Okay, let’s calm down a bit gentleman shall we? I’m proud to read how passionally each one defend it’s own arguments but never forget to keep the respect for each other.
We are ALL bringing here information, doesn’t matter if is from a realiable source of history or if just are our thoughts about how such civilizations should be developed in Age IV.
2 Likes
I still wonder why even were included meso- american civs at Aoe 2 ? To make and spread lies, deceptions ?
Also, at the original Aoe 2 were included Turks. But actually the were not Turks when appeared at 1070 AD. They were Seljuks. After that they change their name to Ottomans. And after many hundreds years at 1921 AD, the Ottomans become Turks. That is at the End of Aoe 3, it is not Aoe 2. They are similar to group of thieves who change their name from the name of their New leader…
At the same time, the Bulgarians- 681 AD- until now, very old civ , were now included at the original Aoe 2, nor at the Conquerors expansion.
2 Likes
I don’t think you got how it worked. The “name” of the nation is based on the dinasty. Seljuk is the “second name” of the leader, just like the arabian kingdoms called “Abbasid” or “Fatimid” - common practice in kebab muslin nations.
When the Seljuk “exploded” and fragmented, it just happenened that a guy called Ottoman was around in anatolia. Aaaaand he conquered everyone around him.
I think the turk civilization is kinda fitting, due to horse archer and light cav bonuses. Janissaries are more abstract tho, since they only started using firearms after 1440 - a small piece of their history, considering the end date.
That was waaaaay off topic, but i guess mesocivs were added because they were cool. Just like Szaladon quoted a dev: “… We thought the new civs were the most exciting…”.
Edit: It wasn’t only the muslins who renamed, sorry if i sounded like that. was more of a cultural asset of the region - persians did that too, for instance.
1 Like
Why not simply make them at a later age an Europe colony ?
Example Aztec, Age 1,2,3 they are Aztec with bows and arrows, Age 4 they are Spain colony with access to Rifles, Ships and Horses.
Or Age 1,2, they are Aztec with bows and arrows, Age 3, 4 they are Spain colony with access to Rifles, Ships and Horses.
Or
Or Age 1,2, they are Aztec with bows and arrows, Age 3 choose between fight till end with own tech an perks or be Spain colony with access to Rifles, Ships and Horses.
1 Like
With Aztecs can work , but not with Mayans.
Sounds to me like they are Spain Colony too.
When Spanish arrived there were still Mayans (after all they still have descendants today) but their golden age was long gone by then.
Meso- american civs were Dark age people similar to Ancient Egypt who build Pyramides, or the Aboriginal Australians.They suit to Aoe 1. But, even there, they will lose to the Greek- Alexander Macedonian, the Roman empire or Persian empires, because of bad military.
1 Like
The concept of Dark age is innacurate at best and it’s for the how Europe was after the fall of Rome so it doesn’t apply outside of Europe
If you don’t see any difference between these cultures then no wonder you think Mesoamerica = dark age
Since they had 0 contact with Europe and Asia they aren’t fitting at all. And the Aztec as depicted in-game weren’t a thing until the Middle age.
Remember the Celts? According to this Celts - Wikipedia Polybius also asserts that certain of the Celts fought naked, “The appearance of these naked warriors was a terrifying spectacle, for they were all men of splendid physique and in the prime of life.”[129] According to Livy, this was also true of the Celts of Asia Minor
These dudes actually managed to sack rome. While having fighters with 0 protection.
As of meso weapons, they had many drawbacks, but Spaniards sure had a lot of occasion to wish they had more Macuahuitl - Wikipedia
I think the idea is that you progress beyond a time when the civilization actually survived. britons/Celts never used trebuchets either. In fact it was rarely by many civs at all.
Civilization don’t die, they simply change or merge with somebody else, so the other is more dominant.
Let’s think logically, shouldn’t a civilization simply advance into their next em History Stage?
Ok Egypt does stay Egypt. But for example , Rome is today Italy, So why not have it simply ingame?
You start as age 1 Celts, age 2 go to Britons, age 3 than to Normans, age 4 than to English.
The deal is sometimes they really differ between ages. Celt britain was basically some naked guys charging around, Britons are “romanized” - unless you mean the anglo-saxons instead of britons, which were basically only infantry - the normans were “french”, who used heavy cavalry charges. The real english, in the end, favoured archers and sometimes dismounted combat.
In these cases it’s really hard to not overrun the player, as every time you age up the civ changes massively.
1 Like
Britons did use Trebuchets (Edward Longshanks, the dude from the tutorial campaign, had some) The trebuchet was a Chinese invention, and the Mongols/Arabs adopted it and it arrived in Medieval Europe that way. I’m not sure for Africa, but I know mangonels were used there. Of course it was obsolete after the canon’s invention so European powers never used them during colonisation so Aztecs/Incas/ect never got to see one, but besides that giving trebs to all civ is surprisingly accurate by AoE standards
1 Like
ACTUALLLYYYY
Cortés used a trebuchet in the siege o tenochtitlán. It is said they did that because gunpowder was a bit hard to find there.
