Aoe2 being responsible for bad grades in school lol.
I imagine they wanted to take two with one civ but it’s just not possible. Cause if they gave them genitours then Montezuma would have felt out of place while with conquistadors it’s el Cid being off. One could say the mistake was to introduce the early modern period with mesoamerican civs, a similar argument used against Huns and late antiquity civs.
To me that’s not an issue as long as they fix it by adding civs that make the game feeling more accurate like they did with Romans. For sure it’s a wide timeframe to cover and it inevitably calls for weird stuff like centurions fighting conquistadors but I mean where’s the problem in the end? They had a naive and scholastic approach to history for sure thinking that middle ages were one single thing spanning from 500 to 1500 and being overall similar from beginning to end.
Just take Franks for example, if you split Spanish you could easily split them as Franks stopped being a thing in 1200 at the latest. Then you could have French playing in Joan of arc without throwing axemen to train in castles lol. But this timesplit idea is still regarded as controversial I think even if it’s just in the shape of things for how the game was conceived.
For this exact same reason. So either you introduce a mechanic where civs shift through ages, like franks losing throwing axemen and become French, or you just split civs.
As a side note I don’t know if a mounted hand cannoneer was really unique enough in the XVI century. Maybe they could add some gimmick to the conquistadors and add a dragoon kind of unit for different civs with gunpowder. Yes it’s at the very end of aoe2 timeframe but cannon galleons became a thing only towards the end of 1500s yet even goths and Huns used to have them until the last “”“controversial”“” introduction of Romans lol.
Although the Iberian building set is lovely, I don’t think we really need a new Iberian civ.
Originally, when Spanish was introduced, that civilization was probably assumed to be an umbrella to cover the Iberian Christian countries, you know, including Portuguese. To emphasize and differentiate Portuguese expeditions in Asia and Africa from Spanish expeditions in the Americas, Portuguese was introduced as its own civilization. Although this reason is not unacceptable, it damages the original umbrella. The Portuguese is very specific as an in-game civilization, which to some extent sets a bad precedent. Now, some people are enthusiastic about splitting umbrellas, even if those umbrellas are a decent size.
If the Conquistador as a UU is controversial, e.g. doesn’t present the Reconquista well, then perhaps introducing a powerful mounted skirmisher unit as a new UU that costs gold may be a potential solution. The Conquistador will then activate at the Archery Ranges (or the Castles if there is still a space for it) after Chemistry. We can determine the timing of the campaign story by enabling or disabling Conquistador training.
It would be interesting to have Conquistadors and/or Missionaries regional shared units for Spanish and Portuguese, though it may be necessary to make Conquistadors not benefit from Arquebus.
Yes, good, very good. On top of all these civs, I think we need a Juan Pablo civ. Juan Pablo was (probably) an individual in what is now Spain that lived before the 1400s, spoke Basque, and fought with a crossbow, and thus is not well represented by the current Spanish civ. The historical record is shaky, but it is possible that Juan Pablo was also a tax evader, meaning that he was arguably an autonomous and sovereign individual - as such it is inappropriate to lump him under the “Spanish” umbrella. Furthermore, he is rumored to have been heir to an inn in Arles that was patronized on one occasion by Frederick Barbarossa, and should have a UT that reflects this grand legacy (“Saucisse a Cuire”).
#RepresentationForJP
/S
Yep, Historigul Ackurashy is nice, but rule of cool is a thing. There’s something to be said for appreciating a unit that represents something cool and even true, despite its manifestation not being purely literalistic (“a truth within a lie”), and I think all the more so in gaming, where imagination usually plays a large role. So I can’t fault Sandy’s reasoning for choosing the Conq, as it combined two aspects of Spanish specialty (especially WRT their campaigns in the New World). I prefer to think of the Conq as an “umbrella unit,” that represents a composite of Spanish strengths in a fun way rather than as something that ES “got wrong” because one insists on an overserious literalistic reading of the game.
Yeah, I don’t see how it could be otherwise for a game like Age2 - between the largely symmetrical civ design, and the need to accommodate civs from all around the world whose trajectories were mostly not that aligned IRL, there has to be a pretty standardized Age system.
I don’t consider this to be the case - the UUs, UTs and bonuses of the American civs mostly represent traditions and technologies that had existed since the early Medieval, or even pre-Medieval period, even if the Aztec and Inca empires formed relatively late. If you wanted to, you could rename those civs to Nahuas/Mexica and Quechuas/Andeans, and they’d be decent representations of the civs that existed centuries prior to the imperial formation. A civ like Koreans whose UU didn’t meaningfully appear until almost 1600 is arguably far more representative of the early modern period.
Still a shame we haven’t seen Abbasid Revolution which pretty much shaped Middle East politics for centuries to come. If we get Andalusians civ then we can have Abd-Ar Rahman fighting his way to Spain, fighting Franks and Spanish at north and Abbasids at south to have control of Spain. We can have rest of the rulers who built up the independent Emirate to a rival Caliphate to Abbasids.
