I typically don’t go too much into the weeds of historical accuracy.
AoE2 is a game that should first and formost be fun.
Civs represent more than a specific slice of history. Many try depicting a larger range of a civilization’s history.
That being said, these three examples are just too blatant, too obvious, too silly to ignore. They don’t ruin gameplay, but IMO make no sense.
Goths have the hand cannoneer. Easily one of the three oldest civs in the game, why do they have access to the hand cannoneer? Perhaps the need an answer to high PA units but maybe the scorpion could be utilized instead.
Vikings have the Cannon Galleon (and Elite Cannon Galleon). I realize this plays into their identity as a naval civ, but even the Sicilians (descended from Normans who themselves are descended from Vikings) don’t have the Elite Cannon Galleon. We have the dromon now. It is much better against other ships than the cannon galleon, so admittedly it might make vikings too good on water, even if less good at clearing coastal fortifications.
Huns not only have Central European Architecture, but also don’t have the steppe lancer. For the OG steppe civ, that seems hard to ignore. Not like the huns needed another cavalry/raiding option but it makes no sense for them not to have access to it.
Which architecture you think Huns should have? I think they could add a late Roman/byzantine (?) set to share with Goths and well Romans/maybe byzantines. And other late ancient civs if they’ll add like vandals.
About the dromon I consider it the sea bombard but they could add a more generic catapult ship to give to every non gunpowder civ (not just early Mediterranean) to use like a trebuchet. I implemented it in my custom campaigns and I think it could work!
The Goths representing the Spanish might have been a reasonable argument back in AoK when we didn’t have the spanish, but either way the connection is quite tenuous. I think it’d be similar to argue that the Romans should have hand cannons because eventually the italians had hand cannons.
I’ll admit that wasn’t something I’d considered, so yeah in '99 maybe it did make some sense for Goths to have hand cannons, but after AoC I think that’s pretty hard to argue.
I don’t think we need a new set. The game has plenty as is IMO. I’m indifferent if the Mongols stayed with East Asian or moved to Central Asian. East Asian is pretty nostalgic for mongols IMO. I think there is something with the design of the mangudai that really jives with the east asian castles. IDK exactly what it is. But from an intellectual, is this architecture more representative than that architecture, in regards to the mongols I don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Goths have HC because they need an alternative way to deal with enemy infantry, because the “overwhelm with numbers” strat doesn’t usually work against top level champs. Vikings also wouldn’t fit well with Dromons, which are very Mediterranean themed. Huns don’t need the Steppe Lancer, as it would just detract from their other options, and they would need an entirely new architecture set to be any better than what they have.
Not historical of course, but it makes alot of Gameplay sense for Goths to have gunpowder as: Cheap Infantry and decent Hussars synergize well with Gunpowder units, Gothic Infantry tends to struggle against Civs with strong Champions or UU Champ replacements which HCs help against. Removing Gunpowder would make Goths drastically less interesting
Why not scorpions? Devs seem to be pushing them. if they need it, give the a sorpuon bonus.
Cannon galleons are a bombard cannon on a ship. dromons are mangonels on a ship. Don’t really see what’s intrinsically Mediterranean about that. If you’re say the dromon is aesthetically too Mediterranean you might as well argue mongols shouldn’t get hussar cause the unit has wings and that’s Eastern European, not Mongolian.
I agree. They don’t NEED the steppe lancer. They’re plenty viable w/o. The mongols didn’t need the steppe lancer but they received it. As the games original steppe civ it made sense.
Doesn’t this fix your complaint? Goths runs till the cremean goths and stand in for slavs.Vikings are all Scandinavian countries not just viking era vikings.Huns representing hungary before the inclusion of magyars.
You aren’t wrong. There were some goths who were ethnically distinct in crimea until 1700-1800ish. However i feel this doesn’t really address the issue. From the civ design and from looking at when gothic kingdoms were most prominent it seems to me that the in game goths represent 1000AD at the latest and earlier. You could make a similar argument for at least half the civs that dont have hand cannon. Mongols, Vietnamese, and celts could get hand cannons cause they’re still literally around right now.
