I think it’s pretty clear that the Spanish that are currently in-game only really represent unified Spain from the 15th century onward. Both UTs and the UU only appear from the 1400s onward, after Spain was unified. They don’t represent medieval Spain that well.
So I suggest two new civs, the Aragonese and the Castilians. The Spanish will stay the same, as confusing as that is, but since they represent unified Spain, there’s no need to rename them.
I’m not sure what Aragon and Castile historically were famous for, so I’d need help figuring out their differences, but I figured there could be a UT for one of them called Reconquista. The Genitour would also become a regional unit for the Andalusians, Aragonese, Berbers, Castilians, Spanish, and Portuguese.
I’m not sure about the Aragonese, but the Kingdom of Castile was a frontier state which had a lot of castles, which is popularly thought to be the origin of their name. Perhaps the Castilians could have defensive bonuses for their castles?
It would be wiser to change the Spanish civ in the game into Castilians civ. Aragonese civ should be a brand new civ. This would save a slot for some other civ: Moors civ (Reconquista DLC) or Venetians civ (Mediterranean DLC).
The conquistador is unique to castile, although they are a fantasy unit
You have to understand that there was no kingdom of spain until 1700…
In 1500ish you had several kingdoms and duchies with their INDEPENDENT institutions, unified under the same ruler. And only Castille was able to colonize, trade and defend the Americas, Aragon was excluded
I feel like one can say something similar for many civilisations, e.g.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Koreans that are currently in-game only really represent unified Joseon from the late 14th century onward. Both UUs and one UT only appear from the 1500s onward, after Korea was unified. They don’t represent medieval Korea that well.
So I suggest three new civs, Silla, Baekje and Goguryeo. The Koreans will stay the same, as confusing as that is, but since they represent unified Korea, there’s no need to rename them.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Britons that are currently in-game only really represent unified England and Wales from the late 13th century onward. Both UTs and the UU only appear from the late 1200s onward, after England and Wales were unified. They don’t represent earlier medieval England that well.
So I suggest six new civs, the Northumbrians, the Mercians, the West Saxons, the East Anglians, the ####### and the Normans. The Britons will stay the same, as confusing as that is, but since they represent unified England and Wales, there’s no need to rename them.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Chinese that are currently in-game only really represent the Song Dynasty…
Which is fine, but I think you’ll need more than the name of one unique tech for this suggestion to gain much traction. (Added to which the Mediterranean architecture is now – I think – the most used in the game, so adding yet more Mediterranean civs is unappealing to me.)
Yeah a modern Spanish civ with el Cid as a campaign to portray them… What were they thinking lol
In general I’d prefer to have medieval names for aoe2 civs rather than modern ones but in some cases this may not be possible. Ethiopians (would be cool to have axumites too one day!)? Portuguese (maybe Galicians? But feels wrong) Italians (for all continental northern cities and maybe the papacy)? Chinese? Koreans? And so on… What to do with Spanish? To call them Castilians would not resolve the issue of having them train conquistadores in proper medieval campaigns, but one could say something similar for Bohemians wagons or Koreans turtle ships I guess…
The only new Iberian civ I’d be looking forward to play as is Andalusians. Middle Eastern set would get a lovely new addition and you would be able to feature the other side of the El Cid campaign with the tragic ending in Granada. They could have the Alhambra as wonder.
I think al-Andalus is represented by Berbers, no?
Ofc we could talk about a Berber split, but atm I don’t see a reaspn tosplit them for Balance reasons
Ofc there is the potential to crack up the generous Cheaper Stable units into two different stable bonusses. But this would result in both cracked up civs needing some eco bonusses as compensation.
But I would see no issue in adding both Aragnoese and al-Andalus in one patch, probably together with another civ from vastly the same region in north western africa.
This would also open the option to change the Genitour design and give it to the civs that actually used it against the Berbers. One such idea can be found in my concept for an Aragonese civ here .
When I first played the El Cid campaign (as a teenager with basically no knowledge of history) I assumed it was set in the 15th or 16th century because of the Conquistadors. Similarly, I assumed Barbarossa followed Genghis Khan chronologically, because of the campaign numbering and the Mongols in the first scenario.
Probably that a mounted hand cannoneer would be more fun as a unique unit than a mounted skirmisher. (If so, they were right!) But then it inevitably ended an integral part of the civ.
One thing I find very strange about AoE2 is that advancing through the ages is the defining concept of the game, and yet the developers – past and present – have made very little effort to make those ages correspond to actual time periods. Instead, civs are usually designed around a specific time period. I don’t really mean this as a criticism, especially since I can see the gameplay sense in it, but I do find it weird.
Why would you change the civ so much rather than add a new civ?