they made one with the biggest Viking conquests:
• Ragnar Lothbrok’s raids
• The Great Heathen Army invasion of England
• The Sack of Paris
• The invasion of Scotland, the Kingdom of the Alba
• The unification of Norway
• The siege of Constantinople by Kievan Rus’ in 860, or 907, and the formation of the Varangian Guard.
• The attempt to assassinate the Pope in Italy, but they went for the wrong castle (that was funny).
• The burning of Seville in Al-Andalus.
• The Christianization of the Vikings after the Battle of Svolder in 1000 AD.
• Norway’s participation in the Crusades.

At least Al-Andalus, the Italian League, and Spain are missing; because Byzantines, French, Scots, and English are already included.

There’s a lot to tell, but yes, there’s plenty of material for campaigns.

That said, I’d prefer to see the civilization as it really is, when it’s released, to know what campaigns could be done with it.

[MatM1996]

Yes, I think they’ll wait to release a Viking campaign until they’ve finished a couple more civilizations…

Act 1: A Raven Sacks on a Tree (793)

1. The Sack of Lindisfarne (793): Vikings vs. Anglo-Saxon England (only serves as a prologue setting)

Act 2: The Great Sagas (845-872)

2. The Tale of Ragnar Lodbrok (845-867): Vikings vs. Scots, Anglo-Saxons, and French (perhaps there’s a secondary objective of sending Rurik to Eastern Europe to establish Kievan Rus’ and gain at least a minor ally to attack the French by sea)

3. Ironside in the Mediterranean (859): Vikings vs. Abbasids, Byzantines, and French

4. The Unification of Norway (870-872): Vikings vs. Vikings and maybe Scots

Act 3: The North Sea Empire (1000-1066)

5. Vinlandsaga (1000): Vikings vs. Scots and Anglo-Saxon England, and maybe surprisingly… Mississippians

6. The Battle of Assandun (1016): Vikings vs. Anglo-Saxon England

7. The Battle of Helgeå (1026): Vikings vs. Vikings

8. The Battle of Fulford (1066): Vikings vs. Anglo-Saxon England

And that’s where you connect with the Norman campaign…

[cs-mark]

You’ve listed many campaigns they could make, the next dlc of there is one will be something else and I do t see them making Viking’s campaign as this is worlds edge we are talking about who make weird decisions

[CouguarLoup7693]

Good to see the Vikings and the Scots instead of the spanish. I think it’s better to keep the spanish for another DLC because Viking and spanish are not very related, in contrast the viking raided Scotland many time. Releasing spanish with related civilizations like the moor, aztec or maya in another DLC is better.

Also nice variation of the sacred site with erected stone. And the viking are not a copy paste of the varangian unit of the macedonian dynasty. The intro of the trailer also is very good (a viking axe in flame)

More fauna please

The next DLC Raider of the north will add a tundra biome. In this biome could you put reindeer instead of deer, please.

[TheLiberator236]

Very interesting approach

[MatM1996]

@CouguarLoup7693

Good to see the Vikings and the Scots instead of the spanish. I think it’s better to keep the spanish for another DLC because Viking and spanish are not very related, in contrast the viking raided Scotland many time. Releasing spanish with related civilizations like the moor, aztec or maya in another DLC is better.

Yes, now a DLC like The Conquerors for AoE 4 has more possibilities: Aztecs and Spanish, and maybe Magyars (since the Huns are very ancient) and Koreans to defend you against the Japanese in a new Noryang Point historical battle…

[smiki5five]

Don’t post slop images plz

[MatM1996]

Relax… It’s just a concept; obviously, we all expect something better made…

[RadiatingBlade]

It’s the first time in awhile that I have been genuinely interested in DLC for this franchise. Let them cook.

[TheLiberator236]

Same it could be simply astonishing

We have to wait!