Teutons was used as a slur by Russians to describe Germans during WW2 afaik.
Feels like he is missing his USAn civ.
Well, itâs not exactly âGerman knightâ (deutscher Ritter), but âGermanknightâ (Deutschritter). Not an adjective, but one of those compound nouns German is so famous for, shouldâve been more careful in translation 
Most elegant wouldâve been having East and West Francs, since HRE also doesnât really fit properly and as you said âGermansâ wouldnât work all that great in the main (English) version and possibly many others.
Interesting⊠But I donât think thatâs relevant to civ naming. Hun and Mongol have both been used as slurs (Mongol still is, I think) but theyâre still appropriate civ names.
Fair enough. If youâre translating these literally into English, I donât really see a sensible way of distinguishing between them, though.
Oh, thatâs an interesting suggestion Iâve never seen before. Potentially very confusing to change to that now though.
If WE keep releasing op or out-of-place civs like khitans and 3k, I donât expect them to give players a tool to ban said civs. I donât know what youâre expecting. They would have to admit they were wrong, and on top of that instead of correcting their mistake they would sweep it under the carpet.
What do you even mean? Weâve seen so many new strats. People complain men-at-arms into FC is no longer a thing, but when they see roman scorpion FC, donjons, or the various castle drop, they instantly ask for a nerf. Sometimes a civ or a unit is op, but in general I donât see how new civ make the meta more monotonous.
As far as I know thatâs what Germans were called in the Middle Ages, or at least in Latin, and thatâs the reason why the Teutonic Order was named as such. And if not, then maybe the Ensemble devs just wanted to give their civs old-sounding names like Britons, Saracens, Franks, etc.
Hell, yes! I already criticised AoE2:DE for this increasing number of civilisations, which is just not sustainable. With some of new mechanics, counter-intuitive bonuses for units, and SO MANY similarities in statistics of the units like HP, attack, etc., this game wonât be better, but worse.
I guess a good game provides exploration on the one side and stability on the other side. AoE2 DE goes mindlessly into new content, so some players wonât keep up with all the changes and do not feel stability. While Return of Rome is in opposite direction, it doesnât have a new content, so its stability became rigid and frustrating, and it does not provide exploration. Both are very unbalanced, but in opposite scale.
An asian kid might want to play as a civ that relates to their history. Why should everything in the world be about Europe and middle East, its good to represent the other geographic regions. I can agree its stupid to add another town in Italy as a new civ but whether you know about them or not, adding well designed new civs representing different geographical area is a good idea.
Definitely they need to work on this. They should just pay Hera or aoebuilds.com and buy their content, create AI guided basic tutoring for builds, military usage.
Donât think thereâs anything Asian about White feather guard, Tiger cavalry, Fire archers, Grenadiers, Traction or Mounted Trebuchet, Fire lancers. And thereâs nothing to keep up - you just do what you did when you first played age of kings upon seeing a unique unit. Make halbs against cavalry, skirms against archers. Only infantry uu are tricky, but for most of them if you see the stats you can make counter units accordingly. Like you see huskarl, you notice they arenât dying to your longbows, you click on it and see 8 p.armor and so you make champion. You click on a teutonic knight, you see 10 melee armor, you make archers. Its that simple.
This argument has literally been made during every DLC in the past 10 years but the game goes on without any issue mainly because the fundamentals havenât changed. With almost all civs you do the same things. You make scouts, skirms, xbows, knights or the unit thatâs present in its place, monks etc irrespective of the civ. Especially if youâre not a pro and you just play Arabia you donât even have to bother learning the new unique units except what category they are.
That must be around African Kingdoms. So hereâs the bottom line - In every single setting a civ you used from those times is either equal or better than the newer civs. Chinese, Mayans, Mongols, Hindustanis (reworded Indians) are the best open land civs, Japanese, Persians, Byzantines can beat any of the civs unknown to you on hybrid maps, Spanish are still the king of Nomad at sub 2k elos, Italians and Vikings are still excellent civs on water maps. If youâre a tg guy Mayans, Britons, Ethiopians as flank or Franks or Magyars with pocket are still top-5 civs. Thereâs literally no new civ thatâs too hard to beat with an older civ.
All new civs stay broken only for a few months, thatâs just basic marketing and after that they get overnerfed and mediocre. To the best of my knowledge Bohemians are the only civ that have remained strong in closed maps and even theyâre not too far off from Portugese, Turks.
This is a good idea in general but I think there are many civ pickers and doing this might lead to very long queues. Now with Khitans nerfed to hell, most people will pick Mongols, Franks, Chinese crazy and if you ban 2 of these civs while queuing your queue times might double or triple. Many people will lose patience and quit. That being said Iâd personally be very happy if this feature gets implemented.
I agree. Itâs why they should never have added the Wu, Wei & Shu.
6 Likes
yes they could have picked different Chinese faction names for those set of bonuses.
Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese all had representation in AoE1 (albeit under different names: Yamato, Choson, and Shang). They were in the franchise long before you could watch anime on the internet. All three have a good amount of name recognition and are a modern country with potential for good sales (thatâs why Koreans were added in the conquerors).
Bro, I love the amount of civs in this game and itâs one of the main selling points for me. However, youâre completely right. Make everyone enjoy the game; not just those like me who play and understand every civ. Iâm a 1200 elo player so Iâm not bad but what about lower elo players or even those who play for nostalgia.
Civ bans or a âDefinitive setâ of civilizations which only includes DE release civs would be very good for a large number of players.
Approximately the same opinion concerning e.g. Burgundians and Sicilians from Asian mates whom iâve communicated about the same matter.
And could anyone tell me what difference in tech levels historically between Huns and Cumans? (optionally) IMHO i canât feel it.
1 Like
Agreed, the same in my previous post Migration Perriod DLC concept - #70 by alexandr.catalaun
1 Like
I specifically mentioned Japan, not China or Korea. Throughout history Japan barely ever interact with the outside world, Yamato is ever more irrelevant than their descendants. The only time they interact with the outside world, they were utterly crushed by the Tang army (which you do get in the last mission of the Yamato campaign).
And I believe in 1997, they already finished airing even Dragon Ball GT.
Regarding the inclusion of Yamato in AoE, itâs more likely this (source):
And Japan was and is a major market for video games.
Specifically Dragon Ball GT was only aired in the United States (where AoE was developed) from 2003.
Main issue with civ bans in ranked is that players who main a single civ are then vulnerable to having their main civ banned. And maining a single civ is a piece of advice sometimes given to new players. Adding a civ ban means you canât just simplify the game by playing just one civ (in ranked at least, which is a minority of players).
1 Like
Agree. Some people have a favourite they just like to have fun with.
The problem is the âfavorite civâ at higher levels usually means the most OP civ. Honestly more options for ranked I think is the way to go here. Like have a game mode where civ bans arenât allowed and one where civ bans are.
Then it more becomes a question of; âWhat do we want more?â
- More casual players leaving/not playing?
- Try-hards doing what they are going to do anyway.
My experience with the latter group is always that they will just find new and different ways to be a bit of a prick. Itâs not worth sacrificing more casual players fun for something that wonât work anyway.