I’d like to see a Celts split in the far distant future, but I categorically disagree about it being one of the highest priorities. The Balkans, an Andalusia civ, probably 2-3 DLCs to fill out Africa, another Mesoamerican DLC, and a Southeast Asian DLC for Siam and Chams are all IMO higher priority than a Celts split. another Indian subcontinent DLC and a North American DLC with Mississippians, Algonquins, and Inuit or Thule might even be higher priority IMO.
Maybe make the current Celts civ “Picts” and then add Scots and Irish alongside? That way you keep their identity while giving more historical options as well.
I think not renaming Slavs comes down to the current Slavs civ having to represent most of the South Slavs outside of Bulgaria still (and Vlachs for whatever reason lol). Hence the need for a Balkans DLC so that the South Slavs and Vlachs finally get some proper representation and the current Slavs civ can finally truly only represent its East Slav niche and get a more appropriate name.
As someone who wants a Migration era DLC, it ain’t for this lol, it’s moreso for getting Vandals (formerly Saxons but we have them now) Lombards to represent the Germanic group that settled down in Italy, maybe Suebi to represent all the Germanic groups that stayed in Germany but i’d probably rather not add that.
Ornlu mentioned in the university lecture video that the reason Slavs aren’t renamed to Rus is the Russian-Ukrainian war… Yet another lunacy of Microsoft lawyers, Ukrainians LOVE Kyivan Rus
Peel off Picts from them, they would have fit nicely in this new dlc alongside Saxons and Danes (with proper campaigns instead of just Harald hardrada) and give more variety but Varangians are more cool.
Picts would retain the woad raider but not the faster infantry bonus since that’s a mistake Devs made back then similar to Mongols with faster CA and mangudai, Teutons with armour on infantry plus the TK, Britons with archers and longbows, Vikings in part etc. The UU should be something unique but woad raiders and Celtic infantry act basically the same.
The faster infantry bonus would go to the Scots as a nod to the fact they absorbed the Picts when invading northern Britain around 900 AD.
Why it won’t happen: William Wallace will hardly be changed so dramatically, specially because voice acting already refers woad raiders and they’d have to rerecord it to mention the new Scottish UU though they could make an actual Scottish William Wallace campaign and leave every tutorial to the plotless art of war (and before anyone complains yes I’m in favour of a legacy edition for diehard nostalgics but like everything in life I think the game should also move on).
Irish would be a fair addition, the Celtic wonder would go to them, they fought Danes and Normans and earlier they invaded sub Roman Wales as shown in Vortigern.
Welsh are less needed imo mostly cause there are Britons but they’re fair game, specially if Britons finally get a proper UU and the longbow is shared.
In my opinion, before celtic split or any other split we really need to have new unique civs that is unrepresented in the game, especially Vlachs (wallachians) or Finns ( representative civ for finno ugric nations)
I am really disappointed in Vikings Saga DLC bcuz they really overlooked Finns or Finnish to be added in the game. This upcoming DLC was an invaluable oppurtinity for Finns ( Mordvins, Karelians, Estonians, Sami, Tavastians and all other finno-ugric civs) for sure.
I think it would be really necessary to rework the factions of the British Isles. On top of that, we could get interesting new campaigns and maybe even feature a campaign inspired by the Arthurian legend, but with a more historical interpretation. Having the Saxons and the Romans is notably a real asset for an Arthurian campaign.
I believe the Britons should no longer represent the English. The term Britons always referred to the Celts of Great Britain until the island was unified by the English Crown. It wasn’t until the 16th century that the English appropriated the term to refer to themselves. Previously, Britons was the only term used by the Romans to designate the peoples of Great Britain, including the Caledonians. I therefore propose that the Briton civilization be refocused on the true Britons who still existed at the fall of the Roman Empire: the Picts, the Votadini (Gododdin), the Kingdom of Strathclyde, the kingdoms of Gwynedd and Powys (Welsh), etc. The English should be introduced with a dedicated civilization to represent them.
The trickiest part is the Celts. Historically, the Celts were the Gauls. The Brythonic peoples were never formally called Celts by the Romans, even though the latter noted their similarities with the Gauls. Gaelic peoples are Celtic from a linguistic point of view, but that’s a modern perspective. The first person to make the connection with the Celts was George Buchanan in the 16th century. Nevertheless, to avoid losing the Celt civilization and to stick to the publisher’s rule of not renaming classic civilizations, it would be possible to keep the civilization focused on the Gaels (Scots and Irish).
