Community Wishing Wall

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

There are a lot of late antiquity and early dark ages Eurasian civs they could add since the game is still quite sparse in that period…

Essentials:
Vandals, Nubians, Saxons, Longobards, Gokturks, Hunas, Picts, Syrians (Umayyads), Guptas, Tibetans, Xianbei

Mid importance:
Hepthalithes, Axumites (split from Ethiopians), Alemans, Swabians (Suebi), Arabs (pre Muslim and rashiduns), Alans, Himyarites, Khazars, Avars

Others:
Bavarians, Frisians (they could be added to represent Dutch as Franks represent France), Wends, Rourans (proto Mongols?), Tiele (proto Turks), splitting post Han china and Korean three kingdoms

There are probably many I’m missing cause I don’t know much about the same period in south Asia.
A Visigoth and Ostrogoth split is too much imo, not enough info to justify or make something interesting out of it.

22

I take this opportunity to clarify the matter, the Lombards were already considered by the development team. Then they changed their minds and decided to change them to Italians. There is a thread on the subject here if you want to read more.

1 Like
23

1, Add new architecture sets: Caucasian, Chinese, East African, South American.

2, New Civs:

Khitans, Tibetans, Nanzhao, Gokturks, (Tanguts, Jurchens)

Chams, Siamese, Javanese, Visayans, Moluccans

Oriyas, Kannadas, Sinhalese, Assamese, Kashmiris

Somalis, Nubians, Kanembu, Hausa, Songhai

Swahili, Zimbabweans, Kongolese

Tarascans, Chimus

3, New Campaigns for Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Magyars, Turks, Mayans etc.

5 Likes
24

Think you might have missed an announcement there.

25

Maybe it’s time to add some perspective?

estimated population in 1200
estimated population in 12001536×752 80.4 KB

So considering the campaigns we have so far, most likely additions will be China (recently announced), Brazil and Nigeria - if you count population as a metric for relevance.

26

Give indian civis proper sails trade cart and king graphics.

Elite uus should have different graphics.

Unique monk skins.

Unique skins for the few editor units like the heavy xbow bandit mounted samurai.

Correct hero skins for some units eg archer of the eyes master of the templar foot jadwiga etc.

2 Likes
27

I agree with very few of those wishes. Here are my wishes:

fix pathing
fix units teleporting
fix crashes
fix TCs not hitting anything
fix lobby browser
add clan chat/better social stuff
revamp matchmaking to allow more bans/single map queue

actually make the game higher quality, not just bloating it with more crap.

bonus points if they apologize for V&V and refund it.

2 Likes
28

they are different people. Even wikipedia immediately tells you “Suebi (not to be confused with swabians)”. Also the Suebi are probably covered between Bohemians and Teutons. Also the Suebi are just not in the right time frame for AoE2. They were contemporaries of the Romans

29

All these requests added.

30

Of course, give me time to put them in a nice way

31

My wish list:

Fix existing bugs and pathing issues

Add some new terrains, plants, and animals; could even have attack buffs or debuffs related to a specific terrain

New civs that I’d like to see (apart from Tanguts and Jurchens since they’ll likely be added soon):

Central Asia: Gokturks, Sogdians, and Tubo (alternative name for Tibetans to circumvent censorship)

South China & SE Asia: Bo / Pu (representing Nanzhao, Dali, as well as other indigenous tribes of South China), Chams, and Siamese / Tai

South Asia: Kannadigas and Sinhalese (honestly not that familiar with the region there could be more)

Europe: Splitting the Italians into Genoese and Venetians

Africa: Ghanaians, Kanems, Songhai, and Swahili

Americas: Chimus, Mixtecs, and Purepechas

3 Likes
32

Much missing. I’ll just trust the devs have been paying attention and making notes the past 5+ years and have a laundry list of priorities so we don’t have to re-hash old threads and restate everything mentioned by myself and others for half-a-decade or more. All they need to do is browse, re-browse, and/or search the existing forums if they have questions or have a shortage of ideas

But nice thought to try and help them

33
  • Fix Incan audio
  • Add Siamese/Tai
  • Change Slav to Rus
  • Change Persian architecture
  • Give everyone unique castles
  • Add architecture for Byzantines, Armenians, Georgians
  • Buildable roads, bridges especially arch bridges
  • Unique queens
  • Plantable stakes for archers
  • Elephant Cannons
7 Likes
34

Yeah I commented extensively on that thread and I agree of course that Longobards are not Italians but a Germanic tribe invading and slowly integrating in it, therefore it’s silly to have Alboin as an Italian ai name. I guess the Devs didn’t make much of a difference between the two people so adding Italians or Lombards was the same for them.

