I’d love if at least the Danes got a high medieval campaign based on Queen Margaret and the creation of the Kalmar Union. Such an underappreciated piece of history.
Valdemar II Valdemar II of Denmark - Wikipedia would also be fitting. For the “Vikings” aka Norse I would love to see Norwegian Crusade - Wikipedia as a campaign. And for later down the line - if they are ever made - the Aragonese - the story of Roger de Flor Roger de Flor - Wikipedia and the Great Catalan Company Catalan Company - Wikipedia . AMAZING. They need to correct this ASAP and do as much damage control as possible before release - just rename the Vikings to Norse, and Varangians to Swedes - they will have 3 civs with the same type of military system with no real difference in gameplay what so ever but OK - at least the naming is more relevant.
EDIT : I am actually OK with Varangians now as it is a civ that clearly is a reference to the Scandinavians, predominantly from Sweden, that went and settled in the east. Would work well with Slav split later if it would ever become Muscovites, Novgorodians, and Ruthenians (Kievan Rus)… as I have proposed.
1 Like
Yes, I thought that if they included the Danes and Swedes in a Norse DLC, the campaign would have been about Margaret I founding the Kalmar Union in 1397, and on the other hand, the Swedish campaign would have been about Gustav Vasa ending it in 1523, fighting with gunpowder and all… oh well, now it’ll just be for AoE 4…
1 Like
Yes, it seems that the three new civs are not meant to represent post-Viking age periods. Not only that. There won’t be a specific campaign for the Vinkings civ as it is already included in these three new campaigns. I guess four dedicated campaigns were too much.
I can think of two campaigns involving the Swedes that are more interesting than Gustav Vasa - Engelbrekts rebellion in the 1430s I believe it was, and also the revolt of Nils Dacke in the south against the oppression by Vasa.. yet if we talk about Sweden as an entity perhaps the most fitting would be the wars against Novgorod and the Muscovites : Tott's Russian wars - Wikipedia, Russo-Swedish War (1495–1497) - Wikipedia , famous event of this latter war : Viborg Bang - Wikipedia . Beyond this if you want a campaign of a Swedish statesman - then it is naturally the wars of Sten Sture the Elder, culminating in the battle of Brunkeberg Battle of Brunkeberg - Wikipedia . There were continued hostilities and warfare between Sweden and Denmark, you have the battle of Rotebro in 1497 and various sacks and sieges of fortifications in what is today Finland, back then the collective eastern provinces of Sweden proper.
1 Like
Them being in the Viking Age is one thing, but following one character is rough. Unless you shift to his opponents, this is going to be hard to pull off.
Yes, we had Alexander for 16 levels. But that one wasn’t switching civs between them, it was very clear what we were getting from the start with him. Plus the acting was phenomenal. I am not sure if the main team are fully up to the task.
6 Likes
I found that following only Alexander was too long and boring. Especially with so few scenarios dedicated to Puru and Thracians.
So, I’m happy we get multiple occasions to play in campaigns Varangians, Saxons, Danes and Vikings. Finally somewhat a campaign for them. Maybe scenarios of one civ should be group in an individual campaign, I need to play it to be sure.
I have a hunch some, such as the parts of the last campaign where you play as Saxons, will be switching to his opponents, but still I agree following one character is rough, in fact i’ll say I hate it; it’s the one major complaint I have from the info we have so far. I’d rather see different people explored, even if they are all from the Viking Age.
I think making a regular 6-scenerio campaign for the current Vikings civ following Hardrada, and then 3 other scenerios that actually follow people from the other civs would have been my preferred outcome. But oh well; hopefully custom campaign makers can fill in those gaps. Just feels like a lot of missed opportunity.
2 Likes
Personnally I’m enjoying the path they choose, it’s not the Viking age, it’s the story of one guy through different place with different civs. I like that idea.
3 Likes
The Scythians should have been added as an additonal civ.
1 Like
The fact that only Harald Hardrada gets a Chronicles-style campaign and not Mongols with all the civs being added up to Mountain Royals feels like a joke tbh.
2 Likes
If they ever add Sogdians and split KhiTanguts, it’d be a great opportunity to make a Genghis megacampaign with all those Eurasian civs that were added throughout the years.
2 Likes
Yes, it’s too much…we’ve been asking for a Viking campaign all our lives and they slapped three on us at once…
Yes, those are good options too…in fact, the last Swedish rebellions of the 15th century ended up weakening the Kalmar Union…Sten Sture the Elder was Gustav Vasa’s great-uncle…
Yes, it should have been a bit easier… the Viking campaign with 6 scenarios featuring Harald Hardrada, the Saxon campaign with 6 scenarios featuring Harold Godwinson (or Alfred the Great), the Varangian campaign with Rurik, Oleg, and Igor creating Kievan Rus’ and fighting for and against the Byzantines, and the Danish campaign with Ragnar, or to change things up a bit, Margaret I… with that, you already cover quite a bit of the Viking Age and the rise of the Kalmar Union (865-1066/1397)…
Yes, it’s like Arkantos/FotT’ campaign in AoM…
Yes, but they were very far north…
1 Like
Not true. Sogdia or Black Sea Scythia or the Caucasus is not very far north. The Gauls and Germans will be coming soon anyway.