If they add Irish, I think it’d be cool to give them Fortified Churches as a nod to how Irish monasteries were a center in Europe for copying old Latin (Roman) texts, and were frequently targets to viking raids.
I wouldn’t be against it at all, not least because the Celts have a gazillion problems. The challenge is in how to divide or redo them without spoiling the gameplay or over-representing a particular geographical area. It takes some intelligence and care to do everything properly.
In any case, just a sneak peek at a project I’m working on, heavily WIP (I’ll find a way to get the community involved):
In AoE 4 they’re going to add the Scots in the Nordic DLC at the end of the year, and in the new Baltic DLC for AoE 3 you have several Scottish units with the House of Stuart… so I don’t see a problem if they ever make a Celtic DLC for AoE 2 (and for AoM while we’re at it)…
Yeah, right, but why will vikings remain in the game then if its a split? “Viking” is a man from the northern europe that went on a viking. ( The word Viking originally referred to an activity or expedition rather than an entire ethnic group) I mean, they changed the game soo much it doesn’t matter anymore at et least we can strive for historical accuracy.
not this nonsense again. “Viking” being an old word for “pirate” or “raider” from the north is ONE meaning of the word. “Vikings” is entirely valid as a name for the entire culture group.
I agree, which is why I’ve embarked on a personal project alongside the community wiki, but rather than renaming the Vikings, we’ve got the horned Berserkers…
Well its not nonsense… We do understand what we mean under that word as a culture of tribes who did go on vikings.. But historians always cringe when it is used. As we are dividing and properly naming north european nations, we could ditch that name aswell..
This is the narrow, and technically the only correct use of the term ‘Viking,’ but in such expressions as ‘Viking civilisation,’ ‘the Viking age,’ ‘the Viking movement,’ ‘Viking influence,’ the word has come to have a wider significance and is used as a concise and convenient term for describing the whole of the civilisation, activity and influence of the Scandinavian peoples, at a particular period in their history, and to apply the term ‘Viking’ in its narrower sense to these movements would be as misleading as to write an account of the age of Elizabeth and label it ‘The Buccaneers.’
Of course there will be other historians using it differently, but just claimaing
I have no qualm with it, but i’d rather it not be the next one…though the picture you paint does reinforce the idea that it could be the next one. Hopefully they wait a bit on that though.
First of all, welcome to the forum; this appears to be your first post.
The Britons in the game are the English, so you would have to redo everything. Not only is it an OG civilisation, but it simply isn’t possible. The mistake that was made during the initial development phase was setting the game in Late Antiquity. Perhaps the developers were afraid to rename the Britons as the English as the years went by. Nowadays, however, the Britons in the game are 100% the English.
In the game, the Celts represent five civilisations at the same time: Irish, Scots, Picts, Welsh and Bretons. This can be seen from the AI player names. What’s more, there’s all that nonsense about Stonage (you’ll find it in the historical news section) and the coat of arms, which speaks for itself.
Dividing the Celts into five civilisations is out of the question. What is certain is that the language of the civilisation is Goidelic, so Brittonic is completely absent.
One idea might be to use the Gaels (or Scoti), but there would still be some areas left uncovered.
Hi, thank you for the welcome. Indeed, I just joined the forum even though I’ve known the game since childhood.
I believe they did make similar changes for a civilization like the Indians (even though they’re not part of the original game). There’s no doubt the Britons are the English in the game, but as explained, it’s an absurdity that needs to be changed. The term “Britons” doesn’t apply to medieval English. Unlike you, I think it’s perfectly possible to make this change. It would simply require copying the assets of the current Britons into a new civilization called “English” and adjusting scenario and campaign assets automatically. If it’s a 1:1 swap from one civilization to the other, it’s easily achievable for a developer.
The entire pseudo-historical description of Celts from the original game can be thrown in the bin. The label Celtic applied to the native people of the British Isles is as anachronistic as the label Byzantine to the Eastern Roman Empire. Gaels and Britons weren’t called Celts or Celtic by the Romans. It is a modern understanding of the languages and of the mythology. The issue is that we can’t reasonably think they would remove or the rename the Celts since they are from the original game. Like the Britons, the name of the civ would probably remain in all situations.
Five more factions is indeed not a credible option. This is why I suggest only one: the English. In my proposal, the existing Britons and Celts are redesigned. The Britons to depict the Brythonic Celts. Celts to depict the Gaelic Celts. This is not perfect but at least much better than the current situation.
at et least we can strive for historical accuracy.