Even though there was no unified kingdom of Spain until then, “Spanish” (or something resembling) was already used to refer to Christian people of the Iberian peninsula to distinguish them from Muslim and Jewish people (it also excluded Christians who lived in al-Andalus, I think). So it also included Portuguese people at the time and their inclusion in game makes thing quite weird.
Didn’t a lot of ships sail from Barcelona (part of the crown of Aragon) to the New World, even though Castile had its own harbors?
I think the County of Barcelona was wealthier and held more influence than the Kingdom of Valencia, despite the apparent difference in rank. That being said, as @MUTYLATOR5553 said it would probably work better with the Catalan being included in the Aragonese (or both being kept inside Spanish).
Both make sense as UU for those respective civs, but what are their special abilities exactly?
I don’t think any of the devs had such preconception… It’s just that game design was (rightfully) given priority over historical accuracy. A game with apropriately representing the way states, cultures and war traditions evolved over time would incentivise some civs way too much into rushing their enemy in Feudal or even Dark Age because the balance would make them extremely imbalanced over time.
Uh… No? Berbers did and still do call themselves Imazighen. Maghreb (al-Magrib) is an Arabic geographic word referring to North Africa (excluding Egypt) and Maghrebi covers people from this region wether they are of Arab or Berber descent. Many Andalusians were Berbers, while others were Arabs or Mozarabs, so there isn’t a clear distinction between those people… That being said, Andalusian could make sense as a civ precisely because several people coexisted in the same states. It would be a hybrid civ just like the Hindustani for instance.
For the Almogavar, a speedy Infantry UU that has a charged range attack that has them toss a javelin, perhaps alongside a bonus for sneakiness or something for Hills?
Catalan Company and Almogavars (the former already appears in Bapheus), you could do like a pretty sick Roger de Flor campaign were it starts about the War of the Sicillian Vespers (In short Sicillian Rebels fighting against the French/Franks, the former supported by the Aragon Crown, ended with Aragon annexing Sicily) and the formation of the Catalan Company, Continues to the Campaigns against the Turks in Asia Minor after being hired by the Byzantines were they conquered to the borders of Armenia, the assassination of Roger de Flor by the treacherous Byzantines and the subsequent conquest of lower Greece by the Company.
So I no longer think there would be a point to keeping the Spanish intact as-is if we were splitting them. I think that, like the Indians, the current bonuses could be divided up between the Aragonese and Castilians to fit thematically better.
BONUSES GIVEN TO ARAGONESE
Cannon Galleon projectiles affected by Ballistics (move faster and more accurately)
Gunpowder units fire 18% faster
Team bonus: Trade units generate +25% gold
Reason: These bonuses seem to reference post-unified Spain during the American conquests. The king of Spain at the time was Aragonese, so it makes sense for the Aragonese to inherit these bonuses despite representing a unified Spain.
BONUSES GIVEN TO CASTILIANS
Builders work 30% faster
Blacksmith upgrades don’t cost gold
Receive 20 gold for each technology researched
Reason: The builder bonus can help a defensive theme for the Castilians, while the Blacksmith bonus can reference Toledo steel, which was used effectively by El Cid, who was Castilian. The gold bonus can complement the Blacksmith bonus.
In this way, the current Spanish bonuses can be given to two separate Aragonese and Castilians civs, who can also receive other bonuses giving them more specific identities. Then either the Basques or the Catalans and the Andalusians can be added to round it out.
I am not sure what to do with the Conquistador as a unit. Perhaps it can stay with the Aragonese as a UU, but then the Almogavar couldn’t be a UU. Maybe the Conquistador can become a regional unit at the Archery Range unlocked through Chemistry (perhaps replacing the Cavalry Archer). The Berbers’ Genitour would also become a regional unit available to them and the new Iberian civs, plus the Portuguese.
The Castle Age would use a Romanesque style, of course. No pictures because it’s easy to imagine what Romanesque buildings would look like. Lots of arches and pillars.
As for the Imperial Age, it would be inspired by the Mudejar style, which was essentially a fusion of Spanish and Andalusian styles and is very unique. Some pictures:
The addition of the Aragonese civ should bring with it a completely new Iberian Architecture Set for Aragonese, Castilians (present Spanish civ) and Portugese civs. So that the Mediterranean Architecture Set becomes Italian Architecture Set.
The Balearic slinger needs to be made into a unique unit. Just look at the name; it’s so in the style of the game. It would be the unique unit of the civ which ruled the Balearic Islands at the time - right now it’s Catalunya. It won’t overlap with the Inca’s because the Balearic would come out of the Castle, have the Elite upgrade, and it could have attack bonus against both infrantry and archers. The offset could be being very weak to cavalry, although that would require a new armor class specific for this unit.
And, yes, they were prominent in Hannibal’s army during Rome times, but, well… Throwing Axemen… Woad Raiders… Huns… Romans…
