Your point is clear. And yet the former Ottomans are constantly at war with each other. Native Americans are on reservations. China is planning an invasion. There are dictatorships in Africa. And yet these countries are represented in the game.
Which modern day Ottoman and African wars are you talking about and which civs in the game specifically are at war with each other right now? Native Americans are not at war. China wants to invade Taiwan. Taiwanese are not in the game and never will be, along with Tibetans.
There are a ton of african civs to lump em all into one homogeneous glob.
Whether modern all the way to medieval era you can easily find many splits in kingdom and culture
I think, more or less, most of us agree that, now that Slavs have effectively been split, the Slavs civ is meant to represent the East Slavs.
Now, based on that, regarderless of how important one could think we’re missing a Serbs, Croats, or any other slavic civ, the easiest improvement we could have on the game right now regarding the Slavs is to rename them to Rus.
That’s what we should ask in terms of most realistic and feasible demands.
More slavic civs can be added after we’re done covering the most needed regions, like the Caucasus and sub-saharan Africa.
All that said, in my oppinion, a further east slavs split is one of the most unnecessary civ in the game right now. I mean, yeah, let’s ask for it in 20 years or so, when we’re around the civ 100th (I hope we never even get close to that number)
Let’s all agree there’s a list of priorities that need to be taken in count in terms of new content.
4 Likes
This is one of the most racist, biased and unfounded things I’ve read on a gaming forum in years. In the same way, one could say that there was no need for division of Hindus. Slavic civilizations are completely different and occupy a huge place in history, and you spoke about it as some kind of garbage. We literally have a Rumanian campaign with no Rumanians in it! And you say that the priority for this is 20 years. SERIOUSLY? You proposed renaming the civilization to Rus’, arguing that there are already Western Slavs, but you seem to have forgotten that there are also southern Slavs. You multiplied the Balkans by zero. In addition, the current civilization of the Slavs is implemented as very weak, almost without imperial period, with the worst team bonus, and you say that this will do for the next 20 years. What a nonsense.
Medieval East Slavs? No. Not the enough for a civ split.
Romanians are not slavs. And I do want a Vlachs civ.
Yes, I did. The current Slavs civ should not represent non-bulgarians south slavs. It doesn’t make sense to have a civ to represent the complement of all slavic peoples already covered by other civs. No, there must be a cohesive theme.
The current Slavs civs only represent the east slavs.
You can consider serbs, croats, etc, as still missing from the game.
I don’t. To me Bulgarians can be used as the civ to stand for all the south slavc peoples, despite croats beign catholics instead of orthodox.
Those are balance issues that have nothing to do with what I say.
1 Like
Please avoid disrespecting each other and stay in the discussion, thank you.
More interesting would be to divide the Germans, more technology involved.
Bavarians, Saxons, Prussians
Prussians unique unit would be a hand canoneer who can lay down thus reducing enemy accuracy by 90%.
That was a real gun they invented.
Isnt this a 19th century invention?
1 Like
No, this was in 1750, Prussians had the best guns world wide at that time
Game time frame ends in 1600 so still it dosent fit.Medieval prussia would either be teutonic order or pagan prussian tribes within the games medieval period.
2 Likes
However the developers have a certain flexibility, and 100 years + or - usually isnt a problem.
It depends when, from 1600 to 1750 is a pretty huge difference and would need a loooot of rethinking…
I usually argue for including the 4th century into aoe2 rather than aoe1 but I think that needs less changes (Romans, persians, Huns and goths, major civs of the time, are already there). Also Christian Rome adapts better to aoe2, in aoe1 it would be similar to what you’re proposing for Prussians (in that case you would need to add Christianity to an ancient themed game, in your case you would need to add Dutch, modern France etc to not speak about north American tribes, basically you’d get aoe3).
Edit: it seems that Prussia became independent in 1525 so it’s that kind of borderline situation like with Dutch… but at least in the case of Dutch you could say there were Frisians in dark age and Hollanders in high to late middle ages, enough to justify a civ. In the case of Prussia they were a split from the Teutonic order so idk…
1 Like
Insurgency in the Maghreb (All West Africa) (Berbers and Malians in AoE 2/4 and Hausa and Moroccans -if they add them- in AoE 3)
Oromo conflict (Ethiopians in AoE 2/3)
That is, the Landwehr that is already in AoE 3, right?..
Yes, that is, you have 1200 years between 400 and 1600, why do you want to add later?..
But there it would no longer be medieval, it makes no sense to move AoE 2 until 1700 if you already have AoE 3 for that…
Of course, the early modern combat of the 17th century (1600-1700) is different from the Middle Ages combat, there the professional and gunpowder armies were already standardized, with cannons and then warfare with line formation… I don’t think the devs would get so involved forward in the 17th century if that collides with the AoE 3 timeline; it’s as if in AoE 3 you wanted to get to WW1, without planes and tanks…
You misunderstood what I said.if prussia is to be added teutonic order or the pagan tribal people in that area will be the inspiration for that.
Ah well, there yes… the Teutonic Order (1190-1525) in AoE 4 could serve as the predecessor of Prussia (1525-1918) in AoE 3…
2 Likes
Just going to point out that they’ve already extended the time period by about 150 years each side. AoK was set c. 450–1450, and The Conquerors/The Forgotten expanded that to c. 300–1600. It’s already a stretch – trying to do it again would definitely be a problem.
7 Likes
Yeah, I agree, 1600 is already the devs being quite flexible.
1 Like
Must be said that Koreans seems to only come up around 1598 to signal the end of the game which it’s a shame for the rest of Korean medieval history… but given how they’re designed you can’t use them to represent Korea before the 15th or 16th century (mainly because of turtle ship).
So a Korean split when? Lol
Sure you can. Wanna know why they have a tower focus? Korean dynasties built lots of fortifications ever since antiquity.
1 Like