Can add alamani and make a swiss civi over them.
Okay, but when they don’t voice their opinion, there’s no way to know, nor much of a reason to care what it is. This forum and reddit are at least far more visible to the devs then some mysterious “majority” that might want something but never bothers to ask for it. There have already been several examples of devs using ideas that started here or on reddit, and it’s reasonable to extrapolate that a lot of “unknown” players will share similar opinions to those here and on reddit.
It’s not that hard to get some sense of it. People have been making civ concepts for many years, and (aside from the technicalities of design) the most common reason I’ve seen to have a civ not be received well is for it to be well outside the current timeline. Yes, there are a few people who are passionate about civs like Sioux or ancient Romans, but every indication points to them being very much in the minority.
I wouldn’t think of this as a timeline expansion nearly so much as the devs playing fast and loose with unique units, as they’ve done with some others (Woad Raider, Persian Eles). The Bengali civ still largely represents the medieval Bengalis/Palas, and the fact that even the historical Ratha existed a couple hundred years into the current timeline is sufficient justification for adding a novel unit type.
We also can’t rule out an advanced intergalactic empire of space monkeys invading Earth later today, but my experience leads me to believe it’s a vanishingly small possibility.
And those returns diminish even more when you try to add civs that fail to meet what many consider to be an essential criterion (timeline).
And things that are “too different” can also push players away.
You seem to be getting a lot of mileage out of the word “ancient.” Consider also the impermanence implied by “inviting to hang out.” To me this strongly implies either an event/mod, or new scenarios or scenario objects where AoE1 units/objects can interact within an AoE2 framework, although in a very limited and constrained way, not as a full ancient civ.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece about this and I don’t really find further speculation very interesting at this point. Feel free to say “I told you so” if they legitimately add a (non Goth-adjacent) ancient civ or 2, and I might exercise the same privilege when they don’t. Either way, just gotta wait, but I have to say the current caretaking of the game (Bugs, Balance) doesn’t exactly have me primed to be blown away by whatever the “roadmap” will end up referring to.
The devs have an eye on the “invisible” part of the player base more then a lot of hardcore fans do. I think most here kinda have tunnel vision because they mostly interact with peoples like them.
That’s also why I can’t tell you what the majority thinks.
I know that very well. The added some of my suggestions to the game already, but I can’t tell if they actually got the idea from me after all.
That makes sense because there aren’t many other objective criticism you can have. Also randomly adding 1-2 civilisations outside of the timeline in nothing that I could see them doing.
An ancient expansion would need a whole set of new civilisations and other things. So that expansion within itself would be consistent.
That’s from AoK. They went kinda wild on unique units back then.
But at what point is this criterion outweighed by the popularity of those ancient civilisations? Also once you expanded the timeline every new ancient civilisation will then meat the timeline criterion.
That’s why I said before that they couldn’t just add 1-2 in a small DLC.
I agree that this is more likely.
It is definitely wishful thinking of me to hope they’ll port AoE1.
I don’t think that’s likely at all. I don’t expect civs like the Vandals to be added.
If they are slow right now and they didn’t reduce the team size they must be working on something.
Or the bugs they try to tackle are just very hard to deal with.
There is no reason to assume that any game developer just gets “lazy”.
How do you suppose they do that?
- People message the devs directly, write mails and stuff like that.
- They pay people to look for player feedback and try to find out what people think.
- Reactions on many other platforms out there.
- Focus group tests.
And some other methods I don’t know.
I mean they have people that are being payed to do that, I hope they are better at that then me.
Sure, if these were to become demonstrably and wildly popular, extending the timeline would theoretically be a possibility. But I see incredibly scant evidence for that. Again, I don’t have all the information with regards to what the player base wants, but all the information I do have points to Medieval-era civs being significantly more popular than ancient civs.
Neither do I. I only brought it up because I’ve seen civ ideas for them being somewhat well received despite the iffy timeline, because of their cultural and temporal adjacency to civs that are already in game.
