Future DLCs and the argument for/against NEW Civs

It was part of Europe, but even if you cut it out, the continent was clearly no “backwater”.

They failed because Europe was not such a “backwater” that it could not deal with a well supplied and trained enemy, which a barbarous backwater people would have fallen to, like almost every time in History, throughout the world.

Europe was fractured throughout the whole period, and remained fractured ever since, and still advanced, while the Islamic world collapsed because of fracturing.

Subotai actually got to Germany, and gave up, because conquering that land would have broken the Horde. It was too fortified, did not have enough infrastructure to support a moving Horde, and the people just did not surrender.

He probably could have conquered most of Europe, but the sacrifice for it would have been the complete destruction of the Mongol Horde, because the material investment for Siege after Siege, on a land that could not sustain armies of 500000 horsemen, would have driven the Horde into the dust.

Europe was not a rich land like China and Persia, that could feed the Mongol occupation, it was a poor land whose inhabitants were used to low resources and constant fighting for scraps.

Due to political fragmentation, not due to backwardsness. Renaissance thinkers dubbed it the Dark Ages precisely because of the constant fighting between petty kingdoms and large empires, as they wanted a more Roman-style large contiguous empire, and blamed all of Europe’s woes on the empire having been carved up by too many warlords.

Gunpowder came to Europe in the 12th century, and in 60 years there, it outshone all other similar devices and formulas around the world.
European engineering also brought forth the first great age of open seafaring, when boats did not have to stick to the coast so much as in the past.

Economy is not everything, the very rich kingdoms of Asia and Africa endured humiliation after humiliations from foreign invaders, European included, because they were too rich and too comfortable to consider being in a state of perpetual warfare like Europe was, which innevitably gave it the edge.

Maybe, but that is not what you said, you said it was a backwater, when it clearly was not.
Large armies, small kingdoms that punched way above their class, the shrewdest mercantile class in the world, mercenaries and adventurers willing to go virtually anywhere for fame and discovery, the best engineers of the period (Ottoman Great Bombards were invented by a Hungarian, and assembled by German mercenaries, because only they had the metallurgical know-how); Europe was never a backwater after Alexander.

Considering there are already Italians and Sicilians this should not be a problem.
Also, the “Celts” in the game look more like pre-Roman Picts (considering their UU) than Scots or Irish, though their bonus on siege weapons seems to come from nowhere. The Scots and Irish are definitely viable civs with unique traits. E.g. Scots should have improved spear units, and Irish can be a skirmisher-focused civ.

The earliest civ design did confuse and simplify a lot of things. A classic example would be “Britons”, whose name refers to pre-medieval people, whose design represents almost exclusively high medieval England, but also has several Anglo-Saxon kings in their AI names. It feels like since FE they are trying to represent the new civs a little more “faithfully” and polished, and there is definitely room for improving some older civs , but people might be very adverse towards changing anything already in the game.

3 Likes

Georgians/Armenians/Alans under a umbrella civ called the Caucasians. And the Huns and Avars were linked…

I really like the detailed analysis, but the Poles/Polish/Poland were a big enough kingdom to merit their own faction in the timeline of AoE2. Even if you might not like that there’s another cavalry civ for balance purposes, they’re more relevant & can expand the # of civs available in Eastern Europe. The converse argument can be made that the Mississippians can’t be a single civ DLC, there needs to be more than one civ in that area. Mughals are also covered by Tatars, rather than Turks/Mongolians.

2 Likes

You are correct, “backwards” was not a proper term to use. I’m not sure what would be more accurate (despite living in the West for 20+ years, English isn’t my first language, so I do have word-finding problems sometimes).

Essentially, what I am trying to say is, the game covers a certain time period. (400-1600, roughly, based on the official campaigns/scenarios) We characterize it as “Middle Ages”, though it it’s not entirely accurate, but it’s the closest catch-all term for the Eurocentric concept of history. History is largely a Uerocentric science, because after the Age of Discovery, European powers ended up conquering and colonizing most of the world.

