Age of Kings: from Barbarossa to Joan of Arc (1150/1152-1450/1453)
The Conquerors: from Attila to Noryang Point (430/434-1598/1600)
The Forgotten: from Alaric onwards (408/410-1598/1600 in 2 HD; 394/400-1598/1600 in 2 DE)
The rest of the expansions only fill the gaps in the middle…before this timeline it is Return of Rome (8000 BC-400 AD) and after this it is 3 DE (1600/1618-1900/1914) exclusively…
Originally it was going to be a Korean campaign in the 10th century with the Battle of Kaesong (936), but they didn’t have time to introduce it into the game…
It’s actually not that easy to determine. The most advanced tech shown in the games is from the American Civil War (Gatling Guns, Ironclads…). However, there still minor references to later events, like a card named after the Boxer rebellion and some treasure guardians with colonial uniforms from the 1900s.
In my opinion the game ends around 1871, after the Franco-Prussian War and the unification of Germany and Italy. But it is not a set date, rather like a reference point.
But since warfare changed that much in the next decades leading up to WW1, i don’t think aoe3 can really emulate anything beyond the 1870s, at least for Europe, much like I don’t think aoe2 can really emulate Europe beyond the early 16th Century. (Lepanto is kind of an exception, since it was the last major “old-school” galley combat)
Now, back to the original topic. I would just change the name of the “Slavs” to “Rus” or “Ruthenians”. A Vlach or Serb civ may work in the far future, but for the moment I think Europe needs no new civs, I’ prefer new civs from any part of the world, primarily from the Caucasus, Africa and East Asia
I’m not sure I understand correctly… Are you claiming that AoK starts in 1150, on the grounds that the first campaign scenario is set in 1152? So you’re saying the Dark Age starts in 1150, even for civs like Vikings and Goths? And then The Conquerors moved the start of the timeline 720 years earlier?
I think vlachs needs to be in game just because of Dracula (or either remove Dracula). A very nice and easy DLC adding them + a proper Ruthenians/Rus campaign. For the second civ idk an eastern Slavs split between Rus and Ruthenians or Novgorodians?
Rus (or maybe Muscovites is more apt if other russian people are added) would be a late medieval civs focusing on the creation of the granduchy of Moscow and ending with the empire establishment similar to the aoe4 campaign I guess.
Ruthenians could focus more on the earlier eastern Slavs tribes so a campaign about Oleg, Christianisation, dark ages, no gunpowder etc.
Novgorodians as someone suggested could represent more Ukraine I guess but I still need to do my research on them. Alexander Nevsky could be their campaign I guess to give eastern Slavs a high middle ages representation and complete the set.
For the Balkans I think, after adding vlachs, two other civs are crucial: Albanians and Serbs. Both existed before but I guess they would both focus on the later medieval period. Stefan Dusan emperor of serbs and “Romans” and Skanderbeg who lead resistance against Ottomans are the obvious campaigns picks. Good occasion for another two civs DLC while adding a Turk (ottoman) campaign.
Croats and Bosnians both had independent kingdoms at a certain point but I guess they have lower priority. If they were to be added that would be the occasion to finally have a proper Magyar campaign.
Finally about timeframe issues… Dutch are out for the reason that all campaigns set after 1550 circa are out of Europe because Europe was already too modern in technology to be depicted with aoe2 units. After all a real Dutch campaign would start in 1580 and would need to end in 1650 to properly represent the formation of their state, probably the first modern bourgeois proto capitalistic nation.
But that doesn’t mean a pick from the likes of Frisians, Flemish or Hollanders from dark to late middle ages could not belong to the game. And that would be a good excuse to remove the Burgundians UT and in general their bonuses referencing Netherlands rather than burgundy.
