Except its not easy to implement because it impacts balance. You guys sit here and act like its as simple as throwing the building on a few new civs but ignore the consequences of giving them that building on the balance level.
As for appropiate. That may be true but lets be honest, this game has literally never prized itself on historical accuracy, and for a group of people throwing appropiate and accutate around, its hilarious that i rarely see any of you complain about all the innacurate stuff in this game. Which makes me question why youre bringing it up now.
Yeah? How often do we see those brought up by those who want to change stuff? Honestly. Look around. Its almosr never beought up. They always bring up that one ot two things that impact the civ that they like or identify with and thats about it.
What makes this game great is that its historically influenced without trying to shove every little detail down your throat. Its elegent in its simplicity. Does everything make sense? No. Does everything make historical sense? Also no. But it is a game.
I feel like many of the additions in Wrath of the Khans and then Dynasties of India have continued to marginalize and overlook the Persian civilization despite its importance to Central Asia and India.
For example, I think Persia should have been given the Persianate architecture set of the Cumans and Tatars, rather than keeping their Islamic architecture, which is more reminiscent of the Moorish and Arab worlds.
Hindustanis, meanwhile, more or less play the role of Persian and Persianate civilizations in the campaigns now. In the Babur campaign, I see the Afghans as being more Persian culturally and linguistically than Indian, but are represented by Hindustanis instead. The Siege Elephant plays out like a siege-focused War Elephant, once something special for Persia.
Well, maybe look at it this way: The Burgundians are a subset of the Franks, but Franks were found to be so important and diverse that there was room for a seperate civ representing this Southeastern French and later partially “Lowlandicized” branch of the civ. That’s essentially what the Hindustanis are as well, a branch of the Persians (with some Turkic influences in there as well, presumably?) that spread all the way East to India, using their impressive trade network including caravanserai to do so. They mixed with the local population, used local influences to adapt their architecture and clothing to the local climate and ruled happily ever after, leaving traces of themselves even today.
It’s not just any civ that gets to branch out like that, not outside of Europe anyway. For balance reasons at some point you have to stop piling on bonuses and just split the civ, after all. Emphasis on “at some point”.
Persians, Arabs and later, Turks, had the longest dominance and deepest influence over the development of the Silk Road by a long mile! For a millennia, the Silk Road was synonym with Persian markets, Arab caravans and Turkish empires.
In fact, control of strategic caravanserai and trade hubs gave rise to the mightiest and most long-lasting Empire in the world by far at the end of AoE2, the Ottoman Empire (Turks).
This cross-continental superpower spurred Europe to hurry to explore and navigate the world, find a maritime alternative to Ottoman-dominated Silk Road, discover the Americas, develop science and technology faster.
The Ottoman Empire crushed dozens of AoE civs on the battlefield and absolutely changed the world forever. Trade monopoly was central to these developments.
Whatever you imagine, you will always have to invent something, since the power of these real world empires wasn’t the same/ the real historical civs weren’t balanced. For example the Spanish explorer Franscisco Pizzaro supposedly defeated an Incan army of 40000 men with only 200men of his own.
The spanish army was just so technicly superior that you have to invent something, to make mesos viable.
This game did well because they put balance and gameplay over accuracy. You mess with that formula and we already have all sorts or proof that it won’t do as well.
You could not be further from the truth. The Silk Road was almost 2000 years old by the time the Ottomans showed up. How on earth can THEY be the ones who influenced it most?
It’s like saying Steve Jobs was the guy who invented the crossbow. It’s that level of stupid.
I’m not censoring you, nor am I cancelling you. I am asking you to stop repeatedly yelling OTTOMANS OTTOMANS OTTOMANS ARE SO SUPER IMPORTANT! THEY ARE THE ONLY WORLD POWER EVER AND THE CAUSE OF EVERYTHING OTTOMANS!
I you repeat yourself without the attention seeking font that would be a big improvement.
We all hope that Age of Empires will gradually become more authentic, more immersive, more culturally and strategically diverse and more fun. We’re together in this.
Giving Caravanserai back to Persia, Saracens and Turks, back to where it belongs, goes a looooong way to achieve ALL of those objectives.
Of course, I am also in favor of improving the critical things, that the critics here accuse us of not caring about, which is not the case. As an example: Yes, on can to take away the siege weapons from the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas because historically they did not have any. Instead, you can give them increased infantry bonuses in return, which historically they had.
We are in favor of providing necessary cosmetic improvements to the game, since Age of Empires adheres to historical correctness, they describe their game framework as covering the entire Middle Ages, then buildings and units should do the same, without all that 100 percent must be correct.
The game mechanical balance of all civilizations does not have to remain 100 percent the same, which is anyway not the case with over 40 civilizations, that we have so far, but only approximately the same.
please stop talking for everyone. none of the things you mention are universally agreed upon.
eg i dont care for ‘authenticity’ (especially not as perceived by some of the people on this forum) and there are certainly people who dont care for ‘cosmetic improvements’ (what does necessary even mean here?), some people even play with cube mod etc
No. We all dont. You and those like you do but many of us are absolutely okay with it not being “authentic”. Two games after this one wrnt for Authenticity over gameplay and readibility. Neither has done as well as age 2. Food for thought.
Authenticity is not everything.
It never belonged to them in the first place so it cant be given to them to begin with.