@AndyPXIII what has this “32-part documentary series” remark to do with my post really? My suggestions aren’t unreasonable at all here. I’m plenty aware of AoE spirit regarding history and that’s why I never asked for full historical accuracy.
Otherwise I’m also inclined to think that these discrepancies are at least partly due to what @GepardenKalle states. On another hand, it can’t explain the 18th-19th century elements of the Asian civs.
The game’s progression actually currently seems like a mix of technological and chronological. English architecture evolution clearly shows this latter: early medieval in Dark Ages, Romanesque in Feudal Age (well at least that landmark building to acceed is a (failed) Romanesque church) and then Gothic.
I wish things were clearer: either the progression is plainly technological or combined with a proper historical evolution. That latter would not necesarily need to be a perfectly accurate portrayal of each periods (which could make civilisations clunky indeed), it could be simply illustrated by a few details. Let’s take shields again for example: round in Dark Age, kite in Feudal Age, heater in Castle Age and tournament-like in Imperial Age - that would already be cool. Like @Erasmus11585, I think that some historical evolution adds depth to the game.
@ArrivedLeader22
I couldn’t agree more. Apart from Vikings, Early Middle Ages are usually very neglected in medieval games. In AoE II, it was worsened by the fact that the game started to get serious only in the Castle Age, which was to some extent linked with the High Middle Ages.
To avoid this imbalance, I had fun imagining more ages to the game, which would thus has a complete gameplay at a much earlier era. For example:
- I - Dark Age - same barely historical age as in AoE II, just a low technological phase that you want to escape as quick as possible
- II - Barbarian Age, c. 450 - c. 750 - Germanic invasions and subsequent birth of Western European kingdoms, Islamic conquest, etc. Equivalent of AoE II Feudal Age in terms of playability.
- III - Revival Age, c. 750 - c. 1000 - Charlemagne’s era, Islamic Golden Age with Baghdad, Cordoba & co, Viking invasions, etc. At that point the game would already have a deep gameplay.
- IV - Feudal Age, c. 1000 - c. 1175 - Norman era, beginning of the Crusades and Reconquista, apparition of stone castles in Western Europe, etc.
- V - Castle Age, c. 1175 - c. 1350 - empowerment of centralized kingdoms in the West, rise of Gothic architecture, first cannons, etc.
- VI - “Royal Age”, c. 1350 - c. 1450 - bad name which would be more approriated to the previous age but I have no idea for this shitty period cursed with Great Plague, Hundred Years War, etc. Rise of the Ottomans, apparition of serious cannons, pinnacle of fortification in France (maybe Castle Age would actually suit the period…), etc.
- VII - Imperial Age, c. 1450 - c. 1520 - Fall of Al-Andalus and Byzantium, Italian Wars, Renaissance, beginning of the European colonization in the Americas, etc.
That way most periods would be fully playable. It probably has a lot of flaws gameplay-wise though.
Let my Elizabethan Pagan Saxons fight Roosevelt’s army in front of 2nd century BC Alexandria you kill-joy.