1 Like
Yes, that could be it…we urgently need Gauls and Germans against the Romans…
2 Likes
The Norwegian Crusade Norwegian Crusade - Wikipedia would be an epic campaign as well.
One area I have thought a lot about is how the German-speaking world should be represented in Age of Empires II. In my opinion, this is a perfect example of why civilizations should not simply be based on modern countries, but rather on historical identities, military systems, political entities, and gameplay differences.
The idea behind my proposed German civilization is to create an umbrella civilization representing the German world from the end of the Migration Period—roughly coinciding with the fall of the Western Roman Empire—through the Holy Roman Empire.
Judging by the latest DLC, however, it seems increasingly likely that the developers are reluctant to significantly alter the original civilizations. The positive aspect is that they still appear committed to adding more historically focused and specialized civilizations alongside the legacy roster rather than necessarily replacing anything.
Historically, the medieval German world developed around several major stem peoples and duchies: the Alemanni, Bavarii, Franks, and Saxons, with the Thuringians also being an important German people despite not traditionally being counted among the stem duchies.
These groups also formed the foundations of many later German-speaking regions. The Alemanni became the ancestors of the Swabians and heavily influenced what are today the Swiss Germans and Alsatians. The Bavarii formed the Duchy of Bavaria, from which the Eastern March (Marcha Orientalis) eventually developed into Austria, meaning Austria is fundamentally Bavarian in origin. The Franks created the Frankish heartlands of Franconia and played a major role in shaping Lotharingia (Lorraine), while Frankish settlement and influence extended into much of what is now the Netherlands, alongside Frisian and Saxon influences. The Saxons expanded eastward during the Ostsiedlung, leaving a major mark across northern Germany and the eastern German settlements.
Because of this, I have also advocated for a standalone Saxon civilization. This would represent the Saxons from the Migration Period through the medieval period, including their role in German expansion eastward and the settlement of regions such as Transylvania.
The other major standalone civilization from the greater German world, in my opinion, would be the Teutonic Order. This could have a more fitting name such as Deutschorden or Deutschritter, although Prussians could also be considered, keeping in mind that the later Prussian state became something very different from the original Baltic Prussians conquered by the Order.
The Teutonic Order was not exclusively Saxon, as it recruited knights from across the Holy Roman Empire. However, it developed very strong connections with the North German and Saxon sphere. Much of the settlement of Prussia and Livonia during the Ostsiedlung came from northern German regions, the Order’s administration was heavily influenced by Low German culture, and its state became one of the major expressions of German expansion into the eastern Baltic.
This is why I see Saxons and the Teutonic Order as complementary rather than redundant. The Saxons represent a German people and cultural identity, while the Teutonic Order represents a military-religious institution and a unique historical state.
In my ideal scenario, the greater German heritage would ultimately be represented through several civilizations:
- Franks — already represented in the game.
- Germans — an umbrella civilization representing the wider medieval German world and the Holy Roman Empire.
- Saxons — representing the northern German sphere and eastward expansion.
- Swiss / Helvetians — representing their unique military system, revolutionary pike warfare, victories against the Habsburgs, and later dominance during the Burgundian Wars, where they established themselves as one of Europe’s most feared infantry powers.
- Teutonic Order — a dedicated military-religious state civilization, if separated from the current Teutons.
- Teutons — potentially remaining as the original legacy civilization for those attached to the classic AoE2 roster.
One could certainly argue for a standalone Bavarian civilization as well, considering Bavaria’s importance and its role in the origins of Austria. Personally, however, I think Bavaria fits better within the broader German umbrella rather than as its own civilization.
The same philosophy is what I would apply to the British Isles and Celtic world.
I have previously proposed reworking the current Britons into English, representing Plantagenet England, the Hundred Years’ War, and the unique military system and culture that developed around the English longbow, medieval armies, and English state formation.
The current Celts could then be divided into more historically focused civilizations:
- Gaels — representing the Scots and Irish, with their own Gaelic political traditions, clan structures, and styles of warfare.
- Brythons — representing the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons of Brittany, who share a Brythonic heritage but developed their own medieval identities.
- Gauls/Gallics — not as an ancient Gaul civilization, but rather representing the Gallo-Roman populations of post-Roman Gaul from roughly the 5th century onward. This would represent the continuity between Roman Gaul and the early medieval societies that developed after the collapse of Roman authority, including the foundations of regions such as Aquitaine, Occitania, and other parts of what became France.
In this sense, a Gallic/Gallo-Roman civilization would not be about recreating Julius Caesar’s Gauls, but rather about representing the transition from the late Roman world into the early medieval period and the cultural survival of Romanized populations in Gaul.
