Pospolite Ruszenie sounds as a good idea to pole’s, but it does not give a spirit of this phenomena. Also proposition mentioned earlier is kind of boring technology. There is no tweak to current gameplay.
What about something like this:
Pospolite Ruszenie - upon researching, for 50 years for each relic held by player, every Town Centre instead of training Villagers will train Man at Arms for 50 food.
Baisicly Pospolite Ruszenie meant that whoever wanted to fight, took his weapon (often spears, scythes or similar) and fought. It was a lot of peaple without any military training. It wasn’t an army.
Out of the 4 mostly Poles make sence in turms of historical presence they had during the time period. Unfortunatelly they have been the big looser out of all European civs for quite some time. Adding Sicily and Burgundians and not having Poles is kind of meh. The problem was their winged hussars were given to the magyars while having the umbrella "slavs"supposingly represented them whyle the civ design is quite far from western slavs. Than having the lithuanians also complicates things. Still If Im to add a civ from the region it would be Poles.
All the others are debatable. Serbians make most sence in turms of having some sort of powerful state in the period. It lasted only couple of decateds but at least when the ottomans came to the Balkans Serbia was in better condition than the Bysantines and the Bulgarians who were both split in numerous small states. Yet having the Bulgarians who were the major south slav power in the Middle ages and culturally influenced Serbia a lot begs the question if there is a place for another civ so similar. Ofc there were the Croat and Bosnian states, too but they never rose to some prominent power.
As for the Bohemians the vast majority oft theit existence they were part of the HRE. I see no point of adding civs that did not have strong authonomous existance . In a way it makes more sence to have Moravia added than Bohemia but it is also a long stretch tbh. I think the devs should just add the Poles and be done with slavs, and the whole of Europe tbh. You would have the Poles represent the Western Slavs, Bulgarians represent the South Slavs and if we have Slavs renamed to Rus represent the Eastern Branch.
''Winged Hussars" are not the only thing Polish, if thou cared to look deeper. Magyar Hussar is not even anything special, this is just some stupid reasoning because they couldn’t add a proper unique unit.
Being a part of the HRE didn’t really mean much, just a union of kings who were under the head of an elected emperor. Of all the parts in HRE, Bohemia was one of the largest. Basically whether or not Serbs or Bohemians were part of another empire, they were still independently ruled and could live on doing what they wanted. Bohemians do have quite a bit of history.
Ofc Bohemians, Serbians and all of the rest have their history and played their part in the devepolment of Europe. The thing is do we add pretty much everything or we have some criteria. If we split the slavs in 4 or 5 factions what happens if we have a look at India or China. How many subfactions there should be? If we look at the civs that are in the game currently and use that as a criteria Poles make sence in turms of their medieval development. For the rest it is a more or less a stretch.
Well we will see if Italians are renamed with the new update, if they are then it is likely that others would eventually be renamed as well in order to add more ie. splitting indians up
Slavs split in Rus’, Wends (poles and bohemians) and Serbs (serbs, croats and bosnian)
Chinese split in Chinese (han chinese), Manchus (A geographical umbrella for khitans and yurchens) and Tibetans
Indians split in Rajputs (north-west), Bengalis (north-east) and Dravidians (south)
That way you satisfy almost every “separatist” movement from the community by adding 6 civs (which is not a small amount), and still have 7 civs (reaching the optimistic limit number of 50 civs) to be used to cover the rest of the world (subsaharan africa, northamerica etc…)
Bohemians were the first major continental Reformation movement (the Hussite wars). I say “continental”, cuz I think Lollards in England beat them.
Poles were certainly there, and the fact they resisted Germanic expansion is impressive; but as has been stated many times before, their expansion agenda in the Middle ages largely corresponde with that of their German and Lithuanian neighbours- that is, they were competing with Germans for who can colonize the pagan Polabian and Pomeranian slavic tribes first; and then (once that border was stabilized; and after re-forming from a period of feudal fragmentation) they jo,ined the Lithuanians in resisting the Teutonic Order and spent the remainder of the Middle Ages trying to consolidate their gains against the Order (gradually encroaching on its territory; intervenign in its dispute with the cities of what would become Royal Prussia, and eventually vassalizing the rump Order lands as Ducal Prussia), as well as assimilating the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in particular, the Ruthenian nobility on the territories that the Duchy took from the Mongols- culminating in the 1569 Union of Lublin and transfer of the Lithuanian provinces comprising the bulk of modern-day Ukraine to the Crown of Poland- which is what gave Poland their HUGE frontier against the Turks, as well as the Duchy of Moscow- prior to 1569, Poland itself was largely “boxed in”, from the south-east to the north-north-east by Lithuania, and its expansion prospects were fairly limited. The Yagellonians WERE briefly involved in dynastic shenanigans and attempts to create a dynastic union with the Magyars and Bohemians,a nd this put them in direct competition with the Habspurgs, and thus, tangentially got them involved in resisting the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans- but none of these political maneuvers (that ended up fruitless, because the Habsburgs ended up sweeping both thrones in the end) resulted in any significant military action- and Poland notably stayed out of the Hussite Wars, refusing to ally with, or attack the Bohemian “heretics”. Which is probably why it’s been overlooked (so far) by AoK devs in favour of its neighbours (Magyars and Lithuanians- and I would argue, Bohemians as well) who were much more dynamic during the majority of AoK’s era. Poland didn’t really become a huge international player until 1569, and its subsequent victories in the Livonian War (that halted Moscow’s westward expansion in the Baltics for nearly 2 centuries and precipitated the Time of Troubles) and the ensuing tug of war with Sweden over the Baltics on one end, and its confrontations with Turkey on the other frontier (most of which are outside the AoK timeline)
Wends would not represet the actual tribal wends. It would be an umbrella name like ‘teutons’. You do not play as the germanic tribe of the teutons, you play as the HRE.
“Wends” was the way germans called the slavs. Being bohemia part of the HRE and having Poland as a neighbor it could be said that those are the only slavs germans interacted with and so it could be said that both poles and bohemians are represented by the umbrella term “Wends”.
I’m just looking for a name for the west slavs other than “west slavs”, just because a civ can’t be called like that.
The Teutons do in-fact represent the Germanic Tribes. You do realize that Frederick I was born in a German part of the HRE, right? He was then elected as Emperor. The in-game ‘Teutons’ thereof does not represent the entire Holy Roman Empire, but rather, the Germanic tribes located in it. Italians (northern ones) were part of the HRE as well. So again I’m not really finding your logic coherent.
Slavs were more important than ‘Mississippians’ in the world scene at the time. And since this is technically about Medieval times, then Europe has precedence over Africa or Americas.
It would be great to have a campaign on the northern crusades where we can play from the view of teutons lithuanians and poles/wends.eg teutons expanding lithuania defending and poland counter attacking ending with grunwald.
