As someone who still wants Euro civs, Finns would just ruin the game, because they were simply a tribe, not unified people with government, army, trade roads etc.
None of the monarchs are Finnish, all off them Swedish and both castles were built by Swedes.
Castles were built on old hill fort sites also there are no written records before the sweds came.
Cumans are the same the campaign is a made up one of refugees running away.
Hil forts were a common thing as per the history articles and forts were built on top of them.
During later centuries they were used as cavalry in swedish armies so they might have had the horse tradition from earlier.
Cumans are not comparable to Finns. The Cumans created a huge confederacy spanning a coveted strategic area, they conquered territories and they founded major dynasties, including the Basarab dynasty of which Dracula was from. The Finns on the other hand were simply occupied by their more powerful neighbours throughout the middle ages.
Pro-tip: don’t base your knowledge of a civ entirely on one AoE2 campaign.
Honestly as highlighted by others this looks drawn mainly from features of civs that occupied Finland, rather than the Finns themselves. Also, the fact that they had no written record of their own is an argument against their inclusion, not in favour…
This is a game not a historical simulation
You should not have double standards when adding civis if there are faction ingame who were not united without written history or who were only active for a while same should be the same for others too.
Did you not read my post? I pointed out to you that, unlike the Finns, the Cumans are definitely not a people who can be dismissed as tribal and without written record.
I don’t really get this civ suggestion as it stands – I think it could do with a lot more explanation. Specifically: What is the tech tree like? Why have you chosen these bonuses and unique unit/techs, and how do they relate to the history (and prehistory) of the Finns? What is a Karelian? (It seems to be an ethnic group, so why is it a skirmisher?) And what is that illustration of, and where did it come from?
For example, it seems like they’re primarily a cavalry civ, but I read through the information in those links and couldn’t find anything about Finnish cavalry or knights. In fact, the only thing I read that relates to the proposal is that the Finns had hillforts (as did basically every other European Iron Age civilisation).
This could easily just be me showing my ignorance of the Finns, and maybe to someone with more knowledge of Finnish history and culture the answers to these questions are obvious. But I find it hard to judge the proposal otherwise.
This cracked me up. I am essentially in the “no more European civs” camp, although I’ve pretty much been of that opinion since The Conquerors came out (and certainly since The Forgotten) and I still appreciate some of the European civs that have been added since then…
Most similar ingame civi to the Finns is either Slavs or Lithuanians so I was hoping to make this a cavalry focused civi.There is not a huge amount of historical facts about them online so we have full creative freedom to make any type of civi.
Finns might not be the best or even the worse civi to add from europe but its fun to theorize.
If the point is to make the Finns unique and purely based on fantasy, then why not go all the way and make them a camel and eagle warrior civ?
Interesting idea either a meso european civi without any cavalry or civi with eagle and cavalry both.
Would people train eagles if they have the scout line as a cheaper option?
I guess that sort of answers some of my questions… But I don’t really agree with your reasoning. Geographically close civs needn’t be similar, and if you have “full creative freedom” then why propose a civ similar to ones that already exist?
From what I read, their main distinguishing feature seems to be that in the middle ages they still built hillforts rather castles (all the castles in Finland being Swedish, Russian, or built after the game’s time period). So I suppose instead of Castle they could build Hillforts, a cheaper but weaker equivalent (e.g. perhaps some of the stone cost is replaced by a wood cost).
Hahaha, yes, and their unique unit is an Eagle Warrior with a gun riding a camel! You can’t prove they didn’t have that in their armies! They also get Battle Elephants, of course.
Thats the afgan civi with all the stable units and a cho ko nu on a camel
Maybe Finns could be a trash and defensive oriented civ.
Doesnt make much sense to make dudes without stone structures a defensive civ
Also, just use Liths in that case
I just cant see Finns as a heavy cavalry civilization. Just the geography and climate of the country. On the other hand, Finns had a lot of defensive wars, so it would make sense thematically to be a more defense oriented civ
I agree cav doesnt make any sense but neither does defense.
They were conquered fairly quickly at the end of the day too
Indeed. But that does not lessen the thematic applicability
Nah. Made more sense to give Celts better siege weapons than to make Finns a defensive civ.
If you have to make an accurate Finn civ, its an infantry and naval civ with poor defenses.
I don’t like the idea. Infantry sucks. So an infantry civ is most likely going to be garbage right off the bat.
Most infantry civs are very competitive.