Playably it ends in 1876 (Battle of Little Bighorn/Battle of Grease Grass)… but then it has later references (Boxer Rebellion card of the Chinese (1899-1901); Porfiriato card of the Mexicans (1876-1911); Finnish Revolution of the Russians and Swedes (1917-1918)…
Yes, at least playable and chronologically it starts in 1150/1152 (more focused on feudalism and the full Middle Ages:Crusades (especially the Third Crusade),Rise of the Mongol Empire and Hundred Years War), with The Conquerors it brings late antiquity (Attila) to connect with AoE 1 and the Conquest of the New World (Moctezuma) to connect with AoE 3…and with The Forgotten it brings more late antiquity (Alaric) and the Renaissance (Sforza)…
Yes, I agree…minimum is enough for 2 more dlcs dividing the Slavs (a Ruthenian dlc) (Russians and Ruthenians) (Ivan III and Oleg) and a Balkan dlc (Serbs, Croats and Vlachs) (Stefan Dusan, Tomislav and Dracula)…
Yes, they are too late for AoE 2… in AoE 3 they are fine and you can play with them on the historical map of the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648)…
Waging war against the Habsburg Spanish and later the Portuguese, the newly established Dutch Republic became a major participant in overseas trading and territorial expansion. The war concluded with the Treaty of Münster, which officially recognized the Dutch as an independent nation.
Yes, but I’m not complaining about the Burgundians anyway…they cover that region quite a bit (Holland and Belgium)…and at the same time they are somewhat different from the Dutch in AoE 3 (both are good at economics, but one is more focused on land-Burgundians- and another more focused on sea-Dutch)
Feel free to make corrections. I just reposted what an user said about having Ukraine in game and for sure they can’t be called Ukrainians or Cossacks in aoe2.
That can be its own thing imho! Georgians, Armenians and Alans or kazars if they feel like going overboard rather than just adding two civs (since Caucasus is actually empty anyway).
Well they’re called Burgundians not Flemish. I don’t know for what reason they should represent both…
Yes, my Caucasus expansion concept introduces a new architecture set and four civs: the Alans, the Armenians, the Georgians, and the Khazars (the word isn’t censored anymore, btw).
Well, I don’t think the time period is confined to the campaigns and scenarios, in AoK Goths, Persians, Vikings and to some extent Franks have all or parts of their identity strongly tied to the Early Middle Ages. To me AoK started in the late 5th century with the fall of Rome and this dates was only moved by a few decades (81 years to be exact) by the addition of campaigns.
I think we could maybe have civs named after the main three cities of Medieval Russia, Kyiv, Novgorod and Moscow, but it’s for the distant future. Covering the Balkans seems to me like a more pressing matter.
It’s because of the Burgundian Lowlands, and possibly Lotharingia to some extent. But I’d rather have an actual local civ.
The Flemish would be what is now Belgium and the Town Hall of Brussels (which would be the Burgundian wonder) is because all of Benelux belonged to Burgundy in the Middle Ages…
Yes, AoK starts with the fall of Rome, then the campaigns move the timeline forward or backward from that event… but without going further back than the 5th century… AoE 1 ends in 373 in Europe and From then on it’s all AoE 2 (the battle of Adrianople is mentioned in Alaric’s campaign, so that would be the crucial separating event between both games)…
So you’re saying yes, but also no? I’m actually more confused than before about what your position is.
In any case, there was always more to the game than the campaigns. I know the ages don’t represent exact historical time periods, but clearly the ES devs didn’t think a game featuring Vikings and the Dark Age started in 1150. When I said c. 450 to 1450, that’s the time period I recall being stated by the developers while AoK was being made. And to me, that seems consistent with the game content as a whole (not just campaign scenarios, but civilisations, units and techs, ages, and heroes).
A DLC arround the Black Sea: Armenians, Georgians, Vlachs, and renaming Slavs to Rus, simple and beautiful.
If we really, realy need a South Slavic civilization other than the Bulgarians, then the Croatians are really good because their naval indentity is rare in that region. And this can give the DLC a good title: Antemurae Christianitatis, to symbolize the history of these civilizations fighting against the invasion of Muslim power.
PS. Even if there will be no Croatians, the DLC still can be simply named Bulwark of Christendom.
