In DE campaings they only represent germans, not the whole HRE. Italian city states (which are part of the hre) are represented as italians and bohemians are represented as slavs.
2 Likes
I was replying to your reply where another person was telling you the same.
The rebels part was also the other guy, not me… I just personally don’t think Bohemia would be interesting to add. They only became significant relatively late into the AoE2 overall timeframe. We already have such civs (e.g. Huns) that basically barely fit the AoE2 timeframe, and makes no sense to add more.
I have never claimed Armenians to be cousins to Byzantines. Just saying that instead of splitting hairs, we still have room for entire new civs and geographical areas.
Look up the eventual full name of the HRE. Although it was meant to be a successor to the Roman empire, the empire overall was always considered to be Germanic.
1 Like
That has changed drastically through out the years.goths were representing slavic nations till HD teutons were HRE crusaders hungary lombard in the original game.
These are definitely civilizations - they were powers, they have a rich culture and history.
Burgundy was not a civilization and they appeared in the game.
Civilization in AoE 2 is a difficult concept to interpret. We have umbrella civilizations that represent groups of nations, and we have single nations. Burgudnia is not civ, it was a kingdom - its appearance in AoE 2 means that the new civ may be states that have inhabited other nations. I think this is a good solution as it would be hard to find a Benelux empire on which to build a new civ. Burgundy is the perfect umbrella for Low Countries.
Same as Burgundy, but they are already in the game.
Or maybe I just wrote in addition that you don’t need Chinese and Japanese civs?
@CheshireWig3203 he gave a lot of civilizations from Asia for which I respect him, but I think that many of them are very similar to each other and they could be somehow connected with each other.
I think that’s the optimal number of Asian civs.
Both Armenia and the Czechs are interesting. Both of these civs deserve a presence in AoE 2.
The Teutons are the Teutonic Order. Their unique unit is the Teutonic Knights:
“At the height of the Christian Crusades into the Holy Land, German crusaders formed an order of warrior monks called the Teutonic Knights. This order gave up crusading in the Eastern Mediterranean and turned its attention to Eastern Europe. Through conquest they brought Christianity to the Baltic region and forests of what became Prussia. They built castles from which they could control the surrounding countryside. The Teutonic Knights were committed warriors who carved out an empire that lasted into the twentieth century.”
This civilization is modeled on the Teutonic Order, not the HRE!
In the Dracula campaign, the Wallachians are represented by Turks, Hungarians and Slavs (RUS !!!), where they really should be represented by the Romanian civ.
To say there is no interest in adding Czechs civ to this game is false.
The Caucasus has a weak representation in the game because it is not there at all. I think the Caucasus is sorely lacking in this game. The Tamar of Georgia campaign would be great.
Exactly.
This game is constantly evolving. Old shortcomings and abuses are fixed by adding new civs.
The really bad thing is that, for example, there is no real Slavic campaign in the game, but we can only play them in the Romanian campaign, because there are simply no Romanians.
The Slavs present in the game represent only Kievan Ruthenia (from which the East Slavic nations come). They should change their name from Slavs to Ruthenians. Then they could get a truly Ruthenian campaign - Alexander Nevsky, such a campaign would be really exciting.
3 Likes
Romania didn’t exist as a concept yet at the time of AoE2, or at least not that historians currently know of. There was a giant mess and mixture of people living there which is actually well represented in the Campaign via all the civ switches. A bit similar to how the muslims and christians living in the same area in Spain is represented in the El Cid campaign.
This is the main point. The HRE was german dominated. I just think that splitting the HRE will cause a lot of future threads of: if we split xyz off, why didn’t we…?
I think so too. There could be plenty of campaign material to find for sure.
1 Like
We don’t need more Burgundy. Ask for Kannadigas instead of Vijayanagar. Vijayanagar is just a short lived political entity in late medieval period.
If you are trying making South Indians an umbrella civ then Slav umbrella is no bad either because Dravidians is as big of an blanket civ as Slavs.
So all Asians are the same for you but the irony is, you ask for a third wing hussar? (polish)
2 Likes
Wallachians, Moldovans and Transylvanians are Romanians.
We don’t have HRE civ in the game, nor just any Germans. We only have vague Teutons who can see through a unique unit that they represent the Teutonic Order and follow it. A few more German civs could be created, but so far this is not the most important one. The new German civs would make the game better.
The Caucasus in general is very often overlooked. It has a fascinating culture and history. Although they are located in Asia, they are the cradle of European culture - Armenia was after all the first Christian country.
Or maybe Vijayanagar would have three unique units from three nations: one Marathi unit, second Kannada unit, and a third Tamil unit?
Vijayanagara Empire (1336–1646) - 300 years is not short.
Because the Slavs are much more different from them. Each group of Slavs is a separate cultural group.
The Eastern Slavs (the only ones represented in the game) had numerous ties to the Finno-Ugric and Turkish and Mongolian peoples. It created a specific culture and sustem of power. Today, in Russia, we still see strong ties to this culture - strong and authoritarian leadership.