Another important aspect is that these civilizations would not exist in isolation. They would create natural historical and gameplay connections with the existing roster.
A Gaul/Gallo-Roman civilization would naturally complement the Franks, as the Franks emerged within the post-Roman world of Gaul and eventually became the dominant power that shaped medieval France. They would also interact well historically with the Romans, Goths, and even the Huns, representing the transition from the late Roman world into the early medieval period and the migrations that reshaped Europe.
The Franks would also connect naturally with the proposed Saxons, through the Carolingian period, Frankish expansion, and the development of the Holy Roman Empire.
The Saxons would create strong connections with the Brythons, representing the Anglo-Saxon migrations and the conflicts between Germanic settlers and the Brittonic peoples of Britain. They would also naturally connect with Scandinavian civilizations through the Viking Age, Danish invasions, and centuries of interaction across the North Sea.
This also opens the possibility for a future Norman civilization. The Normans are one of the clearest examples of a historically distinct medieval identity: descendants of Scandinavian settlers in Normandy who gradually intermixed with the local Gallo-Roman and Frankish populations, adopting the language, customs, and especially the mounted warrior culture of their Frankish neighbors while retaining much of the Norse martial spirit, ambition, and expansionist mindset.
The Normans were not simply “Vikings in France”; they became something new — a hybrid civilization combining Scandinavian origins, Frankish feudal structures, and a highly effective mounted military tradition that allowed them to establish states across Europe and the Mediterranean.
A Norman civilization could represent their rise from roughly the 10th century onward, their transformation from Viking settlers into a powerful feudal military society, their conquest of England in 1066, their expansion into southern Italy and Sicily, and their dominance as one of medieval Europe’s most influential warrior cultures during the 11th and 12th centuries.
The current Sicilians could then represent the later Italo/Siculo-Norman multicultural Kingdom of Sicily and the broader southern Italian sphere that was heavily dominated by the Kingdom of Sicily during the medieval period. This civilization would represent the unique fusion created by Norman rulers who governed over Latin, Greek Byzantine, and Islamic populations, producing one of medieval Europe’s most culturally diverse and advanced kingdoms.
In that sense, a Norman civilization and a Sicilian civilization would complement each other rather than overlap:
- Normans — representing the Scandinavian-descended warrior elite that emerged in Normandy, adopted Frankish feudal culture, developed a powerful cavalry tradition, and expanded across Europe and the Mediterranean.
- Sicilians — representing the Italo/Siculo-Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the multicultural southern Italian state created through Norman conquest and integration, with its unique Latin, Byzantine, and Islamic influences.
This distinction would allow both civilizations to have their own identity. The Normans represent the conquering and expansionist military culture that spread from Normandy, while the Sicilians represent the mature Mediterranean kingdom that emerged from those conquests.
Ultimately, my view is that the future of AoE2 does not need to be about replacing the classic civilizations. The developers can preserve the legacy roster while gradually introducing more specialized civilizations that better represent the different peoples, military traditions, political entities, and historical relationships that existed during the medieval period.
The goal should not simply be adding more names to the game. The goal should be creating civilizations that feel historically meaningful, mechanically distinct, and capable of telling new stories through campaigns and gameplay.
A strong civilization roster should feel like a connected historical ecosystem, where civilizations naturally interact with each other rather than existing as isolated additions.
Yes, it was like a blend of the two worlds, Norse and Crusader… if the North Sea Empire had survived, Sigurd I would be compared to Richard the Lionheart today… imagine Christianized berserkers alongside the Crusaders fighting against the Arabs and Sigurd defending Acre…
2 Likes
Well, the fascinating thing is that the Norwegians were still deeply rooted in their Norse martial traditions at this point. Many were either recently converted to Christianity or came from a society still undergoing that transition, yet they followed their king, Sigurd Jorsalfare, who had taken the cross and committed himself to the Crusading movement.
What is remarkable is how effective this expedition was militarily. The Norwegian Crusade did not experience the kind of major disasters or prolonged failures that many other Crusades suffered. They defeated opponents across their route, fought successfully in Iberia and the Mediterranean, and gained a reputation as an extremely formidable warrior force. It was one of the clearest examples of Scandinavian warrior traditions merging with the new Christian crusading ideal.
Another fascinating aspect is that some of the Norwegians who participated did not simply return home afterward. Like many Scandinavians of the period, some chose to enter the service of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor, continuing the long tradition of Scandinavians serving as elite mercenaries in Constantinople. This shows the gradual transformation of the “Viking” warrior culture into the professional military traditions of medieval Scandinavia and the wider European world.
Of course, it seems strange to me that with such a successful precedent, successive Nordic kings didn’t decide to join the other European kings in the subsequent crusades against the Arabs, but no… they decided to fight among themselves or against Norgorod and all of Rus’… it’s like what happened in the Modern Age, when everyone was fighting against the Ottomans (1529, 1571, 1683), but they were fighting among themselves or against the Tsardom of Russia (1554-1790)…
2 Likes
Yes, in ROR or Chronicles
1 Like