Turks indeed are an important civilization so are the Persians, Germans, Franks, Japanese, Khmer in medieval age, I would love to put all these civs in, if we have the liberty to exceed 10 civs.
2 mesoamerican civs to represent 2 important regions, aztec = mexican north america and inca = peruvian south america
Turks are kind of a blend of Mongol cav archer tactics, Byzantine(greek) anatolian architecture, Arab islamic culture. Turks got more important in late medieval when they invented gunpowder and became the OTTOMANS!
I think all Western European Colonial Powers can be represented by one civilization (British, French, German, Spanish) since they have a lot cultural similarity. This will make space for other exotic civilizations which are more unique.
Hmmm, no? Especially for the British and Spanish bits. Gothic, Muslim and Reconquista Spain on one side, and Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Norse people in England were different enough between each other, so as a whole…
i think they will make 6 civ around.but it will be very bad for aoe.get ready for modding!
(btw reason of my this guess is coh2 has 5 civ,dow3 has 3,dow2 has 6 civ)
I’m completely fine with 6 unique civs, but could also be 8 at launch, like was AoE3, assuming that the max players on a map will also be 8.
I am very curious to see the size of the maps tho, especially after we’ve already seen that huge Mongolian army in the trailer. Maybe even 5v5 is a possibility?
right,im very excited for huge armies.
6 civ isn’ a problem for mp but… it is not enough for campaigns(i am a bit disturbed as a campaign player)
suppose this civs added:
china
mongolia
france
inca
saracen
byzantine
in this civs,you cant create a crusade(without turks and germans)also turks and germans important for medieval era.slavs too.and we need some guys for fight with meso-americans.(spainish or portugal)and goths,huns and especially vikings very important for early medieval.
but if they will increase number of civs from 6 to 15-20(15 is enough)with dlc s it isn’ a problem for me
Because it is the norm with age titles, in fact new civs were added at every age expansion game.
They’ve also pretty much said so
The idea of microtransactions in a real-time strategy game isn’t a thing. DLC, expansions – all of that, are things that we’re going to be exploring for Age IV. We’re actually going to be exploring most of that for all the Age games.
While making this list we need to consider few things:
a) If the nation didnt interact much with the rest of the World in medieval period(africans, southeast asians, japan)
b) Did not persist in one political form for a considerable amount of time within medieval period despite how strong it was(huns, vandals…)
c) Were strong and not always overshadowed by its neighbours but actually had their times(Poland etc)
1)Brits : already confirmed
2)Mongols : already confirmed
3)Byzantine Empire : they were literally medieval Romans.
4)Turks : Most empire building, constantly conqueror generating militarized nation
5)Chinese : They were always strong
6)Franks : Major European kingdoms
7)Germans : HRE.
8)Italians: Papal states, genoese, venetians
9)Saracens: Or caliphates, they were very powerful.
10)Kievan Rus
Honorable mentions
1)India : I didnt put because so irrelevant to outside of indian subcontinent.
2)Denmark : There is this Viking shining but still meh.
3)Bulgaria : Those great Bulgar Empires were typical Turkic states, nothing unique so they are already under that umbrella.
4)Hungary: They were really important I would have added them if I had one more place. I actually consider replacing with Kievan Rus.
5)Poland: Overshadowed.
Welp, African power interacted a lot with Arab/Indians and had contacts with European, Burmese and Vietnam with Mongols/Chinese, Malay traded with Indians and Chinese… And while Japanese had periods of isolation they also had interactions with the outside (like resisting Mongols or trying to invade Korea) And all of them had contacts with Europeans (mainly Portuguese, even if quite on the late and possibly out of the game’s timeline)
Consider one more thing, the civs should be completely unique and distinct. This will cover more of the world.
I think Britons, French, German and Italian overlap a lot with each other in their political and military structure.
Same applies for Turks and Saracen.
Of course everybody had contact with each other the opposite would be impossible. Why wouldnt they ?
What I mean is contributing to main global politics.
The clash of civilizations.
The invasion of Japan was a Kubilai’s obsession after he literally owned everything in east asia. There are two or three poor attempts and thats it.
Malay. I am sure they have an interesting history of their own but how much relevant could they be in east asia or even China ? They traded yes. Did they ever invade silk road ? Did they ever conquered China ?
I would also want to see every civ of medieval era all unique on its own and also balanced. But we are given a limit and if we are to chose between Byzantine Empire and ■■■■■■■ Khmer, we have to say Byzantine empire. uhhh but Khmer traded with China !!! :DDD
Turks and Saracens do not lap at all. Say at least Turks and Mongols.
Edit: I also need to mention, that all civs should be unique as possible isnt a healthy logic.
Imagine aoe 3 (because it makes my point more clear, not that it doesnt apply to medieval era), in the native game we had 8 European civilizations. Imagine if developers thought with the logic you do, there would be one or two European civs British and Russians(most distinct ones culturally) and what ? Others from africa, native, Vietnamese etc ?
Would lack of Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch etc make the game cheesy ?