One of the last recorded military uses was by Hernán Cortés, at the 1521 siege of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlán. Accounts of the attack note that its use was motivated by the limited supply of gunpowder. The attempt was reportedly unsuccessful: the first projectile landed on the trebuchet itself, destroying it.[48]
BUT this doens’t change the fact that the aztecs never saw the destructive power of one. Sooo no way they would try to adapt this to their culture.
I’m done ranting, move on citizen.
The successors of Alexander Macedonian at that region Macedonia, were made Slaves of the Roman Empire. And these who outlive the Roman Empire, were annihilated by the Huns.
So after that, at the wasteland, the Slavs from central Europe move to live there. So, now at that Region Macedonia live Bulgarians(Bulgar + Slavs), few Serbians(Slavs), and Ottomans( Albanians).
For Roman Empire- after 476 AD, the Romans disappeared from central Europe. They were killed by the Huns, Goths. Some of the Romans moved to live at Byzantium( the East Roman Empire).
When Byzantium was conquered and annihilated by the muslim Ottomans, some of the Byzantines moved to live at Greece, as Slaves of the Ottomans.
The Hun and the Mongol empires disappeared, because they only destroy and steal. And when they began to lose battles, and have nothing to steal, they began to kill his family or neighbours in their city, as some cannibals savages at Islands at Pacific Ocean.
Oh, that’s some nice info. At least the dudes watching from the wall got a good laugh 11 Of course I didn’t mean that meso civs should receive European technology in AoE4, but that Trebuchets being all civs is more accurate than it looks at first glance (at least more accurate than say, Spanish=no crossbow or Japanese = no suicide (they don’t have Heresy!)). And it was almost 100% accurate in Age fo Kings!) I think reusing the Arrow knight from AoE3 will be good enough.
1 Like
You know that slaves were forced to reproduce, right? So while their identity was lost they got a descendance.
After Attila’s death the Huns became irrelevant so fast that they got absorbed (=/= killed) by other cultures (like the Avars) before the Western Roman empire’s fall… They couldn’t have done anything to people surviving the Roman Empire…
Not only this is innacurate, but you contradict yourself by saying Romans did survive in the East (which is true) And Goths, while they were rivals of the Romans, alos uadopted most of their customs (why do you believe most languages in the region are Latin and almost none are Germanic?)
They didn’t move at all. The Ottoman even got agreements that allowed Christians to keep their faith. Of course there were conditions (no bell ringing, some fee to pay) but not to much for them to not feel forced into exile. And then again: a people that migrates doesn’t go extinct.
True for the Hun empire (it doesn’t mean that theiy died tho. And Attila is still a national hero in places like Hungary or Turkey), but not for Mongols. While they lost a lot of ground due to being unnable to remain united without a strong leader, Mongolia still exists. Not to mention there was a Mongol dynasty that ruled China, that was just as bureaucratic. They weren’t destroying more than Chinese dynasties, and they were overthrown because the Chinese were sick of foreign leaders.
Pretty much sure they only declared war on other clans, not their own family. And you seem to have both a pretty bad opinion of grammar and Polynesian people.
1 Like
The Muslim Ottomans( which includes- syrians, arabs ) used European Christianians as the players at Aoe used the Sheeps or deers- " To receive food, money, and new Slaves." For the same aim, the Ottomans used the african negros.
Read here about the main Byzantium city- Constantinople( Istanbul)-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
The Ottoman Mehmed II granted his soldiers three days to plunder the city, as he had promised them and in accordance with the custom of the time. Soldiers fought over the possession of some of the spoils of war. Most of the Greek women were raped and enslaved. According to the Venetian surgeon Nicolò Barbaro, “all through the day the Turks made a great slaughter of Christians through the city”. According to Philip Mansel, widespread persecution of the city’s civilian inhabitants took place, resulting in thousands of murders and rapes and 30,000 civilians being enslaved or forcibly deported.
The same thing happened all over whole Asia Minor (Turkey) with the Byzantines Christianians.
About Mongols, you may read the story of Gengis Khan. He killed his brother and many friends. And this continue, untill the mongol rule of countries at Asia disappeared.
1 Like
I’m pretty much sure that Ottomans have never been cannibalistic. And I didn’t denied that they used slaves, I wrote in another thread, in answer to one of your posts, that Janissaries were slaves.
Didn’t deny that either (however as far as I’m aware they weren’t used as Janissaries)
Ok I admit I was wrong and that many of them did got deported. However it’s also true that those who survived all of this were allowed to keep their older rights (later in the article, a part that you didn’t quote). I’m not trying to make Ottomans look like nice people, just to say what happened.
Classic power rivalries. He did that because they were competing for the leader spot. It’s really not a Mongol specific practice. And it applies to people who can seize power, I’m pretty much sure no average Mongol person killed their friends and family because they had no reason to do so.
Mongolia still exists.
1 Like
Mayans were finished at 17th century.