Not lazy, but they’ve been shown to have priorities I’d consider questionable, like focusing on graphic mods nobody asked for, while leaving huge bugs unfixed for months. As well as (apparently) practices like hiring freelancers, which is convenient, but inevitably leads to bugs as people without extensive knowledge of how the engine works frequently break things unintentionally, and seem not to document or transfer essential info sufficiently. (Also their lack of robust testing before releasing an update has already been shown several times this year.)
Armenians are ancient and medieval.
Western Roman Empire and Papal States have nothing to do with eacho other
2 Likes
Bavarians and Saxons are better options for AoE 2 than definitely late ancient/ early medieval Alemanni.
1 Like
The Alan’s aren’t even that ancient. Sure some migrated all the way through Europe and into Carthage in the Dark ages but the Kingdom of Alannia lasted until the 1200s when Mongols smacked them out of existence.
2 Likes
You don’t really understand what DLC stands for, do you?
You don’t really understand what different games are, do you?
(Since we’ve chosen the petty route)
5 Likes
Let’s have Yamato civ as well just like other guys calling for AoE1 Euro civs in AoE2.
Of course, instead of redoing AoE 1 DE in AoE 2 DE, it would be best to improve AoE 1 DE and that’s it…
Yes, but by that time it enters the exclusive period of AoE 3 (1600-1900)…
I share the proposition…
Of course, I would add the Aztecs and Incas…
Of course, I prefer a dlc in the Caucasus than to put AoE 1 DE in the 2 DE…
The former has already been done, and the latter will not be done until at least 2025 xd…
Sure, Nubians can be…you put the technologies of the three Nubians kingdoms and a campaign that deals with the establishment of the sultanate of Sennar in 1504…
Another meso civ more…
Yes, what need to bring civs of aoe 3 in aoe 2 just to make it more cumbersome with the chronology…
Na, if ES set the end of the chronology of AoE 2 in 1598 it was because from the seventeenth century the technology of gunpowder was standardized… an AoE 2 so late would make it an AoE 3 only without musketeers… for post-Renaissance conflicts, you already have the historical maps of AoE 3…
Of course, there goes the issue… you do not have to put all the eggs in one basket, but improve all the games at once, putting more African civs in AoE 3 you would not need to put them also in AoE 2 unless they are exclusively medieval…
Because Yamato is from Late Antiquity (250-710 AD) that’s why it feels so “medieval” so to speak, besides that Japan did not change much in hundreds of years, until 1560 they continued to fight as in antiquity and in 1868, when the Tokugawa Shogunate fell they were still in feudalism when the rest of the world was industrializing on a large scale…
They put as civs the revolutions of the USA and Mexico, they put two entire continents like Africa and Europe, they put CoH or CnC type ranks that improves the precision of the European Natives units, the Lakota now move their buildings like the Mongols of AoE 4, many skins and customizations for the civs that did not have them (Native and Asian) and a long etcetera…
Yes, in addition the Middle Ages is very seen in popular culture and in the saga not even said (AoE 2, Age of Kings DS, Castle Siege, World Domination and now AoE 4) … Stop a little, change a little atmosphere, that there is no other historical period or what?..there are five medieval games, then you have only two games in antiquity (AoE 1 and AoEO), one in mythology (AoM) and one in the colonial period (AoE 3)…
Yes, Tamar of Georgia and Ashot I/III of Armenia…
No, only AoE 4…
1 Like
The Alemannic people are still around today. Living In Germany, France and Switzerland and they still share a common culture.
But it’d be better to call the Swabians in the AoE2 context. This would include South West Germany, Alsace and Switzerland.
Saxons make a lot of sense for AoE2. They could work as Norther Germans and as Anglo Saxons at the same time.
It’s strange that you fight the British in Viking scenarios and in Hastings (which is after the Viking Era) you fight Goths as Franks in England.
