HRE was not a united state under single ruler in absolutistic means of rule. In fact, only in the beginning of HRE existence it was the powerful state which began to erode. Bohemian kings were not obliged to pay any taxes. They even were not obliged to provide any army (that was due to nobility rules when only the nobility could agree to send their army abroad).
The Bohemian kings did, however, many raids and crusades on their own. For example the city of Königsberg was established in the honour of one such king.
In fact, the Bohemian kings were so powerful that during many civil wars in HRE it was quite often that challenging would-be emperors seeked their support to win (Fridrich II. for example). Additionally, the Bohemian king had one vote in emperor election.
However, it is true that without Hussite wars there would be no clear distinction from other HRE states to justify their addition into AoE2.
Where you saw me say that. 11 They are not. I know they claim to be descendants of the Ilyrians but I do not know more about them.
No. There re speculations where Bulgars came from before 6th century but there is no wide accepted theory . The So called Old Great Bulgaria is formed north of the Black Sea. It comprised of no slavs. It has some success expanding and uniting several turkic peoples (functioned as confederation). These Bulghars are turkic the same way as, cumans, khazars, kipchacks, turks and many others but they are not turks. All these are seminomadic at the time and speak somewhat similar language.
The founder of this Old Great Bulgaria is Kubrat. He has received education in Constantinople and is not the typical nomadic khan. During his rule he fends off the Arabs the Khazars and other invaders but after his death his oldest son Batbayan could not fend against the preassure and the Bulghars split in different directions while Old Great Bulgaria lands becomes part of the Khazar Khaganate.
In the Maps it says Bulgarians but for our discussion we use Bulghars/Bulgars
Asparukh settles at the borders of Bysantium defeats the emperor troops and forms the First Bulgarian Empire 681 in alliance with the local slavs. Later christianity is adopted and slavic/ old Bulgarian literature is developed which helps the two cultures to melt together along with all the other living in the empire so we have the Bulgarians a slavic nation with certain Bulgar origin and ruling class.
At the same time as Asparukh settles around of the Delta of Denube his brother Kotrag goes north of the CaspIan sea and forms Volga Bulgaria. This state takes on a different path adopting Islam early in the 10th century they also mix it up with the slavs but this time eastern slavs as they are neighbours of of the Rus principalities. For a period of time this Volga Bulgara thrirves as cultural and trade center. They tried to export Islam to the Rus but their ruler refused as he did not want to give up wine :). Volga Bulgars are believed to be the first to defeat the Mongols at the Battle of Samara Bend. Ultimatelly the end of Volga Bulgaria comes after preassure from both the Rus and the Tatars and their territory becomes part of the Golden horde towards the end of 13th century.
On the map you can see there are other movements of the Bulghars, too. Some go to modern day Italy some to Panonia now Hungary and some towards the region of Macedonia. The latter two are believed to have also joined the Bulgarian Empire as it expands towards these lands. One of the Greatest dynasties the one of Krum is believed to be from Panonia Bulghars.
Now all these peoples called themselves Bulgarians and their states were called Bulgaria. We use two turms. Bulghars/Bulgars for the seminomadic peoples from turkic origin who lived in Old Great Bulgaria, Volga Bulgaria and moved accross Europe. And Bulgarians for those who came to the Balkans and got mixed up with slavs and other ethnic groups so they represend modern day Bulgarians.
But no there were no slavs in Old Great Bulgaria, Bulgars have turkic origins but thats =/= turks. The Bulgarian civ in the game is designed around First and Second Bulgarian Empire but is also umbrella for the Bulghar States of Old Great Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria as there are AI rulers from those two And also in the Tamerlane campaign you have Volga Bulgars represented by the Bulgarians.
We ain’t getting new civs till 2022 at the earliest (probably not 2 years back to back, tbh). This means there’s at least 12 (probably more) monthly patches for the devs (not just FE) to fix ongoing issues with the game.
If people REALLY want a general “mountain civs” expac, Tibetans, Georgians, Swiss and Bohemians could all fit into that (Bohemia’s got a big chunk of the Carpathians, and those were a big deal in sheilding them from Magyars during the Hussite wars).
