Orrrrr…we just stick with Serbs for now (with Romanians), and then maybe later on down the line we can add Croats if there is demand for it.
Anyway, Lord Daut needs his Serbs represented directly.
1 Like
I can’t say I care about more Slav representation in this game, and while this isn’t a fix, what about South Slavs?
1 Like
Main issue is that would kinda loop in Bulgarians too, who already have their own civ.
1 Like
This is exactly what i think too, otherwise you are getting yet another umbrella civ that no one is satisfied with.
And besides, if you look at historical achievements, Serbia far outreaches other “Yugoslav” nations, it wouldn’t do justice to it. Not that i am saying other countries don’t have their merit.
Yes, Austria in the Middle Ages was a small, unimportant duchy that appears in some campaigns, but little more… Austria’s true expansion was in the 15th century with Frederick III, then with Maximilian I he added Burgundy to his domains and in the 16th century Charles V achieved his maximum expansion by adding Spain and its colonies, Sicily and Hungary to Austria… already in the era exclusively of AoE 3 (17th-19th centuries) Austria fought against France and in the Seven Years’ War against its powerful rival Prussia…
Yes, you have the “South Slavs”…Slavonians (only to be a Croats alternative) and Yugoslavs sounds very modern and somewhat controversial…it could be useful for an AoE in the 20th century instead…
Sclaveni may be…in fact the Sclaveni (in Latin) or Sklabenoi (various forms in Greek) were early Slavic tribes that raided, invaded and settled in the Balkans in the Early Middle Ages and eventually became one of the progenitors of modern South Slavs. They were mentioned by early Byzantine chroniclers as barbarians having appeared at the Byzantine borders along with the Antes (East Slavs), another Slavic group. The Sclaveni were differentiated from the Antes and Wends (West Slavs); however, they were described as kin. Eventually, most South Slavic tribes accepted Byzantine or Frankish suzerainty, and came under their cultural influences and Chalcedonian Christianity. The term was widely used as a general catch-all term until the emergence of separate tribal names by the 10th century.
A civ of Sclaveni (6th-11th centuries) (518-1091) and then divided into Serbs (1091-1459) and Croats (925-1102/1526) (in 1102 the Croats were conquered by the Hungarians/Magyars and until 1526 they were practically the same)…
Balkans in 850 CE…
Of course, and they also belonged to the Goths (later the Frankish Carolingians) and the Byzantines…
2 Likes
At least when it comes to Romanians the situation is very clear, everyone agrees that Romanian/Vlachs as an umbrella civ for Wallachians, Moldavians and Transylvania is okay and there’s nothing to debate about that.
So Serbs & Croats, West South Slavs, Slavonians, Sclavenians, Sklabenoians, are all viable alternatives. The only question is really whether it’s better to make the Serbs a single civ or make an umbrella civ for Croats + Bosniaks + Serbs called any of the above.
Maybe the simplest thing is to just make Serbs + Romanians, I don’t know, I’m fine with both Serbs or Slavonians (or another name for the umbrella).
Sure, the idea would be to release a DLC with Serbians, Croatians and Vlacs and the Slavs would be renamed to Ruthenians like DoI… Dracula would use the Vlacs and then you would have a tab that says The Balkan Kingdoms:
-
Serbians: Stefan Dusan IV (1331-1346) (here you could fight against the Byzantines like in the campaign of Ivaylo and Theodore and against the Turks of Orhan I, son of Osman)
-
Croatians: Mattias Corvinus (1458-1490) (here you would use the Croatians and the Magyars like in the campaign of Jadwiga you use Poles and Lithuanians and you would fight against Holy Emperor Frederick III who could have an Austrian campaign later in a Germanic dlc) (aka Saxons,Bavarians,Swiss and Austrians)
-
Slavs/Ruthenians: Ivan III (1456-1505) (here you could take some missions from the Rus campaign of AoE 4 and make them more “AoE 2”)…
1 Like
I’m not sure about this tbh, Jadwiga only uses a non-Poles civ for 1 scenerio. I kinda don’t want an El Cid type situation where a civ’s campaign sees the player playing as a different civ for close to half of it.
Honestly i’d personally prefer to see the Slavs/Ruthenian campaign follow someone from Kyivan Rus as oposed to a Muscovite. Also given certain current events, a Kyivan Rus-based campaign would probably be a bit less touchy than a Muscovite-based one.
