DLC Concept for AoEII: The Crusader States - Jerusalem and Antioch

With The Viking Sagas, Age of Empires II seems increasingly willing to revisit older historical abstractions and give more specific identities to peoples and polities that were previously represented by broader civilizations.

I think the Crusades would be a perfect setting for the same treatment.

My suggestion would be a DLC focused on the Crusader States, with at least two new civilizations:

  • Jerusalem

  • Antioch

The main reason is not simply to add more civilizations. It is to distinguish between European crusaders arriving from the West and the Latin Christian societies that became established in Outremer.

At the moment, AoE II often uses civilizations such as the Franks to represent both groups. Historically, however, a Frankish crusader arriving from Europe and a Latin Christian born and raised in the Kingdom of Jerusalem should not necessarily be represented by the same civilization.

A DLC like this could therefore work especially well if it followed the model apparently being used in The Viking Sagas: adding new civilizations while also updating older scenarios and campaigns.

For example, older Crusades content could be revised so that:

  • the Kingdom of Jerusalem is represented by Jerusalem rather than generic Franks;

  • the Principality of Antioch is represented by Antioch;

  • newly arrived French, English, German or Italian crusaders would still use their appropriate European civilizations.

This would make scenarios involving the Crusades much more historically expressive without requiring a complete redesign.

The two civilizations could also have very distinct identities.

Jerusalem could represent the Latin kingdom of Palestine, with an emphasis on heavy cavalry, military orders, fortified settlements and the mixed Mediterranean character of Outremer.

Antioch could represent the more northern Crusader State, with stronger Byzantine, Armenian and eastern Mediterranean influences, perhaps with greater emphasis on mixed armies or regional units.

The campaign possibilities would also be excellent.

A Baldwin IV campaign could cover the struggle between Jerusalem and Saladin, including Montgisard, the internal politics of the kingdom and the succession crisis that eventually led toward Hattin.

A Bohemond of Antioch campaign could begin during the First Crusade, cover the siege and capture of Antioch, and continue into the conflict between the new principality and the Byzantine Empire.

There would also be an opportunity to revisit parts of the classic Saladin campaign and other Crusades scenarios, replacing generic representations with Jerusalem or Antioch where appropriate.

I think this kind of DLC would fit AoE II particularly well because it would add new playable content while also improving the historical identity of some of the game’s most famous old campaigns.

The most interesting part, in my opinion, would be precisely this distinction:

Franks should remain Franks - but not every Latin Christian in the medieval Levant needs to be one.

2 Likes

Outremarins / Latins as a single civ representing all the Crusader states, orders, Latin Empire, and Malta would be more than enough. We don’t need every single county as a civ.

8 Likes

How is this different from franks tech tree?

Again how is this different from byzantines tech tree?

Im perfectly fine if crusader states or orders can be represented in a unique way and be just franks with a templar uu.

5 Likes

We already have all the civs that made up the crusader states in the game. Just use them on a desert map.

Also, political states are not civs. People groups and cultures are.

12 Likes

Do you recognize the inherit disaccord of using eg the “Franks” group as cultural representant for a crusader state?

Even when it isn’t explicitely formulated, the implied aspect of cultural representation is here turned on it’s head. If appropriate cultural representation is a main aspect for enjoying the game, using foreign rulers as representants would be the worst thing to do.

Also, it’s still called “Age of Empires”, not “Age of Cultures”. Everything that was impressive of an empire-esque power at any time that the game is played on is eligible. There was never an official statement “what a civ is” or not.

PS: I much want to state here that I’m against adding any of this before a healthy Saracens “split”. I think I don’t need to express why, it’s implied on what I wrote before.

1 Like

The Sicilians are really good at representing the Crusader States. The classic Teutons, Franks and Britons are also perfect at representing Crusaders from those places.

3 Likes

The Crusader states could very well be used as campaign-exclusive civs. Like reskinned Sicillians or Teutons with added crusader knights.

1 Like

Why do we need another civ like Vikings and Varangians?

If there’s a good crusader content to add then adding variants to the Crusader Knight in the scenario editor + variants for the Teutonic Knight as a dismounted Crusader Knight would be good enough.

1 Like

The Teutons are actually better at representing the Crusaders then at representing the German states. So in some way we kinda need the opposite. A German/HRE civ that is not that much based on the Crusades.

1 Like

We have Franks, Teutons, Sicilians, Byzantines, Italians and Britons to represent them. Use different ones for variety.

I don’t see what adding essentially what is just one of the above again, but occupying part of the Middle East adds to the game.

Just look at the civs we have (outside the 3K). All of them are peoples and cultures, not empires. No statement is needed because just look at them. No Mughals, no Pala, no Tudors, no Yuan.

It’s age of empires because you build one. The simple reason empires are not used is because they are too short. There’s not enough material to work with, and the 3K demonstrate that.

7 Likes

NOOOOOO! moreso than anything Russian. THIS is probably the most poor taste place to put a colonialist civ right now especially if you’ve seen pictures of children that’ll make you question humans

1 Like

I would even add Georgians(might be a stretch) and Armenians.

1 Like

Just curious how would teutons tech tree differ if its based off the HRE?

If I would design a HRE civ (if the Teutones didn’t exist) I wouldn’t make them focused on heavy Melee armour, defences and Monks as much as they are now and also remove the conversion resistance team bonus. I would probably give them a Landsknecht as UU instead of a Teutonic Knight.

It’s mostly the Teutonic Knights and the conversion resistance that makes them feel like they are focused on the well Teutonic Knights instead of the HRE (the Teutonic Knights were not part of the HRE).

2 Likes

EG

Vikings
Saracens
Byzantines
Huns
Burgundians

Aren’t represneting cultures. They are in the game because they were real militaric powers / threats at their times.

Persians (in parts)
Brtions (the celtic tribe)
Teutons (the germanic tribe)
Bohemians (the celtic tribe)
Sicilians (the cultural remains of ancient sicily)

Don’t even represent the “cultures” they refer to, but refer to older cultures which have almost no reminiscence in what they represent. And what irritates me that these misrepresentations are selectively neglected. I think this would be the first thing that would be required to be done, and very precisely “fixed”.
if that was the way we would go, but I argue against it. I think it would be way better to go the opposite direction and replace most of the tribal names with empire names.

Just to list a few examples on what actually is in the game.

You DEMAND that all civs become cultures. It’s NOT what IS the game. Please formulate it correctly.

Would be more similar to Saxons, like something in between current Teutons and Saxons.

1 Like

The Saxons are good at representing North Western Germany, the Teutons are good at representing the Teutonic Order and Central Germany. Just Southern Germany doesn’t have a good representation.

Teutons are ok for all of Germany though. I don’t demand a HRE DLC. I kinda want a civ with Landsknecht units though.

5 Likes

I too want them at least as editor units armed with great swords and halberds.

1 Like

Bavarians/Austrians would get the Landsknecht, the Swiss a Reisläufer. And we need Normans to take the current “Teuton” castle that’s based on the Anglo-Norman Rochester Castle :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

Yes, I like the idea…in fact, the Swiss should have the Swiss Pikeman…

1 Like

Ah it’s a shame the barracks can’t train either such weapon user!!

I guess the idea would be a unit that swaps naturally based on the situation but that seems like a better version of both with extra steps and less downsides