Western Slavs are culturally the closest to Western Europe - especially to Germany, but you can see their distinctiveness from the rest of Western Europeans. Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the only West Slavic states, but not the only nations) have completely different architecture and a separate and rich history.
South Slavs are the most interesting group of Slavs. For it is so rich and internally diverse that it can be divided into two or even three subgroups. Each of these nations is different, but equally rich in culture. The architecture of Croatia is significantly different from that of Serbia. South Slavs are the most overlooked group of Slavs - people only associate it with the war in Yugoslavia …
We can do 15 Indian civs, but there will only be two or three new architectural styles and the units will be repetitive.
You’re not serious and you don’t listen to what I’m saying.
I want new civs, in Asia too. But what has more value - a few different civs or 30 civs that might as well be represented by 10 civs?
I have given myself which Asian Civs would be nice to see in-game and which would not be a copy-paste.
If you still think I don’t want new Asian civs, then you are wrong.
X D
If you say that Poland is just Winged Hussars, you are very wrong. In addition, the Winged Hussars in Poles only makes sense in AoE 3.
Winged Hussars come from Serbia, so if AoE 3 were to appear, it would only appear in Serb civ.
3 Likes
I didn’t see anyone asking for a winged hussar.
In reality most civilizations should not even have the hussar unit, except for eastern europe
3 Likes
Even Dravidians can be divided in a similar manner. Look at this table:
If you were not biased you wouldn’t be asking for Dravidians as one umbrella civ while Slavs as individual civs. Both are blanket civs of same size.
2 Likes
Same size in what way? Population? Land?
1 Like
Both are umbrella terms not individual ethnicities.
1 Like
I don’t know how to put it any simpler. Romania as a concept did not even exist. So you can’t have a Romanians civ, they simply did not exist. You could have something like Transylvanians, but we’re running into a similar problem as with Bohemians and the HRE. Yes I know about Wallachians and stuff, but just questionable if its civ worthy.
Well, the Teutons have been used to represent Germans/HRE in general in the game. There are already two Germanic factions btw, don’t forget about Goths.
Well yeah, the exact unit art is a stretch for most civs, but so are man-at-arms for aztecs… either way, light cavalry as a concept most certainly makes sense for most civilizations.
Yeah, I would much prefer Armenians, Georgians, or maybe Abkhaz, than to split off new civs from old. Would be nice to see Campaign content in a new locality.
You aren’t splitting off anything 
2 Likes
Let’s start with the fact that you yourself are biased.
Maybe I will put it differently so you can understand
The Indian subcontinent is too hard to recreate in-game the way you want. Do you want 15 or even 100 Indian civs? - then create such a game. You don’t understand how much work it is to add a few civs from each region of the world, and you demand 15 from one region. Besides, it would be hard to present each of these Civs in an attractive and interesting way. 15 Indian civs that would be copy-paste and don’t even pretend it’s not true.
The Indian umbrella irritates you, and the Slavic umbrella irritates me. I understand you. I wish you would understand me.
If he proposes the creation of 4 new Slavic civs and the same in the case of India, it is probably fair. I’m right?
3 Likes
Indians is an umbrella of umbrellas. Indians is comparible to Europeans. Dravidians is comparible to having Slavs. Indians as an umbrella is much more larger than Slavs. And the fact that they made it camel focused which doesn’t even make sense for a generic Indian civ army composition is even more annoying. At least Slavs have the generic Boyar and you have four variants of East Europeans already.
Polish were a mere kingdom. I counted five Empire status of Kannada people alone all within medieval age but they couldn’t make it into the game.
2 Likes
Are you for real?
Here is an excerpt from the wiki about Teuton civ names when played by the AI:
- Emp. Lothair (795-855): Holy Roman Emperor from 817-855. Son of the previous Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Pious, fought a civil war against his siblings which led to the breakup of Francia.
- Frederick Barbarossa (1122-1190): Holy Roman Emperor from 1152-1190. Established German dominance within the Holy Roman Empire; reasserted imperial rule in Italy. Known for his ambition, charisma, and political savvy, as well as his battlefield successes.
- Frederick II (1194-1250): Holy Roman Emperor from 1220-1250. Presided over the height of the Holy Roman Empire’s territorial expansion; also presided over the sixth crusade, which secured Jerusalem under the control of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Also known as Frederick Roger, he is the boy king that the narrator of the The Hautevilles campaign is speaking to.
- Henry III (1016-1056): Holy Roman Emperor from 1046-1056. Last of a succession of emperors who successfully dominated the Papacy. Son of Conrad the Salian.
HRE Emperors. Bohemia was part of HRE. So it’s just splitting off a faction.
1 Like
I guess India is represented by one civ too, they seem to have leaders from multiple dynasties/kingdoms whatever.
- Akbar (अकबर): Popularly known as Akbar I and later Akbar the Great, was the third Mughal emperor, who reigned from 1556 to 1605. He is the the personality of the Indians in Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties.
