Thats the reason they must share which variant they are planing to do before they start making.
what happened to 3DE is still a rather fresh wound from my point of view, as for sultans being best selling, i think we already debunked somewhere it couldn’t match the conquerors expansion of aoe2 in sales, because even aoe4 base game probably didn’t sell as well as conquerors did not counting base aoe2
will people be more willing to pay a markup to prevent aoe3 DE scenario from repeating, probably, but there’s no way of knowing how high they can still price the dlc before it crosses the line of reason for majority
I know; I’m dubious of that claim as well. But people keep parroting it as if it’s fact with no substantive evidence beyond a social media post.
In the WE era? sure I can buy that.
that doesn’t mean it didn’t sell well, i’d be lying if i said that, just not as crazy well as the actual best seller of the franchise
Hey yo all!
Please watch this video on hows, whys and so on!
What you are speculating (with a lot of sense, all said) they are not able to transmit it to people. Sincerity and straightforwardness are valued, maybe they think they are not, but they are valued, they do not have to fear any competition. What’s more, it would even be good for them to say how many civilizations there will be in a second DLC.
The issue is not the symmetry or asymmetry of the variant (which is fine that they can have better design as Knights Templar seems to have) but that there are 0 major civilizations with important names in this DLC after a year and a half.
The word variant is disliked by many, that there are only variants is disliked, no matter if it is more asymmetric than the previous ones, it is disliked that there is no main civ made from 0 in the first DLC. If there were 2 civs like Spain and Vikings, nobody would say anything at all, it is not necessary to have 6.
1 Like
Update (edit): Sorry I misunderstood what you wrote and wrote something else in response because I confused it with something another user wrote to me in another thread. Anyway, sorry, I’m leaving this space blank.
Take care.
I don’t know at what point I said don’t answer me.
The devs will say what they have to say publicly, not to me.
Interestingly, to me the variants don’t seem like a bad addition necessarily, but I’m also observant and know the opinions of a portion of the playerbase.
One thing you might look at from my main comment is the third point I criticize.
1 Like
So you still saying these two units have different skins? Well that just shows why you defending the latest low value content. They can simply re-use the existing asset change the cloth color and say, hey we got Persians, but they will re-use Abbasid civ’s buildings and units! But hey, they are different! They have different cloth colors on buildings and units. So they are completely different…
Basically this is you are supporting and I get it…!
AOE2 DE is toward the right direction, at least that’s what I think. Not sure about AOE4.
Huh??
The Khan hunter is also a different model from Mangudai, the only thing that is the same is the horse and their hat. Rest of outfit is different, saddle is different.
I’m not saying that to be controversial, they really are entirely different models with different faces, clothing, everything. It’s just the hat and horse that are the same, which makes sense because they are basically a mangudai.
1 Like
I was asked if I could tell the difference. I can tell the difference.
If you want to ask another question, then ask a different question.
1 Like
You think 500 BC achaemenid architecture is similar to medieval arabian architecture?
The Abbasid Dynasty in of itself is already a representation of that region for the era, though it doesn’t demonstrate the best expression of Persian architecture in of itself, but rather, the diffused merger of cultures post-islam. While the Abbasids did have Persian elites, the culture was still overwhelmingly arabian in nature, which heavily influenced the region. Just because there is an overlap in territory however, doesn’t mean you can imply that architecture from one peoples represent everyone in the region. A good example of what should be done is shown in AoE4 via the Byzantines.
Despite being the literal Romans, the Byzantines in the game leans more towards Greek influences to represent that portion of the culture. This is seen in architecture, voicelines and so on. You CAN focus on specific peoples despite an overlap of influences.
People wanting a Persian-like civilization for AoE4 would want them to embrace more of the Persian influences in architecture, music, language and so on. Simply because the architecture would’ve been somewhat similar, doesn’t mean you can just slap it on any middle eastern peoples and call it a day.
I enjoyed that they paid attention to even smaller details. Dark Age Delhi and Abbasids having similarish architecture but not identical for instance.
I’m sorry to say but, a variant, LITERALLY copy-pasting assets, is simply NOT THE SAME.
The Abbasid Caliphate is an empire ruled by a certain class that subjugated an entire region and had their conquered vassals act in their place.
Their main city was in Baghdad, Cairo, and many other places throughout history.
Yeah, Persian culture is not Abbasid culture, as the ruling class were from the Arabian peninsula. However, Persians were assimilated into the Abbasid Caliphate.
Ghulam literally translates to slave soldier.
Persians didn’t have an established empire in the time frame of the game. They would be a variant type, at best.
They regained their individual identity with the Safavid dynasty, existing only after 1501 CE. As an individual civ they would have to share an identity with Abbasids from dark age through castle age. That’s why the variant subtype of civs exist!
1 Like
It’s a deeply complex history being expressed in a modern video game, a simple one at that.
They have to take creative liberties because of this.
At some point we’re going to smooth over history to have a functional video game, and part of that is not being able to represent the Mawali struggle under the Umayyad dynasty, or the transition that the culture went through being converted from Zoroastrianism to Islam.
To tell the story of how Iran/Persia became what it did by the Imperial age you have to use their occupier as their identity in earlier ages.
That’s what it means to have a history of being conquered and subjugated.
An ideal depiction would maintain their cultural identity, obviously.
The variant subtype of civilizations is ideal to accomplish this. The Knights Templar have a strong French identity, but are comprised of several cultures because of their contributions to that order throughout history.
Obviously colonizers/conquerors != a civilization with thousands of years of history, but that’s why I’m trying to say this is a deeply complex discussion that cannot be fully represented in an Age of Empires video game.
That’s why it’s impossible to fulfill a request like this.
