do Vandals even count as European if they live in Carthage
Vandals are really cool but they are pretty shortlasting
He was answering my comment
This would be the best name for ukrainians if someone wants to add them that badly.
It would be a cost efficient civi to make
Language slavic
Building set eastern europe
Wonder the white orthodox church in editor
UU cossack can use attilas skin
1 Like
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 Draculaâs campaign, because Slavs themselves look ridiculous there.
I can agree, but you can just introduce Romanians without changing anything about Slavs.
No no no. You donât know the historical thing. The word âUkraineâ 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).
Here is something WIkipedia says about it:
The modern East Slavic languages descend from a common predecessor spoken in Kievan Rusâ from the 9th to 13th centuries, which later evolved into Ruthenian, the chancery language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rusâ and Samogitia in the Dnieper river valley, and into medieval Russian in the Volga river valley, the language of the Russian principalities including the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
So what makes you sure, that regarding the peoples there was a difference back than?
As I said earlier, part of its history Ukraine existed in a state under occupation by Rusâ
What makes the Kievan Rus an occupation? Aristocrats ruled everywhere back than. But for me it seems like east slavic artistocrats ruled an east slavic country.
I donât care that much for the Vandals, but Huns appeared later than and disappeared earlier than Vandals.
1 Like
Huns are more impactful but nonetheless I wouldnt have considred Huns necessary either
1 Like
I wouldnât complain eitherâŚthe Rus campaign is very limited in AoE 4, itâs doing A and B and itâs very scriptedâŚ
You can use the Strelet as an arquebusier similar to the Turkish JanissaryâŚ
âRus campaign is very limited in AoE 4â - But still it is better to have one more story rather than repeating the same.
Strelets (plural form - streltsi) which means âshooter / firing manâ - yes, it is a good unit but this would be a repetition with AoE 4. In addition, it is peculiar to the imperial age. In principle, it could be in the game, but I would simply suggest it as a replacement for the Hand Cannoneer. But I see Vityaz as a truly iconic Russian unit. This is an important historical clichĂŠ (in a good way).
I also like this name it sounds cool.
Yes. You can google word âвиŃŃСŃâ to see some picks. Look very interesting, like barbarian and noble at the same time. Itâs in between viking, knight and steppe warrior.
In fairy tails we can often see bogatyrs who are an unreal super-verison of vityazes. Bogatyr means smth like ârich oneâ but rich with force, not money.
Both are Slavs, but they are DIFFERENT Slavs. The Russians formed from northern tribes, near the Baltic Sea and Lake Ilmen. The first capital is Ladoga, it is in the north.
And the Ukrainians formed near the Black Sea. On South. In the beginning, between these peoples there was a huge empty space, uninhabited by anyone. Then there was a trade route called âThe Road from the Varangians to the Greeks.â And much later Moscow and other principalities appeared there.
I want to say right away that I have a neutral attitude towards this. I only take facts. But the fact is that Kyiv was conquered by the Novgorod prince Oleg the Wise. But he immediately moved the capital there. That is, Ukraine already existed before it became the center of Kievan Rus. I donât want to say that this is very bad or very good, but the point is that it was not originally solid country, as many people think. There was a merger by capture. Then some people liked it, some didnât. But after a few centuries, Kievan Rus disintegrated into principalities. So, in the end, the very existence of Kievan Rus was not productive in the long term (if I am allowed to judge such a thing). Kievan Rus is not some kind of original ancestral home, it is a temporary project. Russians and Ukrainians existed separately before and after.
No, you actually didnât. If you want to describe âexactly what they should doâ, hereâs what youâre missing.
This means nothing, and is basically just Celts or Cumans unless further detail is given.
This means literally nothing. It can be anything from the faster farms Slavs have, to cheaper farms of Teutons, to farmers no needing dropoffs like Khmer, to hunters working faster like Mongols, to hunt last longer like Goths, or something else entirely. It has no actual useful information.
This doesnât actually tell us anything about their tech tree. What units do they have? What are they missing?
This is slightly more detailed, but it would just manifest as the lack of stone bonuses, probably missing stone shaft mining and the building HP upgrades.
You havenât actually said anything about the functionality of this.
This oneâs a bit better, and itâs literally just because you said itâs a Boyar, so itâs then apparent that it has a lot of armor.
This is so broad itâs useless. Pick one or two specific things. The building needs to have a clear and defined role, or you might as well have not made it.
This really doesnât seem like a fitting building for a war game, and youâd need more detail on the abilities.
This is also quite strange, it doesnât feel like other stuff we have in the game.
This seems contradictory with the poor stone mining. Pick one side of it, and focus on that.
Thatâs op probably, and you need to choose specific things.
No detail again, pointless.
Iâm not going to bother doing the others. Basically, if you want anyone to actually be able to critique the design properly, there needs to be actual precision, not just a barrage of vague concepts that need to be turned into bonuses.
Thatâs just A) toxic, B) condescending, and C) insulting. If you want people to express interest in your ideas, you probably donât want to act this way. And it is actually kind of important to interest people. You may think you have some magic ability to get the devâs attention, but you donât. Nobody does. Perhaps the only way to possibly do that is through showing thereâs a lot of interest in a certain civ. Which is interest you arenât going to raise if you go round insulting people and not providing a design people can actually critique properly.
4 Likes
Both are Slavs, but they are DIFFERENT Slavs. The Russians formed from northern tribes, near the Baltic Sea and Lake Ilmen. The first capital is Ladoga, it is in the north.
And the Ukrainians formed near the Black Sea. On South.
The question is were the tribes around Ladoga and those in the South different people? Did they speak different languages?
It is likely that before the Slavs were at Ladoga finno-ugrian people lived there, because today there is a gap between the finno-ugrian peoples.
The area north of the Black Sea known as Wild Fields was rather uncivilized until the Russians captured it in the 18th century. Steppe ruled by Mongols or Tatars, low populated without much settlements.
Todays western Ukraine is probably roughly the origin area for many slavs like Ukrainians, Russians but also Croats in particular.
This all makes sense too. But when we talk about the origin of peoples, we must understand this: every ancestral home had another ancestral home, and that one had another. And if we continue to dig into this topic, we will come to the conclusion that we are all from Africa and descended from monkeys in the territories of Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania, and therefore we are all one people. But this is absurd. When we talk about the origin of nations, we need to pose the question like this: âhow far did the two peoples manage to separate themselves after they separated from the ancestral nation?â Of course, all Slavs have some kind of ancestral Proto-Slavic formation. But I explain that Russians and Ukrainians had already become different by the time political experiments began to try to unite them back. I repeat - at all times, some people liked it, others didnât. But even if you just look at pictures on the topic âRussiansâ and âUkrainiansâ you will see strikingly different people.
I canât imagine Microsoft introducing Ukraine and Russians as new civs while they are in an active war with each other right now.
2 Likes
Adding balkan civis is also very messy so its unlikely they too will get added.
Yes, we would have to see what they do⌠but it wouldnât be strange if they did what I say, considering that they try to have continuity within the same saga⌠I think that the Rus of AoE 2 would not vary much from the Rus of AoE 4 only they would have fewer unique units than the last oneâŚ
Yeah but since Dracula is the actual Slav campaign (more or less) I think at least they should add Wallachians and rename Slavs to Rus to give them a proper campaign. If they feel like being generous they could add a Magyar campaign and another Balkan civ/campaign among Serbs, Croats, Avars, Albanians or Bosnians.
1 Like
The Avars seem to me to be Goths, Huns, Turks, or SlavsâŚ