- Babur (بابر): Born Ẓahīr-ud-Dīn Muhammad, was an invader from Central Asia who, following a series of setbacks, finally succeeded in laying the base for the Mughal dynasty in the Indian subcontinent and became the first Mughal emperor. He is a descendant of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan.
- Bappa Rawal (बप्पा रावल): A semi-legendary ruler of the Mewar region in Rajasthan, India. The bardic chronicles describe him as a member of the Guhila clan of Rajputs, and some of these describe as the founder of his dynasty. Several historians have identified him with Kalabhoja, a ruler of the Mewar branch of the Guhilas.
- Chandragupta II: also known by his title Vikramaditya, was one of the most powerful emperors of the Gupta Empire in northern India.
- Humayun (हुमायूं): The second emperor of the Mughal Empire, who ruled over territory in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of northern India from 1531–1540 and again from 1555–1556. He is the father of Akbar.
- Iltutmish (इल्तुतमिश): The third ruler of the Delhi Sultanate, belonging to the Mamluk dynasty. Iltutmish consolidated the position of the sultanate in the Indian subcontinent.
- Jayachandra (जयचन्द): was an Indian king from the Gahadavala dynasty. He is also known as Jayachchandra (IAST: Jayaccandra) in inscriptions, and Jaichand in vernacular legends.
- Man Singh I (राजा मान सिंह): The Rajput Raja of Amber, a state later known as Jaipur in Rajputana. He was a trusted general of the Mughal emperor Akbar, who included him among the Navaratnas, or the nine gems of the royal court.
- Prithviraj Chauhan (भारतेश्वरः पृथ्वीराजः): was a king from the Chahamana (Chauhan) dynasty. He ruled Sapadalaksha, the traditional Chahamana territory, in present-day north-western India. He controlled much of the present-day Rajasthan, Haryana, and Delhi; and some parts of Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. His capital was located at Ajayameru (modern Ajmer), although the medieval folk legends describe him as the king of India’s political centre Delhi to portray him as a representative of the pre-Islamic Indian power.
- Rajendra Chola (இராஜேந்திர சோழன்): Possibly refering to Rajendra Chola I or Rajendra I, was a Chola emperor of South India (Present day Tamil Nadu, Andhra pradesh, Kerala, Part of Karnataka and Telangana) who succeeded his father Rajaraja Chola I to the throne in 1014. During his reign, he extended the influence of the Chola empire to the banks of the river Ganga in North India and across the Indian ocean to the West and Southeast Asia, making the Chola Empire one of the most powerful maritime empires of India.
- Sultan Balban (सुल्तान बलबन): Ghiyas ud din Balban, the ninth sultan of the Mamluk dynasty reigned 1266–1287 dynasty of Delhi.
- Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji (علاءالدین خلجی): The second and the most powerful ruler of the Khalji dynasty of Delhi Sultanate in the Indian subcontinent.
No splitting India.
Btw, you are aware that they have changed AI names in the past when they added new civs, right?
2 Likes
I made a mistake I am really sorry. Somehow your avatars seemed to me similar 
I got it. However, still I think Bohemians are relevant because their power began to rise in 13th century (the very beggining) and AoE2 timeframe ends like 1550 right? So its about 350 years which is not bad. Definitely more than some other civs already in the game
That was to the other guy. Not you.
In fact the name evolved. According to wiki the “of the German Nation” was added almost at the end of AoE2 timeframe. So if in case of Bohemians timeframe playes a role it should play in HRE name as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
2 Likes
Ideally teutons slavs indians should also get more factions.
4 Likes
The Info for Austria- Hungary is not absolutely coorect. I read- “” Slavic militants in Bosnia assassinated the Austrian heir and precipitated World War I.
The truth is “” a Serb assassinated the Austrian heir""… The slavic people and Christianians are not so bad and dullard, dunce.
About the Czechs, I know that the people in nearly all participating countries at WW1 wanted to stop the war… At 1917 AD, there is a Revolution at Russia and rebels killed the russian emperor…
You may read here for a Revolt against the war at Bulgaria at September 1918 AD.
Bulgaria was a kingdom, tsardom, but the soldiers- revolts proclaimed a Bulgarian republic in city- Radomir .
Ten days( 10 days) after the revolt, Bulgaria sign an armistice, capitulation on 29 September 1918.
Austria-Hungary sign an armistice, capitulation on 3 November 1918 AD. That six days( 6 days) after the revolt of the Czechs who proclaimed independance. They just lose the war and the people do not to die for nothing…
MUTYLATOR5553
When I write the words- Great Powers , it means - Great Empires.
After WW1, Great Britain is 4 times larger, bigger than USA of Woodrow Wilson.
Great Britain was 1,5 times bigger than the Russian empire( USSR), and larger, bigger than the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan and his sons.
France was 2 times larger, bigger than USA… USA was the same territory, land as they are now.
So USA and Wilson could not decided the peace Treaty with the defeated countries after WW1.
If Wilson had the power to decide the peace Treaty after WW1, we would not see a WW2.
If Wilson had the power to decide the peace Treaty after WW1 , then there would be no WW2 .