At the end of the day what is and isn’t too small or tenuous historically to include in a civs design is a personal judgement call, so if you think Crimean goths satisfactorily justify goths having hand cannons then that’s your opinion but I personally find that line of reasoning unpersuasive.
For similar reasons I find “Vikings are all Scandinavian countries.” Unpersuasive but again if that works for you there isn’t anything OBJECTIVELY wrong with that.
In regards to Hungary and the Huns, that connection isn’t supported by academia but from what I understand the idea is popular in Hungary for nationalistic and political reasons. So that IMO is a non-argument but YMMV.
Civs represent a range of their history, not a snapshot at a particular time. But I do think, especially a civs imperial age, should represent the civ during the range when that civ was most prominent, not a small vanishing distantly related diaspora a 1000 years removed and a continent away from said prominence. If the byzantines didn’t exist the you might as well give Romans the hand cannon cause 1000 years later a comparatively far more connected and prominent population of people who called themselves Romans, only half a continent away, used them. I’d find that argument unpersuasive and it’s far more persuasive than the goth example IMO.
Not sure that aoe2 civs are meant to represent a wide timespan. Some surely do like ######## ##### and Franks (and not many others, indeed they’re probably the ones you would easily split), but the majority of civs, like Turks, Sicilians, Burgundians, Britons, Koreans… seem to be designed to be quite specific.
I used to think Hun architecture being Eastern European was goofy, but now I realized something: the villagers for the Huns are supposed captives or serfs from the various Germanic peoples which the Huns absorbed into their Empire, like the Goths, Gepids, and Herulians. The Huns are a warrior people: leaving the work for their various subject peoples to carry out to back the Hunnic advance.
Probably. If that was the case I was very accurate with how I depict them in my custom campaign!
But to me a late Roman set would be even better for Huns since it would synergize better with their wonder. Goths would fit very well too and Romans should have the arch of Constantine as wonder instead of the amphitheatre which is not unique enough and it doesn’t fit the timeframe nor the theme of the civ.
I’d love to see a ruined Roman architecture for the Huns and Cumans to keep up with the theme with their wonders. Give the Central Asian architecture to the Persians.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying by virtue of each civ having access to the same four ages that anachronistic civ design is impossible? That eventually a civ could theoretically attain any tech so it’s only an artistic choice on the part of the devs which civs have access to what?
If that actually is your argument and I’m understanding it correctly, then I would ask if giving meso civs gunpowder, horse, camel, or elephant units would be anachronistic.
Don’t know about cumans since it’s a little late for a ruined late Roman architecture set, unless you encompass byzantines in this set which I’m not sure cause late western Roman architecture was pretty similar to early byzantine one but maybe they could get something more “orthodox looking” (since I think the current civ depicts mid to late byzantines except for the wonder) and that they could share with Caucasian civs and Bulgars?
Or maybe cumans could share a different nomad set with Mongols and gokturks and other nomad civs too late to join the Roman banquet if they will ever be added. At the latest Avars are a civ that I could see getting a ruined Roman architecture set.
A creative way to solve this issue and be more historical accurate would be to make civs able to shift architecture through ages!
Byzantines: late Roman architecture for the first two ages, then shift to a new orthodox one.
Huns: Asian nomad then Roman in the last two ages.
Avars: Asian nomad in dark age, late Roman and maybe Eastern European in imp only?
Gokturks: Asian nomad then central Asian and East Asian in imp only since the eastern gokturks survived longer.
Goths: central European till feudal then Roman.
Lombards: like goths but maybe with Mediterranean in imp to represent Benevento rump state in south Italy.
Vandals: this is like the four seasons lol: central European in dark age, western European in feudal, African in castle and maybe Roman in imp!
