Some say: Devs wanted more new naval civilizations.
I say: Devs have to keep up appearances.
In ‘Warlords II’ tournament, Yo vs Hera semifinals, game 4,
the historical accuracy of ‘Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition’ got tattered by a monumental display of naval prowess of boosted ‘BADABOOM’ Heavy Demolition Ships, Dromons, and Galleons, backed by Shipright (the tech), all controversialy available to a historically mountainous civ…
…a mountainous civ (in aoe2 terms should have been defensive-cavalry-monk civ) that never in history assembled a proper fleet of warships to perform marine operations… WREAKED TOTAL HAVOC in a water map to the navy of one of the most traditional, powerful and rich seafaring civs that saw the face of Earth up to that time:
An at least elementary historical accuracy, in an otherwise strategy game that may focus on gameplay above all, remains a factor for the immersion of the player, I have to say.
PS: If you want new naval civs, make Vandals a reality, and give to them Armenians’ naval bonuses. I can only imagine Trade Cog naval bonuses for Armenians (they performed vital naval trade).
Agreed 100%. I’m not asking for the game to become a history book, I like it’s not that way, but there has to be some level of historical inspiration in play when designing a civ.
“Explanation of the naval power of Armenians in Age II:”
Armenians in Age II represents both the Kingdom of Armenia (331-1060), the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (1078-1375*) and also the Kingdom of Cyprus (after the fall of Cilicia: 1375 - 1489). The latter two had a good navy, well known for its support of the Christian side in the Crusades, or at least tough enough to cause problems for the Abbasid Caliphate during the Ayyubid period and the Mamluk Sultanate.
In fact, the game’s official Armenian campaign features Toro II, King of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia.
Although the Kingdom of Armenia in Cilicia was defeated by the Mamluk Sultanate in 1375, the King of Cyprus, cousin of the king of Cilicia, acquired “the nominal title” of heir to the Kingdom for his bloodline.
In the Age IV Sultan Ascend campaign, they mention that this Armenian Kingdom (Kingdom of Cyprus) is causing a lot of damage to the sultanate because it is a port for privateers and pirates, so you invade the island to liberate the slaves.
“Final comments:” That being the case, I don’t see that it is wrong for the Armenians to have some marine bonus. Whether or not this is indicated because it is very broken is a matter of balance. In general most of the new units or Civ from the Age II DLC tend to be a little broken at first release, then they balance it out. If the marine bonus is sufficiently strong, it could easily be balanced a little in future patchs.
It’s not historically inaccurate, it looks like that on the surface, but if you research the history of the Armenian people for 2 seconds or just literally play the Thoros II campaign, you’ll find out about Cilician Armenia and their amazing navy that rivaled the Byzantine’s
Just because modern day Armenia is landlocked doesn’t mean it was always like that
In 1373, when the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia fell, the King of Amernian Cilicia’s cousin, “James I”, was King of Cyprus, and since then the kings of Cyprus claimed to be “kings of Occupied Armenia”… but in practice, * you are right:* Cyprus was NOT a net kingdom of Armenians, but of a kingdom with a king with some Armenian blood who claimed title to an occupied land, apart from having some Armenian refugees on his island.
Anyway, it’s not that there is anything official in the history section that the Kingdom of Cyprus is part of the canon of the Civ representation of Aoe2, but it is interesting as historical data.
Officially there is nothing that says that Cyprus would be represented by Armenia in any future campaign or something similar
In the AoE 4: Sultand Ascend campaign, the troops of Cyprus and the crusaders in general are represented by the “Franks” civ.
In any case, one might then wonder if Cyprus also deserves a separate civ, or to be part of some Civ called “Crusader Kingdoms”, since this kingdom would fall into this category. In the AoEIV forum there was a lot of Hype about the expansion because it was believed that the Crusaders (“The Franks”) was going to be a new civ, but in the end it was only a campaign civ.
As AoE2 already has civ to represent most of the strong powers of the middle ages, I suppose that future DLC could also come out with Civ based on Island Kingdoms or small Kingdoms such as Sri Lanka, Crusader Kingdoms, Kingdom of Jerusalem, or similar.
I have found one source on the entirety of the internet that even mentions anything about a Cilician military merchant fleet, and nowhere does it suggest that it rivaled the Byzantine Empire. Nothing at the time did; it is absurd to imagine that a small strip of land, occupied by a previously-landlocked people with no naval tradition, could give a vast empire with a long and storied naval tradition a run for its money.
Nobody used the words “modern day” and “landlocked”.
In the spring of 1156, R@ynald of Châtillon and Thoros II made a sudden landing on Byzantine Cyprus. Both conducted widespread plundering of the island. The Franks and Armenians marched up and down the island robbing and pillaging every building that they saw […] The nightmare lasted about three weeks; then, on the rumor of an imperial fleet approaching the island, R@ynald gave the order for re-embarkation. The ships were loaded up with booty.
That’s what Jordan also must have been thinking, when he (accidentally) made about 10 transport ships to fight Mr. Yo’s Fire Galleys in Baltic, in Warlords II few days ago; that “transport ships” make a proper naval force… even a rumor can defeat those fleets.
Regarding 1) the Kingdom of Cyprus, that was a Frankish Crusader state. It had nothing to do with the Armenians, other than that it was allied with them.
Regarding 2) the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, in history there is no battle between organized states, in which a navy of Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia took major part.
Nobody claims that Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia couldn’t use boats… to play a support role in an operation. For that role, they can have available generic dock units without bonuses, nobody would complain.
Naval Civilization??
PS: Another naval civilization, the Berbers, which took that designation mostly because of their piracy and sea raids, at least have only one, flat but representative naval bonus, without Shipright, so they don’t end up as a monumental powerhouse of the sea.
In his latest YouTube video, Hera complained that ever since Dromon was added, water maps of tournaments are ruined. Could Dromons be redesigned into short ranged mangonel instead of a CG replacement, and available for most if not all civs? Should also be renamed if necessary. But I personally don’t see any need though as we have 44 civs with Fire Ships which shouldn’t be happen either.
Cyprus can be Italians too as venice held it for a while.Island kingdoms are always odd they are influenced by the neighbouring mainland empires but end up becoming its own unique thing due to geography.
Tbh I’m Armenian myself and know well enough about the Cicilian principalities, but never read anything about any of them ever having a major navy. Actually for much of their history those Armenian Cicilian kingdoms were landlocked as well.
But gameplay wise, both them and Georgians areat rock-bottom rankings right now (unprecedented for a new civ), now isn’t the time for nerfs.
‘BADABOOM’ Heavy Demolition Ships, Dromons, and Galleons, backed by Shipright (the tech), all controversialy available to a historically 
mountainous civ…
civs that saw the face of Earth up to that time: