Divide the umbrella civilization of the Slavs: Russians, Ukrainians, Serbs, Vlachs

I really think that the umbrella civilization of the Slavs generalizes too much, does not really reveal any of its peoples and, in general, plays badly and looks objectively backward, because it has almost no imperial period (this is especially strange against the background of the Vikings, Huns and Cumans, who have such a period, although in reality they did not live to see it).

I don’t blame the devs for ignoring the Rus, since we know that Russians are in AoE 3 and 4 and are adequately represented there. Nevertheless, AoE 2 still remains the most popular in the series and I want to see the civ here. Other Slavic peoples also deserve to be represented.

I really like how the Hindus civilization was previously completely split into 4 new ones and I believe this is exactly what needs to be done with the Slavs.

I suggest the division as follows:

  • Rus

  • Ukrainians / Cossacks

  • Romanians / Vlachs (they must be in Dracula campaign)

  • Serbs

  • Balkan Slavs: Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians

Yes, the last one is still an umbrella civ. But to be realistic, there must be a certain point where we must stop, since the variety of Slavs is very large and the game still has to take the most significant historical layers. Many may not agree with me, but I think that leaving the Balkan Slavs as a combined civilization is justified. I believe the devs can split 1 civilization into 5, but I don’t believe they can do 7.

I would also like to note that among Orthodox peoples (at least some of them) priests must have a beard. Their lack of beards is a serious ahistorical mistake. Russians, Ukrainians and Serbs have a long history of Orthodox Christian tradition in which priests wear beards as symbol of wisdom, dignity and dedication. Armenians also have this feature (if they are ever added). So the game needs a new religious unit model.

Vlachs and Balkan Slavs do shave though.

About campaigns

Ideally, I would like to see campaigns of all these nations, but since we know that 1 DLC can only include 3 campaigns, I would suggest doing the following: Rus campaign (but without repeating what is shown in AoE 4), Ukraine campaign, and a new collection of historical battles. There could be battles for each of these nations. I consider it a big omission that in the existing historical battles there is not a single one about the Slavs.

To me those people of Rus history are the most interesting: Olga of Kiev, Oleg the Wise, Vladimir the Great, Vladimir Monomakh, Alexander Nevskiy, Yury Dolgoruky (Yury Long-armed). They might be heroes of campaigns or historical battles.


Next I will give brief concepts of race. I emphasize – BRIEF. Don’t write to me that they are not complete and you can do better. Because these are short concepts. If you can do better, do it, I wish you good luck. But I don’t believe in long concepts, I know that no developer will carry out the detailed developments of any fan. It will not happen. Therefore I give only brief concepts.


• Relatively high speed of movement of troops on flat terrain (Russians lived on the plains)

• Well-developed agriculture and hunting.

• Limited opportunities in maritime production and trade, since Russians had few access to sea (in historical period before Peter the Great).

• Limited possibilities in the field of stone processing and construction of fortresses, since larger accumulations of stone are found mainly in mountainous regions that were not so accessible (Rus’ for a long time could not move from the wooden period to the stone one).

Unique units:

  • Vityaz. In general, this can be an already existing “boyar” unit, although you can make it visually a little more “festive”. Vityaz is the Russian equivalent of knight or paladin. At the same time, the knights and paladins themselves should be removed from the Russians, because they are extremely ahistorical. At the mechanics level, the existing Boyar is good, but in real history, the boyars almost did not fight personally, but were nobles and landowners. Therefore, renaming the unit to Vityaz is the best option.

  • Ladia. This is, in general, the only type of ship that has been used by the Russians for centuries. This nation did not have a rich fleet, because there was almost no access to the seas and all shipping was connected with rivers. Later, under Peter I, Russia acquired a powerful fleet, but this happened already during AoE 3. But in AoE 2 the Russian fleet can be very limited. In fact, Ladia is a version of Drakkar; in reality, it was used for both peaceful and military purposes. Personally, I do not believe that Russians could have a diverse fleet and I think that Ladia could be unified and more or less replace most of other naval units.

Unique buildings:

  • Estate would be the main building for collecting resources and developing economy. It could increase the productivity of workers, speed up the collection of resources and provide bonuses for the development of economic technologies.

  • Banya (bathhouse) would be a unique building that provides bonuses to restore units’ health and improve their stamina.

  • Icon-painting workshop could be a building associated with the Russian religious and artistic tradition. Could provide bonuses to the development of religious technologies and increasing the efficiency of religious units.

I would also like to note that it would be very desirable if ordinary houses went through a special progression, characteristic of Russian culture: in the dark ages it was a dugout (a half-buried house), then it was an izba (a dilapidated log house like from fairy tales), then a terem (beautiful village house). But they shouldn’t turn to stone. You may get surprised, but even in the 21st century, Russian villages still consist of izbas and terems.

About cannons:
I don’t agree with the absence of cannons. Russians had them during this time period. They especially became widespread under Ivan the Terrible, i.e. during the imperial period.

Unique mechanics (I think this is a really interesting thing):

Rus’ for a long time was in a state of feudal fragmentation and consisted of a number of principalities that were very different from each other. I even wondered - shouldn’t it be worth presenting Moscow and Novgorod Rus’ as two different races? But in the end I came to a more interesting idea. The civilization could have a unique mechanic, in which in the feudal and castle age a special choice with the direction of the path would be available: in the Town Hall or some other building we could choose which principality we are adjacent to: Moscow, Novgorod, Ryazan, Tver, Vladimir-Suzdal (in reality there were more, but these are the most notable). Thus, having made a choice, the player receives a certain bonus at this stage. This would create varied gameplay, could be reflected in campaigns where different cities of Rus’ appear, and there could also be game situations where the player deliberately postpones the transition to the empire in order to continue to benefit from the principality bonus.

I deliberately did not create a super-developed concept, since the developers still won’t take it and, at best, will do everything their own way, but approximately it could look like this:

Reinforced city walls and towers, which would make cities more secure.
Bonus to cavalry (for example, men-at-arms gain strength similar to that of knights, without becoming knights).
Central control: some economic bonus, for example the income of gold from taxes.

It was one of the largest trading centers in Rus’ and had developed trade relations with Western Europe. Therefore, the adoption of this principality would provide advantages in trade (more income from markets, rapid creation of trading units and fishing boats).
Novgorod had a developed fleet. Therefore, the sub-race could have advantages in a naval battle: more powerful ships or the ability to create a fleet faster.
It was also a city of high education, which could mean a faster and cheaper University.

Ryazan was known for its developed agriculture and fertile lands. Therefore, a bonus to the fields.
It was also famous for its craftsmen and could have bonuses to siege technologies.

Tver was located at the crossroads of trade routes and had developed trade. Tver could have advantages in trade.
Tver was close to the Golden Horde and the Principality of Lithuania, which gave it a strategic advantage in political and military relations. She could have advantages in diplomacy or call on a number of warriors from other races.

Vladimir-Suzdal Principality:
Can receive bonuses in the field of religion, which reflects the importance of these aspects in the history of the principality.
Could also have a certain bonus in trade or economy.

If associated colors are needed (for example, for icons or flags), then I would suggest the following: Moscow - red, Novgorod - white, Ryazan - green, Tver - yellow, Vladimir-Suzdal - brown.
I have ranked these principalities in order of decreasing importance. In fact, it is enough if at least 2-3 would be implemented. This would be a truly unique and worthwhile mechanic that would make it worth playing as Rus’.
When you move to Empire Age, the bonus is lost. Although the empire certainly has its own advantages. Or, as an option, upon transition to the empire, a forced conversion to Moscow occurs.

1 Like


A brief historical background for those who are interested: Rus’ and Ukraine formed as separate groups of principalities, then in the 9th century they merged into one country as the Novgorod prince Oleg conquered Kiev, then in the 12-13th centuries it again broke up into principalities and for several centuries they experienced occupation from sides of Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians. After this, processes took place due to which Ukraine or part of it again entered the Russian Empire and left it several times (as you know, this drama continues to this day…)
Therefore, for everyone who wants to understand whether Ukraine was part of Rus’ or not, the answer is in the middle. They were formed separately, but at different times they owned each other. Or not.
I consider this nation entirely worthy of its own introduction.

• Excellent cavalry, especially Cossacks, with high movement speed.
• Bonuses to farming and fishing (because the southern soils and the Black Sea are very fertile)

• Bad archers.
• Poor mining of wood, stone and gold, since Ukraine is best known for its vast fields and agriculture, and not for the extraction of natural resources (this disadvantage is compensated by unique building, which will be discussed below).

Unique units:

  • Cossack armed with saber
  • Gaydamak
  • Serdyuk

All 3 are different types of horsemen, I leave the concrete concept on devs. Or you.

At the same time, there are no knights, so as not to violate historical accuracy. But they are compensated by unique units.

Unique buildings:

  • Cossack Sich - a unique building that reflects the military and defensive power of the Ukrainians, provides bonuses to the training and efficiency of the Cossacks, as well as improve defense and control over the territory.

  • Korchma (Ukrainian tavern) could generate some gold. You can only build 1 tavern per city.

  • Pigsty gradually creates pigs for slaughter. Also, only 1 per city.

And very briefly about the others.

Romanians / Vlachs

• Bonus to collecting resources from wood and gold.
• Good protection of buildings and walls.
• Bonus to attack and defense on hills.

• More expensive cavalry and catapult units.
• No access to some types of units.
• Units will be more vulnerable to archer attacks.

Unique building:

  • The crypt could improve the effectiveness of religious units, provide bonuses to unit healing.

Balkan Slavs: Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians

Unique buildings:

  • The bell tower is a typical architectural feature of Balkan cultures. In the gaming aspect, it could provide bonuses to viewing range and signaling, as well as strengthen scouts.

  • The residence of a ruler or high-ranking official, which reflects the political and social structure of the Balkan peoples. It could provide bonuses to economic development, diplomacy and contain some special upgrade.

Here’s my take on it. You aren’t providing actual civ designs. Therefore, there’s nothing for people to comment on. Therefore there’s no purpose in these posts. However, you claim that it’s “for the devs”. That seems really quite arrogant to me. If you’re not even going to have actual civ designs, you’re adding literally no value as far as I’m concerned. If they want to make any of these civs (which I’m hoping they don’t, I don’t want more European civs), really vague stuff like this gives absolutely no ideas whatsoever, meaning it would have no value to them. I could say “civ X is good at archers”, and it could mean anything from: Britons to Koreans to Chinese to Italians to Ethiopians. It’s far too generic to be helpful for anything. It’s also not interesting to read if I’m being honest, just because it feels like there’s no real substance.


Not sure about Ukrainians/Cossacks since they were sort of relevant only towards the very end of aoe2 (1550 on). You could use Ruthenians or Novgorodians maybe for middle ages…

When I’m in doubt for a civ usually it helps asking if I can find 10 AI names, a campaign hero, UU, specific bonuses, techs etc.

For those reasons I doubt Macedonians or Slovenes were a thing in middle ages but I’d like to be proven otherwise.
Vlachs (Romanians is too modern for a name) are fine, there’s already a campaign for them, and Croats and Rus too.

Can we stop using this guy’s works as any merit. Look at the linked spreadsheet in that video . Good god its bad!!

For proof here are the bonuses of that design.

At a glance this is terrible. The one bonus is garbage with a disadvantage thrown in for no reason and the rest are so irrelevant but who cares your military training is so slow you cant rush anyway.

The one advantage this civ might have is as a dwrk age sling civ… whoopti effin do.

At a third glance it’s still awful. Stop aspiring to simp for him.


I suggest the division as follows:

  • Rus
  • Ukrainians / Cossacks
  • Romanians / Vlachs (they must be in Dracula campaign)
  • Serbs
  • Balkan Slavs: Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians
  • Romanians are not Slavs but Romance/Latin people.
  • If there is a division within the East Slavs, the name Ukrainians should not be used. It is a modern word, and conflicts of the 21st century should not be brought into AoE2. Maybe use the word Ruthenians instead. But imo the whole divisiton withen East Slavs in the medival period is a bit artifically imo.
  • Serbs are southern Slavs like Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians.

The basic disvision within Slavs is between eastern, western and southern Slavs (Yugoslavs). Western Slavs are already in the game with Poles and Bohemians. A division within eastern Slavs makes not much sense imo. What is missing is one or more southern Slav civs. But imo there should be not too much balkan civs imo, because most of these peoples were not independent in the medival period. For me it seems more like pushing modern civ into the mediaval period.

1 Like


No civ should have a negative bonus.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

They are partially Slavs. Although in general I am not driven by the desire to write them down as Slavs, but to highlight a separate race that would occupy a place in Dracula’s campaign, because Slavs themselves look ridiculous there.

No no no. You don’t know the historical thing. The word “Ukraine” has existed for about 1000 years, but previously it was not the only word to designate this people. Previously, it was called by different names: Rusyns, Cossacks, Malorosi (Little Russians). But there was the term of Ukraine (historically means “border”, “corner”). As I said earlier, part of its history Ukraine existed in a state under occupation by Rus’, Poland and the Galician-Volyn principality. Nevertheless, it continued to exist quite distinctively. It did not have its own kings (only hetmans), but the PEOPLE always continued to be original.

I think you’re confusing me with op because we have the same profile pic (I was too lazy to change it).
I don’t like his way of throwing civs so vaguely but I just look at what he’s proposing.

Why should aspire to what lol
Listen I don’t know what he did to you that makes you so aggressive just whenever he comes up but I really don’t care, it was just to give op a way to imagine some kind of slavic split more in detail.

1 Like

I don’t even know him. Some aggressive boy just throws on me for no reason.

Oh. Btw. I AM Russian. I know how to describe Rus.

I hope you’re not trying to throw politics into the discussion because to me that’s not the point.
In aoe2 a civ needs AI names for rulers, unique bonuses and a campaign. That’s all.
As I said I’m far from being an expert on medieval Ukraine but if you can find a name for the civ (in middle ages), some rulers name (they don’t need to be totally independent or completely historical kings imho but at least some actual names lol) and among those at least a hero who can have a 5 or 6 scenarii campaign that’s fine.

Well, they had hetmans as rules which is pretty much enough for race leaders. I am all for unique civ and campaign for them.
And yes, they have totally enough of those what you mention. Also they have unique design of villages, their own language, culture, their own writers, their own troops types. 100% deserve a separate civ.

My apologies genuinely

And also. I would like to emphasize that the Romanians / Vlachs mentioned here have little in common with the Romanians from ancient times. In many languages they are called differently - RUmanians. They have a mixed origin: Latins + Gypsies + Slavs.

Then whos screenshot you was even showing to us? Because it’s not mine either. I think you really need a little discipline to at least begin to understand who exactly you are throwing yourself at with your empty grievances and aggression.

People would rather split a perfectly functional european civilization into 5 than have a second civilization in South America.


unnecessary insults aside its from the Novgord civ linked. i stand by my absolute dislike of RobbyLava or whatever his name is civ design philosophy.

Look if you want to be liked in this community please be less condescending or at least give us more to work with in your civ design. People will report you for insulting others and much as I dont yet like you i dont want you silenced or banned

1 Like