The Civ Teutons are themselves a Crusader civilization. If new German civs were added then suddenly there would be literally nothing to be done with the Teutons civ to make them a civ representing the Teutonic Order - LITERALLY NO NEED FOR ANY CHANGES TO THIS.
The Teutons are already introducing us to the (German) Crusaders civ.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem then could be a bit more “French” of the Crusaders civ. A takowa civ would fit perfectly in the company of a new Middle eastern civ for example the Mamluks civ. Before that, however, it would be better to add new German civs - albeit Bavarians (South German umbrella civ) and Saxons (North German umbrella civ).
Stop with this Teuton is only the Teutonic Order nonsense.
Teutons were used to represemt the HRE 22 years ago, their history tab is about the HRE, their shield and wonder are from rthe HRE and they represent German civs well. Not to mention that crusader states arent civis.
And there’s literal programming evidence to support the opposite:
Besides, the devs themselves have stated that the hard cap for the OG game was removed with DE… thereby killing the 48 civ ceiling argument entirely.
This, I do agree with. We’ve had enough fun in Europe for now, let’s spice some other places up.
I agree, the Outremers were multi-ethnic states much in the same vein as Sicily or the Mongols with Christianity as their unifier, and you could potentially try to do something with their monks, being crusader states. However, with the KOJ you run into 2 problems:
You run the risk of introducing yet another heavy cav-centric civ… an already bloated playstyle found among civs. It would be tough to attempt without leaning heavily on already done civ styles like the Franks or the Teutons. Free heresy and weaker Feudal monks could work well for them, however.
The Outremers were essentially Crusader representatives of their respective homelands. They never really had the chance to coalesce into their own culture and were represented by several cultures already in-game, therefore making a civ based on them is difficult to do when you have very generic origins mixed into multiple other civs.
I also think the Italians don’t properly cover the Papal states well enough since they don’t have particularly powerful monk play either, but I feel they are still better represented by the Italians than they are by their own civ.
While this is true…
They historically are the German civ, seeing as they eventually go on and form Prussia during the Reformation later under the Hohenzollerns. Out of timeline, I know, but hey, they are the grandfather state of Germany.
If you were to introduce another German civ, you would have to make it pretty radically different than them too, I’d even say LOTW-wise radical. The Teutonic Order drew in people from across the HRE and used their regional tactics of warfare to great effect. Bohemians (post-Hussite influence) and Italians work as civs because they were radically different when it came to warfare. You’d find a lot of overlap with Swabians/Bavarians or Westphalians/Saxons when it comes to not just each other, but the existing Teutons as well if you went at it conventionally.
That was 22 years ago though, things like context and umbrella breaking other civs have happened since then. But, I actually agree with you this time. In this game, they are the HRE, which means the Germans. Full stop.
Strictly speaking they aren’t individually civs, no. It’s the name Teutons itself causing this speculation of whether they are the Germans as a whole or the Order itself. The Order has the brand recognition, after all, and they also ended up separate of the Empire as well, which leads to the confusion for those who don’t look up the context tools like the History, the Wonder’s identity, etc (i.e., the casual group, not the historians). To top it off, not a lot of people who play AOE2 know what Teuton means either, that being the Latin word for “German”. I think, all things considered, they (the OG devs) should’ve stuck to calling them Germans instead of Teutons to keep it clear to people. Not saying it’s the right move thematically, but it would’ve kept this argument dead in the water before it started.
tbh, middle-east could use a lot of new civs. armenians, sirians (nur-al-dhin campaign), kingdom of jerusalem… it is a very crowded region that in the present game has only the saracens to represent
Exactly. The problem is that @MUTYLATOR5553 has been warned about this numerous times, but still insists on spreading false info. Everyone has the right to prefer/suggest the civ they want, but suggesting a state/kingdom as a civ already deviates from the OG devs rationale, let alone a military/religious order.
It’s exactly what you said on the medieval theme: Teutons is the medieval name for Germans, as Saracens is for Arabs and Franks for French (although I think they changed it a little with Byzantines because it would probably make even more confusion to call them Greeks or Romans). I still think they can and should still change those names.
But aren’t both of these covered by the Britons? The Britons literally represent the Norman-united Anglo-Saxon realms of England under William the Conqueror, as well as representing England’s later acquisition of the Kingdom of Wales under Edward Longshanks.
Welsh are definitely covered by Britons. A Welsh civ would either be identical to Britons, or a less accurate representation of the medieval Welsh – and Welsh without Longbows would be weird.
By Anglo-Saxons, I think @RatcicleFan means the English before the Norman conquest. They’d be an Infantry and Monk civ… but they’d also either be completely underpowered, or very historically inaccurate. Either way, I don’t see the point. Also, their obvious unique unit is already taken by Goths.
I voted but what we really need are exotic civs, we got almost everything european. Swiss pikemen would be nice but too much europe my friends… (and i am european).
It’s rather interesting how everyone views the civs in AoE2 differently.
To me, they are not states. Of course the Britons have England and Teutons have Holy Roman Empire. But the factions themselves are the civilizaitons themselves. You play the culture, not the state. At least that’s how I see it.
As such, I don’t really like the idea of Kingdom of Jerusalem or Papal States. Although they would be unique, they don’t quite fit with the theme of the game in my opinion.
A case can be made that eventually the Crusader States in the Middle East developed their own culture, but it was really not that different from what it was in the home country. In Age of Empires 2 you play Lithuanians, not Lithuania.
The Zulu are way too old for the Age of Empires 2 timeline.
If you like Africa, you can always go for something like: Great Zimbabwe, Ghana, Swahili, Somalia, Namibians, Kanem.
In Asia, I can only think of the Goturks (today’s Stans) and Indian sub-divisions. Because Chinese sub-divisions will probably get the game banned in China.
You mean very new to the timeline, don’t you? The Zulus only become known in the 1800s.
And I take you to mean Nubians, am I right? I don’t know medieval in Namibia.
I picked the following:
Serbs, Croatians, Romanians/Vlachs, Albanians, Swiss, Hapsburgs/Austrians, Venetians, Catalans/Aragonese & Basques
I prefer to have civs separate since they are ahistoric: Serbs & Croatians being one entity was only done during Yugoslavia & Swiss fought many battles against Austria.
Yes, that’s what I meant. I had in mind the AoE2’s timeline so I said that Zulu is too old for that (too close to our timeline), but historically speaking, they are too young for Age of Empires 2.