Both are mode “modern” then the Goths so I wouldn’t call them ancient.
The problem with AoE1 civs from outside of Europe is that they are even older. Mostly Bronze Age. That’s a whole different topic to add Summerians.
The most “modern” civilisations in AoE1 are Romans, Carthage, Macedonians and Yamato.
Wouldn’t that be the best way to improve 1?
Use the work that was done for AoE2DE to improve AoE1DE.
You know what meso means?
7 fires aren’t meso.
That’s not true. Japanese warfare evolved over time.
Especially the failed Mongol invasion changed their way of fighting a lot.
Why do you count the medieval mobile/DS games but not the Ancient, Mythological and Modern ones. AoM and AoE3 had mobile versions too.
If we only count PC RTS Antiquity has 3 (AoE1, AoM and AoEO), Middle Ages has 2 (AoE2 and AoE4) and Modern has 1 (AoE3).
I won’t deny that Middle Ages are popular but there are 2 Medieval games actively supported (AoE2DE and AoE4) but none ancient one.
And there sure are a lot of Antiquity fans. Even just Rome fanboy alone.
1 Like
Put doors and make it possible to trade resources with the market…
Yes I know, I say they would be “like” a meso civ…the Incas are not a meso civ either, but they are handled as such…
I said it didn’t change much, not that it didn’t change anything… during medieval Japan you had the samurai and later during the Sengoku period, the ninjas (or shinobis) and already with the arrival of the Portuguese in 1543, the tanegashima (arcabuz in Japanese) and the ashigarus until the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1603 isolated it 250 years from the world…
That is true, but from 2010 to date we had 4 medieval AoE (AoE 2 HD / DE, Castle Siege, World Domination, AoE 4 and another that they are going to launch in China that is in development that would make 5 medieval AoE), in Antiquity we only had 2 AoE (AoEO and AoE 1 DE; one closed it in 3 years with unlanched content and the other did not give it new content), a mythological one (AoM EE with a lazy and unbalanced Chinese expansion, there is not even announced an DE version for this year) and a colonial one (AoE 3 DE, which many said did not even deserve a DE version)…
When the Sicilian were introduced instead of Swiss, I believed it’s a sign that the dev was rejecting the Swiss as well as any new civ able to represent them more specificly. Otherwise, you’d be hard-pressed to believe they dropped the great pairing of Burgundians + Swiss. Although it doesn’t mean that such a decision was wrong.
The Goths originated in southern Scandinavia, northern Germany and northern Poland.
The Huskarl actually refer to the Housecarl in Scandinavia and especially Anglo-Saxon England.
The Gothic civilization in the game is a good representation of them, and I don’t think a new civilization is needed at all for this.
2 Likes
Eh, Goths end up being used over a huge swath of territory from Italy and Spain to England to Central Europe such that you can make a good argument to further differentiate some of those representations via (Anglo)Saxons or Suebians or something. Even a Visigoth/Ostrogoth split would make some sense if they decided to focus on the earliest era featured in game. For the record, I don’t think this is necessary at all, and certainly isn’t a priority, but it would at least be nice to have some relevant editor units, like an actual Housecarl unit with a Dane axe, a Seax warrior, Alan or Vandal cavalry, and maybe renaming the Gothic UU to something actually Gothic, like Gadrauhts.
1 Like
Personally id rather see medieval units like mounted xbow flailman or even meso or african units rather than these.We already have similar looking units in the editor already.
We need a Varangian Guardsman, Macemen, Cranequin (mounted crossbowmen replacing cav archers for Western European civs who have them) and more more Editor units, and female units. And a Pope/Bishop unit
2 Likes
If we really need an ancient European civilization, rather than split into Ostrogoths and Visigoths, I prefer to see a Vandal civilization with Alan cavalry as UU, similar to the Cumans with Kipchak as UU. Whether or not Roman civilization is also part of the DLC, at least the Vandals may bring more interesting and fresh content, such as naval and North African elements.