Boycott variant civilizations!

New civilizations are not historical and have no place at all in the Age of empires. I propose to boycott the buy of a new add-on until the developers return its principles to the game. Each faction should be historical states. Not by nations as it was in AoE2, but by states.
Firstly, Byzantium is the place of the Byzantines, and Japan is instead of the Japanese.
I don’t even want to talk about other civilizations at all. Order of the Dragon, Empire of Jade, Sultan’s Army, Jeanne d’Arc. What the f*** is this?

16 Likes

There is only one non-historical faction (Jade), the rest are.

The problem is “the names”, which I think have not been the most accurate.

3 Likes

I’d say the only issue I’m having is the names chosen for these variant civilizations. Otherwise I don’t see any real issue at the moment. I trust the developers to include historical civilizations to this game and I see no evidence (yet) where this isn’t the case.

5 Likes

Oh come on, it’s just names. I’m sure they would change it down the line before they got released for real *sees Deli cavalry still named Sipahi * okay then maybe it’s time to get worried for real…

2 Likes

of course the names will be changed they are just giving you hints about the name of the civs

I hope that the problems are only in the name. But considering that the Order of the Dragon was chosen for the alternative version of the HRE. And not the Templars and not the Hospitallers. It will be German architecture, of the Hungarian Order, under the leadership of the Orthodox Count Dracula. How should it be combined? It seems to me that the problem is much deeper there. Not only names.

2 Likes

Is Jean De Arc civ is real?
WoW!!!

3 Likes

To qualify my words, as historical figure yes, as a faction, no. That’s why I criticize the names.

1 Like

Yea, frankly I was super excited about variant civs cause I though they’d add the Celts or Teutonic Order, or maybe even a whole new civ entirely that just spoke the same language and used the same architecture as an existing civ.

However, the names are rough and “variants” they’ve chose to focus on are seriously killing my hype. From what I’ve seen the Jade Empire isn’t even real. Sultan’s Army is WAY too vauge. Jeanne d’Arc seems like an intentional push to force a female presence in historical warfare (which is not surprising considering how ideological many Western game companies have become), and Order of the Dragon is just not as recognizable or exciting as something like Teutonic Order. It’s not just that the picks sound lame, it’s that they don’t even fit with the naming convention of the game as a whole. You have vague armies or names of people mixed in with century-spanning nations like China and Japan? The fuck?

7 Likes

Clearly people simple don’t like the variants name, will relic /Microsoft will make the change to please fan base or will they try to force you to like it?.. lest see what side are these devs.

2 Likes

The Pros don’t have any issue with the names.
They never really cared about history, just the numbers and money.
They are the most toxic part of the AOEIV.
Especially those from SC2. Beastqt, DeMu. but MarineLord understands that some people like historical accuracy.

4 Likes

They were actually during the crusades, they were good guys in other events like Mongol invasion europe

The history of the crusades was not about Christians vs Muslims.
Infact there were MUSLIMS WHO JOINED THE CRUSADE and even lived in Harmony with the Christian Crusaders.
Such is told by the Chronicles of Ibn Wasil.

The first Crusades were not a Conflict of Christianity vs Islam, while religion certainly played it’s part.

It was mainly a Conflict between Agricultural civilization vs Pastoral Civilization.
There were even Abbasid generals leading armies consisting of Christian Crusaders and Muslim warriors to fight against the impeding Seljuk Hordes.
And there were Muslim Beduins who even joined the Franks to help topple the Turkic overlords of the region.
And ofcourse there were infighting between Muslim lords, which the crusaders all to happily joined in on the side that benefitted them most.

Their main fight was against the Turkic tribes, Seljuks, the Nomads from the East.
While many of them had converted to Islam, they were still heavily influenced by their Shamanistic roots, they still did rituals and stuff otherwise deemed Haram in Islam, but was normal in their way of life.

Ofcourse as time passed on, the Turkic tribes increasingly becoming more and more islamic, the Wars started to become more ideological and clashing between Christianity and Islam.
But at it’s root, it wasn’t originally a war brought forth for to be a Christianity vs Islam, the main goal was the City of Jerusalem. The rest of the middle east was not of much interest.

What is interesting with it all, it is theorized that it was because of the Rise of the Mongols, that indirectly caused the Crusades to happen.
As the Mongols grew in power, the Turkic tribe got pushed out from the central asian region of their origin.
Seljuks had to press further Westwards in order to avoid conflict with the ever growing mongol empire.

So calling this Campaign being “WOKE” is among the stupidest thing, especially we do not even know how the campaign plays out.
We don’t even know WHICH crusade it is taking reference from, the first? second? third? forth? fifth?

I tend to support boycotts, but I will not take part in this one… however, I do agree with you, these names are awful, and must change

3 Likes

I believe there is a rule somewhere in the form’s terms of use not to call for a boycott.

1 Like

In order to draw attention to the problem, you need to shout about it. Now we already see several topics on the forum with the disturbance of variable civs. Someone expresses a misunderstanding. Someone constructively suggests renaming the civs. And here is a topic for the most outraged. There are topics of varying degrees of radicality. To cover all categories of the dissatisfied community. So it will be more productive to draw attention of developers.