What about the other side of Persia?
Afghans?
Uighurs?
Usbeks?
1 Like
These people aren’t Persians, they are 2 different Turk tribe, Persians can be splitted to Sogdians, Daylamites, Alans and reworked Persians (I think its name shouldn’t be changed. Iranians or Sasanians aren’t cool names).
1 Like
KHAZARS!
(If we’re aiming for Late Antiquity or Caucuses in general… I’d also love Sogdians, and Alans. But… The Yemeni kingdom of Himyar was Jewish like the Khazarians, so perhaps they could do something thematic there)
Also all of these civs will contribute to AOE2 with unique civ feautes through their historical background. Sogdians have trade, spreading religion ( Manichaeism), literature (university) and heavy cavalry, cav archer in history, it will be first civ to have all of these bonuses. Of course they should be weak in other parts for balance.
Yemen had trade, fertile lands, strong mountainous warriors and of course camels. It can be first infantry&camel civilization in AOE2. All other Camel civilizations are Cav and Cav Archer civilizations.
Alans were nomadic warriors conquered part of Iberian peninsula as well as becoming royal guard of Kubilai Khan. They can be pure military civilization.
Khazars were cavalry and siege civilization similar to Mongols but they also had trade and religion, too. It will also be unqiue design.
1 Like
I don’t think so.
Khazars.
And if by any chance the next DLC has to be similar to DOI where Indians was split into 4 civs, Cumans can also be split into 3 in this DLC - Cumans, Khazars and Kipchaks.
Italians can be split too current italians Genoese add Milanese Venetians Florentine.
It could still be a dlc of only two civs like LotW and DotD…but Khazars would be nice…
Bagratid Armenia (Armenian: Բագրատունիների թագավորություն) was an independent Armenian state established by Ashot I Bagratuni of the Bagratuni dynasty in the early 880s[2] following nearly two centuries of foreign domination of Greater Armenia under Arab Umayyad and Abbasid rule. With each of the two contemporary powers in the region—the Abbasids and Byzantines—too preoccupied to concentrate their forces in subjugating the region, and with the dissipation of several of the Armenian nakharar noble families, Ashot succeeded in asserting himself as the leading figure of a movement to dislodge the Arabs from Armenia.[3]
Ashot’s prestige rose as both Byzantine and Arab leaders—eager to maintain a buffer state near their frontiers—courted him. The Abbasid Caliphate recognized Ashot as “prince of princes” in 862 and, later on, as king (in 884 or 885). The establishment of the Bagratuni kingdom later led to the founding of several other Armenian principalities and kingdoms: Taron, Vaspurakan, Kars[citation needed], Khachen and Syunik.[4] During the reign of Ashot III (952/53–77), Ani became the kingdom’s capital and grew into a thriving economic and cultural center.[5]
The first half of the 11th century saw the decline and eventual collapse of the kingdom. The Byzantine emperor Basil II (r. 976–1025) won a string of victories and annexed parts of southwestern Armenia; King Hovhannes-Smbat felt forced to cede his lands and in 1022 pledged that his kingdom would pass to the Byzantines following his death. However, after Hovhannes-Smbat’s death in 1041, his successor, Gagik II, refused to hand over Ani and continued resistance until 1045, when his kingdom, plagued by internal and external threats, was finally taken by Byzantine forces.
Bagratuni Armenia and other medieval Armenian kingdoms c. 1000
The two kingdoms can enter calmly, after all they are neighbors…
And Asian too…
Yeah, sooner or later, they have to put in regional skins so it doesn’t feel so plain and outdated, compared to AoE 3, AoEO and AoE 4…
They are represented by the Persians, Mongols and Tatars (Timurids)…they would become independent again at the beginning of the 18th century (Hotak and Durrani empires)…
They are represented by the Turks, Chinese and Mongols…
They are represented by the Turks, Mongols and Tatars (Timurids)…But already in the 16th century (that is, in the time of AoE 3) you have several independent Uzbek states until the beginning of the 20th century…
I see it complicated, remember that the civs represent peoples, not states per se…the Italians represent the northern mercantile cities while the Sicilians represent the southern region…in AoE 3 it was easier to represent them with the home city (Venice ), cards and units…
That cant be our whole logic as to why we need both of them at the same time. I just think Armenians can wait until we get a bit more coverage elsewhere, thars all
And also, I just think we should prioritize DLCs with broader themes to include more diferent civs from diferent regions rather than focusing on just adding the nations from an small region
3 Likes
Not necessarily. DoI benefited from the fact that one of the new civs already had a campaign, which Persians don’t.
2 Likes
The point is that you can include the period before 1000 with the Armenians and the period after 1000 with the Georgians…
1 Like
Making civs takes way less time than making campaigns, if there wasn’t the problem of balance you could create a civ in a month given you already know the history (you just need to design the UUs and a castle). A month is what it takes to make a single scenario campaign (at best) so probably the longest and most labored process when making a DLC is campaigns.
1 Like
There’s also the wonder, but yeah.
2 Likes
Eh I think thats an oversimplification, Georgia had independent periods before 1000 and Armenians established the kingdom of Cicilia in Anatolia.
I just think we dont need both added togheter at the same time, I prefer a bigger variety, and Armenians could boost the sales of a later DLC
1 Like
I think we need both together for the simple reason of campaign potential. Also, they can share a new architecture set.
1 Like
Tamar which is the most likely Georgian campaign had very limited interactions with the Armenians
And you can just change the campaign later when you add Armenians if you need to
The architecture set should ideally also be for Byzantines and Bulgarians, who also need a new building ser and shared some architectural traits
2 Likes
Still, I don’t think it’s overkill to include both the Georgians and Armenians in one expansion. It’s a logical choice, as both peaked at different times, but have a long history of interacting with each other.
Nah, they should have a separate architecture set. The Caucasus architecture set should be distinctly Georgian and Armenian. It would be based on Georgian mountain villages like Ushguli and Dartlo in the Feudal Age, Armenian cathedral architecture and the walls of Ani in the Castle Age, and Georgian cathedrals in the Imperial Age. None of those styles fit with the Byzantines and Bulgarians.
Most civs have wrong monks and/or wrong monasteries. Why would the Caucasus be the exception when the devs are saving money with the refusal of addition of new arch sets.
Realms Armenians used Middle Eastern architecture and it looked fine enough for not adding a new set in the mod.
Before I’m being called ignorant, I’m well aware that Armenians have their very own Christian Orthodox church, but most civs have to live with a inaccurate religious building.
Note that I would welcome new sets. Incas and Ethiopians bother me especially and it would give a good excuse to add more civs for South America, West and East Africa.
2 Likes
Middle Eastern would just simply be wrong. There are absolutely no similarities whatsoever.
See my comment above. Central European for Georgians, Eastern European for Armenians.
It doesn’t matter anyway. If there isn’t a new set (and there won’t be), I’ll simply work with AbeJin to mod one in. Hopefully we can bug the devs enough once it’s complete to make it official.
I guess somewhere you need to start. Why would civs added after De came out be the exception in having unique castles?
Honestly I don’t know what’s taking them from reskinning those goddamn monks, it would take like 5 minutes given most models are there already…
Whoops tagged @Temudhun for no reason, sorry.