1 Like
No, it isn’t. You’re trying to say it’s justified to summarize peoples just like AoE2 because its cheaper. The very reason they’re doing variants is TO AVOID THIS. Variants are meant to be factions so that they don’t literally throw a whole peoples under the bus when reusing assets.
This is an awful take. Iranians don’t want to be represented by Abbasid assets.
THEY DON’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. This is coming from the mere assumption that they HAVE to make new civilizations. They DON’T. You DON’T have to accept them creating low effort trash that tramples on the authenticity of portraying real civilizations. But, you do anyways because you seemingly don’t care.
This is GENUINELY the worst thing I have read in these forums. Let me put it in simple terms. Do people’s cultures, ethnicities, architecture, art and history cease to exist the moment someone else helms the government? The answer is no. While Persians went on to be heavily influenced by the increasing presence of arab culture, they still existed in their own region influenced by other neighbours and peoples too, which had a different starting point and which still went on to develop differently despite said influence. Empires, kingdoms have multiple microcosms of cultures, and your willingness to throw whole identities under the bus just because they’re under ONE flag is unhinged.
No one is asking for a Persian “variant” of Abbasid. They want REAL Persian content.
AoE4 released with Delhi, a civilization that doesn’t entirely depict the kind of Indian state that Indians today would’ve wanted to see from medieval India. It actually caused quite some outrage when the game came out, as Indians wanted something Hindu to represent them.
With your logic, they should just make a Delhi variant of other Hindu states. What could possibly go wrong???
They. Don’t. Have. To. Make. Content. Like. This.
I’ve said this somewhere else. Allow me to say it again:
1 Like
Fuck it! Let these people have what they want.
You want Spain? You want Norse? You want Poles?
MAKE THEM VARIANTS OF FRENCH. DO IT. LET’S SEE YOUR ARGUMENTS HOLDING UP.
Let’s see just HOW “new” a civilization is just because they don’t share mechanics or bounses.
The answer is actually extremely complicated, as we are talking about a period of over 900 years. I’m also trying really hard to stay in a historical context, but this is what modern people across the planet are going through with de-colonization efforts. Some people who aren’t here anymore to talk about their culture, or people who are survivors of colonization and cultural genocide. The answer is actually yes, sometimes.
The Persian empire was removed from power around 661 CE. That was by the Umayyad Dynasty. The Umayyad oppression of the Persian people was instrumental to them assisting the Abbasid Caliphate rise to power to take the place of the Umayyads.
You can read more about these events here: Muslim conquest of Persia - Wikipedia
Here’s a quick breakdown of how the Persians then influenced the Abbasids:
1. Administrative and Political Integration
Reliance on Persian Expertise:
The Abbasids, who rose to power with the support of Persian converts, drew heavily on Persian administrative and bureaucratic systems.
Vizierate:
They established the position of vizier, a high-ranking official who acted as a chief minister, often filled by prominent Persian families.
Decline of Arab Aristocracy:
As Persian bureaucracy grew, the influence of the old Arab aristocracy diminished, and many caliphs became more ceremonial figures.
Persian Families in Power:
Persian families like the Barmakids and Buyids gained significant influence in the Abbasid court, shaping politics and policy.
2. Cultural and Intellectual Flourishing
Baghdad as a Cultural Hub:
The Abbasids chose Baghdad as their capital, which became a major center for learning, art, and intellectual development.
Translation Movement:
The Abbasid caliph Al-Ma’mun, known for his interest in scholarship, promoted the Translation Movement, which saw the translation of Greek and other classical works into Arabic.
Rise of Persian Literature:
Persian literature and culture experienced a revival, with the emergence of influential poets and writers like Rudaki, who flourished under the Samanid dynasty.
Influence of Persian Art and Style:
Iranian arts and professions, such as writing in Persian, knitting, and sewing, spread throughout the Abbasid empire, impacting the cultural landscape.
Shu’ubiyyah Movement:
To counter Arab chauvinism, the shu’ubiyyah movement emerged, celebrating the achievements of non-Arab Muslim peoples, particularly the Persians.
3. Military and Territorial Shifts
Khorasanian Guards:
The Abbasids relied heavily on the Khorasanian guards, who were of Persian origin, for military power.
Rise of Persian Dynasties:
As the Abbasid Caliphate weakened, various Persian dynasties, like the Tahirids, Saffarids, and Samanids, emerged and gained significant influence in different parts of Persia.
Buyid Dynasty:
The Buyid dynasty eventually took control of much of the Abbasid territory, and the Abbasids became largely figureheads.
Seljuk Turks:
The Seljuk Turks, who were of Turkish origin, later defeated the Buyids and continued to exert influence over the Abbasids, while publicly pledging allegiance to them.
People also asked for a Kingdom of Jerusalem faction, and now we have the Knights Templar. I don’t think you see that the request people are making is ultimately for a variant.
I know they want a civ, but that’s not something that fits the framework for civilizations in AoE IV.
I’ll also note that since the Abbasids ruled over that region for hundreds of years, that means much of the architecture was influenced by their rule. Urbanization and expansion of metropolises lasted from when the Abbasids took control to the 11th century. So their buildings being similar/identical actually fits the historical narrative 
1 Like
I have to admit, there was a lot of context missing when I linked two images earlier.
There is way too much to talk about with this subject to cover it simply, though I really thought it was enough to just show the maps from each of those empires in their height in power!
Well, no one is asking for this.
It’s just that Persia, ie Iran, was under the rule of the Abbasid Caliphate.
I’m not trying to make an argument. I’m just trying to teach you some history.
I would love to see one of the many Iranian dynasties in the game, but it’s just hard because they really were a part of the Abbasid Caliphate through most of the game’s timeline.
1 Like