Suebi were a Germanic confederation contemporary to Romans yes but the Suebi in aoe2 (probably a mix of ancient Quadi and Marcomanni) would focus on the kingdom they founded in Galicia (pre Portugal) which lasted until it was conquered by Visigoths around 580 AD hence it fits the game although it’s definitely not that relevant hence why I didn’t put them as essentials. That kingdom was the first to be recognised as independent by Romans in the early 5th century instead of being just a foederatus like many others.

Another branch of the Suebi remained in the lands where Quadi and Marcomanni lied during classical antiquity which is over the Danube, somewhere between Austria and Bohemia. In any case they were subjugated by the Huns and then by Ostrogoths so they’re even less important than the Galician kingdom.
What’s important though it’s that they contributed to create the future duchy of Swabia (Barbarossa was Swabian) along with a branch of the Alemanni who was running from Franks.

So here’s another complex matter: Alemans and Suebians were used interchangeably before Swabians took hold in the high middle ages. Some Alemans remained under Frankish dominion in Alsatia from 500 AD on, others went to Rhaetia Curiensis to dwell with a community of Christian Romans who existed until the 10th century and who are probably the ancestors of Swiss (in fact you have both Germanic and Latin languages around there).
Another group indeed formed the duchy of Swabia with the Suebi left there. So one could argue it’s enough to add one of the two among Suebi and Alemans and leave Swabians as the second civ. I wouldn’t separate between Suebi and Swabians in any case, the game covers late antiquity so Suebi still make sense, it’s just a matter of what you want to name them.

Alemans are very important in the 3rd, 4th century and 5th century before the Franks basically reduced them to a duchy though you will still hear a lot of them, specially until the 8th century when the Frankish dominion was not so strong and they infamously raided Byzantine Italy in the 6th century at the lowest point of the gothic war.
The problem with Alemans is just that they basically always lose and live on the run so despite being important in those centuries it would be hard to give them a campaign. But it’s not we haven’t seen that before like in the case of Cumans.

So that’s why Wikipedia says “Suebi, not to be confused with Swabians”, but we can confidently assume they’re like Franks to French or bungundi to Burgundians for the economy of this game. What makes it more confusing than those two it’s the Suebi/Aleman thing I mentioned and the fact that they were more scattered all over Europe in different tribes, similar to Alans, another civ hard to depict in a campaign (but possible).
Still they all had a nucleus: for Suebi the Portuguese kingdom, for Alemans Alsatia and Rhaetia/Switzerland, for Swabians well Swabia.

35

Or give Chronicles equivalent of Hand Cannons?

36

I cant really think of such a unit things like xbows slings are already ingame.

Why not make an umbrella swabian civi to cover all three?

37

I would honestly like to see a civ that has Xolotl warriors without the need to convert a stable.

2 Likes
38

That’s the most likely thing to happen, still in the far future if ever, cause maybe Barbarossa would need some redesign and it’s a classic. Not to say you should necessarily play as Swabians instead of Teutons (specially for the crusade part) but some Swabian element would be added because of the origins of the protagonist.

The issue is you would have a civ representing a Germanic kingdom in Portugal in the 5th and 6th centuries, the same civ would have to represent Alemans, mainly around Alsatia and Switzerland, from the 3rd to the 9th century and finally proper Swabia from the 10th to 16th century.
Not new since Burgundians somehow represent Dutch too but if not for the geography the timeframe too would be all over the place for this “Swabian” civ.

From my part I’d like to have a more dark age civ for once so Alemans would be good for that and they could maybe cover later Swabia too (?) but then again not much epic tales from Alemans themselves so you’ll have to go anyway to Barbarossa and later on and it wouldn’t feel appropriate to add a dark age civ only to give them a high medieval campaign (although again Joan of arc with throwing axes and Ismail with Savaran exist).

Ideally I would add Alemans to represent the early medieval Suebian kingdom of Galicia and alemans themselves (the campaign would probably be about the Portuguese kingdom at its peak around the mid 5th century AD expanding against Romans, Visigoths, Vandals and Alans since as I said there’s not much exciting material for Alemans in central Europe, they’re best suited for enemies imo) so with a more barbarian design and eventually Swabian as a separate high middle ages Teuton split.
More realistically yes they can be one civ, the decision then is if calling them Alemans or Swabians and if to focus on earlier or later timeframe for their design and campaign.

39

This is the same situation as the goths,started from Scandinavia moved to italy spain and ended in crimea.also they stand in for saxons so a swabian civi is not a far fetched idea.
Huns are kinda similar started in asia one branch went to europe and others went to india (hunas).

40

Yes though I think Hunas could be separated from Huns and maybe even Hepthalithes, for Bukhara reasons. After all Hunas’ leftovers are represented by Tatars in Devapala instead of Huns who are more “western steppe” like, so at best they could stand in for Sabirs, Huni (Caucasian Huns), Onogurs, Kutrigurs etc.

Also iirc Hunas are Iranic like Alans, Scythians and Sarmatians while western Huns may come from eastern Xiongnu.