Hey! Currently, Vortigern is a Celt AI name. Now that we play as him with the Britons, I think he should be a Britons AI player.
What do you think?
1 Like
Hard to say anything… It’s kinda weird you play as Britons in that scenario where Celts or Romans would make more sense or a mix of the two. But the game is really not too well equipped when it comes to dark ages…
I guess the answer depends on what do Celts and Britons represent and where is the dividing line. In my mind Britons represent post norman conquest people in Britain while Celts somehow everyone from Welsh to Scots, from Picts to Irish…
2 Likes
Civs using in V&V is different from the tradition. They also make seljuks Tatars instead of Turks.
I guess the reason is make them have no gunpowder UU, but in that way they get a Mongolized UU.
If there is ever a Saxons civ, he’d probably be most appropriate for them.
Tatars are Turkic peoples, same as Cumans (and Pechenegs, for that matter), so it’s not wrong using Tatars as the player civ
That’s like Abe Simpson getting the Iron Cross
The Sultans of the Seljuk Empire are the AI player names of Turks.
As I stated, basically the Turks are based on the Seljuks and Ottomans, and the Tatars highly focus on the Turco-Mongols.
If it’s fine just because they are Turkic, then it means that you can also use Cumans rather than Tatars to represent Seljuks.
2 Likes
like it is and it isn’t. Seljuks were an Oghuz turk, which in game is supposed to be represented by the Turks. But the in-game turks better represent the later oghuz turkic ottomans. Even tho the tatars in game represent a different turkic branch, they’re playstyle is more appropriate for the time period covered.
using turks would be the technically correct civ, tatars is the civ that will feel historically accurate. It’s an inconvenient edge case when trying to represent earlier Oghuz turks.
1 Like
The Turks in the game have +20HP cavalry archers and have the gold bonus to support cavalry training. They still can be played as the earlier Oghuz Turks with the tech tree.
But anyway, the scenarios of V&V have heavily overmodified the tech tree, so even you use Aztec as the player civ, there can have a well cavalry archer gameplay still.
1 Like
Ah, I didn’t know that! In that case, you are right. The alternative would be moving those AI names to the Tatars, which is similiar to this Vortigern discussion
The emphasis on gunpowder in imp makes that tricky. If like in Manzikert you just remove all the gunpowder…yeah sure, turks do represent earlier oghuz turks well.
Turks out of the box, with no modification, not so much.
You basically need to choose tatars or remove all the gunpowder from turks.
If you only want to stay in castle age, then it’s less work removing all the gunpowder from turks.
It’s not a hard job to remove gunpowder units in an scenario, though.
You could have used Turks, removed gunpowder and add either Mangudais, Tarkans or Keshik and instead of Artillery, give them either Drill or Timurid Siegecraft
Regardless, w/o modifications Turks don’t represent earlier Oghuz turks very well if the point of the scenario is to depict earlier oghuz turks.
The inclusion of good light cavalry and CA is reference to those earlier periods, but turks in game are designed to represent ottomans, with references to their earlier periods.
So if you aren’t going to modify turks your next best option is to pick tatars.
1 Like
Not really, Vortigern was a romanised Briton, Saxons were the invading forces (grey in the scenario).
3 Likes
Seriously speaking, the Keshiks are Mongol stuff so they do not fit the early Seljuks too.
When using Tatars you still need to modify something, like changing their name to Sipahi.
But again, now they picked Tatars but still overmodified the civ, so even if they followed the tradition and picked Turks their workload would not increase obviously.
1 Like
I thought the Tatars were supposed to represent post-Mongol Empire nomad states, like the Golden Horde and the Timurids? Their use in campaigns doesn’t make sense most of the time, and making the Seljuks, a group specifically represented by the Turks civ, played by Tatars is really strange. Moreso considering the Mongol Empire wouldn’t even exist yet in the 900s
Britons are primarily based on England and Wales from about the 1200s onwards, so I disagree. Celts don’t have much historical basis, but they do seem more appropriate for Vortigern. I find the decision to use Britons in the scenario pretty weird.
On the other hand, I don’t really think Vortigern should be an AI name for anyone. There are plenty of actual historical figures who definitely existed to name Celt and Briton AI players after, so no need to resort to dubious figures like him.
No, name their AI players after actual Saxons.
2 Likes