Brand new regions for the future

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

We are living in the regionalization age of AoE2, which means new regions will be maded in order to add more civilizations that can share architecture, buildings and units in common.

But from the already existing ones, there’s few to add in the next DLCs:

North America: Iroquis and Sioux

Central America: Split Aztecs from Maya and add new related civs like Kiches and Chontales.

New african region: Separate East (Ethiopians) from West (Malians) to include new civs. Maybe central or southern Africa as well.

Balkans: Vlach and Serbs

Himalayas: Nepalis and Tibetans

Scandinavia: Sewds, Finns and Vikings

Oceania: Polynessians and related civs

Tropical American: Taino and Carib (maybe a future Tupi relocation).

Japan: only if a Japanese split is maded, I believe East Asia deserves it’s own architecture, because the current civ is more japanese than chinese.

Steppe Nomand: not a geographic region though, but there’s already a regionalization from the nomad civs like Mongol, Huns, Khitans, Jurchen and Tatars, all under the Steppe Lancer unit.

Acient China: only if the 3K civs are moved from AoE2 to Chronicles client.

I was thinking in Minor Asia / Anatolia, but I don’t know which new civs can be added to share with Turks.

1 Like
2

By splitting I assume you mean arch sets and not civs, and yeah, I agree it would be nice.

3

Could be both. If the devs splits the Japanese in 2 or 3 civs, then the new civs would need an different architecture or the mainland east Asia.

4

I’ll just copy my comment from Reddit:

I used to think like this back as a kiddo playing Gold Edition, but a set matching both Mongols and (European) Huns wouldn’t really work unless it’s literally just yurts for everything. That could work in the Feudal Age but not in Castle and especially Imperial following the conquest of settled societies and incorporating elements of their architecture. Playing a Mongol, I’d like my final city to resemble Karakorum and Xanadu, playing a Hun some Germanic or Byzantine stuff their conquered.

Today I’d make two sets that’d look Nomadic in Feudal but progressively more settled in later ages:

  • Western Steppe: for Huns, Turks, and Cumans, a mix Central Asian and European architecture.

  • Inner Asia: for Mongols and potentially Tibetans and Tanguts if they get added (I was surprised to learn how similar Tibetan and Mongolian architecture was – many Tibetan tribes lead Nomadic lifestyles like Mongols, while fortifications and Buddhist temples of Karakorum were modelled after traditional Tibetan styles)

1 Like
5

I think the closest Japanese could get to a split is Emishi and maybe Ainu (And Hayato, if they weren’t so obscure). I wouldn’t want a 3K situation with Sengoku clans.

4 Likes
6

Shocking news: you don’t have to represent the whole world, you know?

What we should do is try to intelligently tweak some classic civilisations such as the Celts, Britons and Vikings without causing an uproar.

There are already too many civilisations, and we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to new gameplay features.

6 Likes
7

You might be onto something with Hayato. Their rebellion was spurred by the Yamato expedition through the lands of Hayato, Kumaso, and Ryukyuans, and could serve as a basis for campaigns of both Japanese (Yamato) and Hayato as it’d be a way for the Japanese campaign not to involve only mirror matches or the bag of worms that is the conquest of Korea.

Kumaso were probably Austronesians, so rather than making a separate civ just for them they could be represented by a new but wider civ, Filipinos. Hayato and Ryukyuans could maaybe be a single civ given Kyushu’s cultural ties to Okinawa.

8

Saying Okinawans are a Japanese split almost feels like saying Sicilians are an Italian split.

9

Do you ever stop spamming these?

5 Likes
10

I don’t think anyone has any proof that Austronesians ever reached Japan before Europeans started visiting Japan. Probably should not use “probably”.

Are you the same guy that was saying Japanese are more probably related to Austronesians than to Koreans?

1 Like
11

What? No, where did this even come from?

12

Sorry for assuming then. But there really was a guy claiming that, and I forgot his username. He was also saying without proof that a Korean group (Gaya) is Japonic.

That said, I never heard of Kumaso. Gotta look them up.

Edit: looked them up and it does seem they are believed to have originated South of Japan. No conclusive proof that they’re Austronesian though, I assume.

1 Like
13

Only big chunks remaining without anything are north america and south africa.

14

North America: Sioux, Iroquois, Mississippians
MesoAmerica: Zapotecs, Purepecha, Mixtecs.
Europe: Serbs, Croats, Aragonese, Vlachs.
Middle East: Kurds, Afghans
East Asia: Tibetans, Tanguts, Thai
Africa: Kanembu, Congo, Swahili, Benin, Zimbabwe

2 Likes
15

That’s because those were societies still in the stone age. When Europeans arrived in sub-Saharan Africa in the 18th century, they had not yet invented the wheel. So they don’t fit in the game, unless you want the game to be complete fantasy (like Age of Mythology). Same with the native Australians.

1 Like
16
  1. North American Architecture based on Mississippian architecture for civs such as Mississippians and Iroquois.
  2. Woodland South American Architecture for every South American civ not in the Andes.
  3. East African Architecture based on Ethiopian Architecture
  4. South African Architecture for Shonas and Kongolese
  5. North European set for Vikings and Slavs (renamed to Ruthenians)
  6. Black Sea set for Bulgarians, Byzantines, Armenians and Georgians
  7. Nomadic “architecture” for Huns and Cumans
  8. Inner East Asian set for Tibetans, Tanguts and Mongols
  9. “Chinese” architecture for Chinese, Koreans, Khitans and Jurchens
  10. Indonesian architecture for Malays, Javanese etc.
  11. East Indian architecture for Bengalis
1 Like
17

This could be said about the TLC dlc as well but here we are.

18
1 Like
19

ah-shit-here-we-go-again-meme-2
ah-shit-here-we-go-again-meme-21235×695 429 KB

Thank you sir (or lady). I also highly recommend this article refuting academics who view the lack of certain technologies, including the wheel, as primitivism.
There’s even an interesting story about how wheels were viewed in Europe during a certain period that we hardly ever hear about.

1 Like
20

Nothing suggests that the Kumaso or the Hayato were Austronesians, please stop spreading baseless and unverified rumors. And it’s even weirder to group them with Filipinos.

Genetically, historically, and archaeologically speaking, Japan was quite closely related to the ancient populations of Manchuria and Korea, while having nothing to do with South Chinese, SE Asians, and Austronesians.

Kuma means bear and Haya means falcon, and AFAIK no Austronesian tribe ever worshipped those two animals, however they were worshipped and revered by several North Asian peoples, including the Ainu and the Tungusic tribes, as well as Proto-Koreans. Hence it’s far more likely that the Kumaso and Hayato were Jomon/Ainu related instead of Austronesian related.

And back to topic I don’t really think that the current Japanese civ needs any split. There’s simply too little record for Emishi, Kumaso, or Hayato to warrant their split from Japanese. The only plausible civ that could split from the Japanese is the Ryukyuans, but even that is of quite low priority.

That guy’s username was fleuret of japan if I remember correctly. I haven’t seen him on this forum for quite a while. He even claimed once that the Khmers were Japanese related, which is beyond absurd.

Japanese are much much more closely related to Koreans than to Austronesians, in fact Koreans are their closest relatives, followed by North Chinese.