Imho, most likely, they’ll go far East for the next xpac (if we get one)- breaking down Indian civs, adding Thai to fill out the SE Asia (Indochina is not a proper term anymore I don’t think? IDK, it was a thing in the old historical atlases I learned my history from), and maybe Tibetans as well.
I think we are looking at 2 civs per year. It is possible to have notheer small expansion till the end of 2021 if we are not goewing to get Age4 this year. But I still think one expansion 2 cvs per year is the way it would go.
Remains to be seen; i’d rather they take their time and give me a meatier expansion down the line. I mentioned elsewhere, my ideal for next x pac is 4 new civs (Tibet, Thai + 2 Indian civs) + 5 campaigns (all of the above plus a Battles-style campaign for China/rest of Far East).
Not sure how many people are aware, but one of the game’s biggest design communities is in China (HawkAoC); AoE1 was huge in Vietnam, and with the addition of the Vietnamese I’m sure the devs want to bring those p;layers on board to AoE2;
And India is obviously a huge emerging market; I can totally see more content being tailored for that region, and I’m totally down for it, because I love history and discovering things about areas of the world I didn’t know as much about before through games like AoK is always a treat;
I would love if the devs would go back to adding civs outside of Eurasia.
It’s a shame that those racist memers (you probably know what I’m talking about) are probably part of the reasons why we haven’t gotten anything on that regard lately, further giving the impression that those world regions have nothing interesting to offer anymore in the time scope of AOE2 which is just wrong ( e.g. Kanem-Bornu Empire).
I hope they’ll be open on that regard if we should get even more expansions. If not, we’ll end up adding Bavarians which would feel IMO wrong next to huge blobs like Indians or Malians.
Would indians be pretty much covered if split into rajputs + dravidians + bengals? I don’t know a lot about medieval india, but oriyas or some central indians might be excluded with these civs. What could be better umbrellas otherwise?
Are the Xi Xia dinasty (tanguts) worth adding into the game in your opinion? Like, reallisticly, knowing that we’re not have 100 civs. Maybe there are other priorities.
Would you rather have Somalians or Kongolese added to the game?
To the slav splitters: Just looking at the bonus and the tech tree, if “orthodoxy” and “druzhina” were renamed to something less russian and the if monastery was not so obviously orthodox but a fictional mix of catholic and orthodox, would you still say that slavs don’t represent western slavs? Again, considering that we’re not having 100 civs and maybe african, americans or indian civs are a priority.
There are no perfect umbrellas, but a Tamils (South India) + a Odyas (East India) civs would actually help cover most of the subcontinent.
Bengals are more of a British Raj thing, and the base Indians civ can already cover for the North of India.
Kongolese, since we already have an East Afican civ, but no Central one.
how many more copies of the same civilizations? burgundians and frank are literally the same, both speak french, both are heavy cavalry civs. no i don’t want tiny kingdoms from west europe when huge empires remain uncovered in the rest of the world.
Mongol empire was bigger than all of them, so what, should we just make a game with only mongols?
Devs are making civs which they know will sell, their choice has nothing to do with the supposed “value” of an empire or culture in history (if there is such a thing). Just deal with it or go play something else.
What are you talking about? It is age of empires, not age of microsoft pets or age of courtyards and villages. All the DLCs sell the same way, 99% of the community buy the civs because of their bonuses, playstyle blahblahblah. What is next? Americans or Dinosaurs? It would sell well for the USA people
At least better than adding courtyards and villages (Bruh-gandains and Si-silly-ans) as empires. As @CheshireWig3203 said if they want to add something then make it worthy, like Khazars, Liao empire, Tibetans, Uyghor, Jourchens, Mughals. If you want to talk about breaking the damn umbrella system, you can get 10,000 empires for Chinese, 100,000 empires for Indians, 1000 for Saracens/Berbers/Persians…but it is not funny at all and i was not agree to add any new civs at all after the DE with 4 new ones (Tatars, Bulgars, Cumans and Lithuanians).