1 Like
Those are both Rus’. Anyway, the game already features two russian heroes - Nevsky and Donskoy. About time they get an official campaign imo
2 Likes
I completely agree, and i’d be down for Nevsky or someone like that, I just don’t necessarily want Ivan or another Muscovite personally.
1 Like
But Dmitry was also from Moscow.
Plus it would be like the existing Burgundian/British campaign - telling the flipside to the Lithuanian story
Yes, it could also be that you use two civs depending on the mission… for example in a mission you start in the west with Magyars and when you reconquer a city in Croatia you become Croats (in the Burning Gates mission in Chronicles, the first part you use the Athenians and then in the Battle of Thermopylae in the same scenario you switch places with the Spartans, the other option would be the To Stop a War mission from the Lakota campaign in AoE 3 where you first play as the Black Family Estate gathering wood and when the allied Fort is finished building after 15 minutes the antagonist Holmes betrays you and you go on to occupy the Lakota and you have to destroy his Fort) (in 3DE this is removed and you start from the beginning being Holmes’ enemy)…
Yes, also… I said Ivan III because of the issue of using gunpowder with the Ruthenians but Nevsky and Donskoi also work… in fact you use Donskoi in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 and the Siege of Moscow in 1382 in AoE 4 (I remember that suffered missions were those against the Mongols/Tatars, the first one I passed with Donskoi as the only unit that I had left using my allied troops as a distraction while he healed and then attacked again xd and in the Siege of Moscow I had to endure Toktamish’s attacks until he came with a super army and several battering rams and trebuchets and my blood ran cold and I had to put archers all over the stone wall while my villagers fled the city and in the final cinematic Donskoi appeared watching how the Mongols/Tatars razed the city, then the campaign hits the jump to 1480 where you use Ivan III in the battle of the Ugra River)…
Someone already made Serb + Vlachs civ concepts on Youtube.
The Serbs’ tunnel while a cool idea I think it’s a bit too broken. I can see it easily being exploited.
While for the Vlachs I still think they should have the Champion despite having an infantry UU in the castle. Giving you an option between these 2.
2 Likes
Various considerations.
Tunnels and caltrops do not belong in this game, they are not in the spirit of AoE2 at all.
Since I believe that the Bohemians should lose part of their bonus, at least as far as the stone is concerned, this means you can try with “Stone Mining and Stone Shaft Mining are free”; also because otherwise it would be a stronger version of the Malian bonus .
It is simply the Byzantines’ Bonus Team. They basically heal themselves, like other units in the game after several UTs.
It seems a bit overpowerd.
Well…
For the Serbs, what if they work 5% faster? it would be more generalized than the Malian bonus.
Pretty much yes, it would make for a powerful Monk civilization.
For the Vlachs, Mărgineni is a Castle age technology it could be balanced by being quite expensive, it will take a time before you take your resources back, meaning you will only take his research if you think the game is going to last long.
Yeah, the scorpions affected from Ballistics was already used, although I like the idea of Skirmisher & Paladin bonuses, these are 2 units combo that work well with each other and is also quite thematic for the Vlachs.
They could have the “Start with +2 sheeps” instead of “the scorpions affected from Ballistics” to actually have a Dark Age bonus making them viable for 1v1, or perhaps a variation of Gurajas garrison sheeps in Mill.
If Vlachs & Serbs are to be added, I’m 90% sure they won’t copy a civ designer’s design. Since they want to be unique.
But I still hope they will focus on Cavalry & Skirmishers for Vlachs and Siege & Monks for Serbs. It seems very fitting for these civs.
I wouldn’t agree Siege and Monks for Serbia is fitting, Monks more or less but Siege i disagree with. Serbia would actually also be mainly a Cavarly civ, and instead of Siege it would be more Infantry or Archer than Monks, but either of those is fine.
Why do you disagree with Siege and why would you find Cavalry more fitting?
I picked Monks and Siege for the Serbs for historical reasons.
1 Like
Sorry for late response.
Cavarly is more fitting because Serbian knights Vlastela were well known in their time. Most Serbian major battles were won by cavalry, not by infantry nor huge numbers. And Serbian Gusar cavalry were precursors to latter better known Hussars, so Serbian use of cavalry was more than just shock attack or heavy charges.
I was against siege because it is not Serbia’s main attribute, sure they used it as much as anyone, but not to the point medieval Serbia was known for.
What makes you say historical reasons?