But the point I have been trying to make, (and what makes AoE 2 so unique when compared to most historical strategy games) is that this particular time period is essentially the one time in a more or less “global” world (Meso civ excluded) when Europeans weren’t the hegemons. European feudal history is fascinating and dynamic- but so is the history of many other peoples and civilizations across Africa, India, Persia and South-East Asia. European civilizations during this stretch are important- but only on a local, European scale- which makes them comparative to those of other regions. When we analyze history from hindsight, we can say that, yes, “Electorate of Brandenburg was hugely influential and would go on to form Prussia and create a colonial empire”. But in the context of that particular time period, I don’t see the necessity of elevating European civs. Frankly, nearly every historical strategy dealing with Modern Era is chock-full of European colonial and regional powers that markedly outclass anyone else; The AoE 2 time frame is pretty much the only period where you can highlight non-European civs with the same degree of “overall significance”–because prior to overcoming the feudal fragmentation and forming a set of monarchies, European rulers were, with few exceptions (such as Normans, and a few other “adventurous dynasties” largely concerned with local affairs.

Basically: AoE2 is a game that should showcase the civs and empires (large political entities) of the time period, without paying deference to the current historical context, because that would naturally elevate the importance of Europe, which is (imho) not warranted considering that period in isolation from the greater historical context.

-I openly admit to being biased here: I love history, and I view AoE 2 as a discovery tool, a launching point for further research. Since I am pretty well-versed in European history, I tend to find that I learn a lot more when the devs choose to tackle more “exotic” regions. I obviously understand this isn’t going to be the case for everyone, and people less familiar with European history will find the sotries of the potential new European civs just as fascinating. It’s just generally not the case for me.

3 Likes

There is no overlap between those names. Italy does not refer to the modern country of Italy. There was a kingdom in the north of the italian peninsula that carried the name of Italy. It was culturally separted from the north and was under a german and frankish spehere of influence sphere while south was under byzantine and arab influence.


[Kingdom of Italy]

Italians=Kingdom of Italy+Venice+Papal states

Sicilians=Sicily island and south Italy after the normans.}

The Duchy of Benevento could either be considered italian or sicilian, that is up to debate.

Edit: Corrected some mistakes while writing.

3 Likes

Some kind of warrior monks

I think the Mughals are already covered by Indians, not to mention that Mughals are more suitable for AoE3’s time period instead of AoE2’s.

Still missing Asian civs:

Tanguts / Tibetans, not covered by any existing civ.

Siamese, not covered by any existing civ.

Champa or Chams, not covered by any existing civ. They spoke a different language from the Viets, and had a different religion / culture.

1 Like

If there were 15 civs Caucasian would be a great idea, bit it is not the case - we even have Sicilians and Burgundians.

1 Like

reminds me of the bari campaigns the capture of bari from byzantines and the defends from i think sicilly and italians

Tibetians would be a monk focused civ then i guess

also i cant get my head of a fact their ar probably still a small island or land besides java that were active in that time

Screw new contents and screw new civs, we don’t want any civs, just fix the damn bugs, balances and stupid vills pathing and we are fine.

Speak for yourself. The community has spoken, and most want new civs.

6 Likes

We already got 6 new ones and 2 of them are courtyards and villages( Burgundians ans Sicilians) rather than to be kingdoms or empires and both of them are broken. We need to focus on fixing the game in the future and make it playable more and more balance and get a bigger playere base this is what is important for now

All I am gathering from this, is that you do not know what a Courtyard or a Village is. Sicily extended to 3 continents, in the Middle Ages, multiple times, and the Burgundians were just a way to get Dutch into the game, so they would shut up.

Both of them are actually weaker than the normal civs. The devs dumped on the power level with the recent expansion, and actually made 2 underwhelmingly average civs.

Bigger playerbase comes with expansions, not catering to the same dwindling purist playerbase that has been playing for 20 years.

Just what is more important? Fixing the game or having more broken, bugs, stupid vills pathing in the game? The game have many problems

The game has much less problms than it ever had, and those fixes have been financed through expansions.

People will never pay for fixes, but fixes still cost money.

2 Likes

I don’t mind getting new civs but not as fast as they did after the DE especially we have many bugs, pathing and balance problems in the game. These is something people call it PRIORITY which means taking care with bigger issues rather than looking to trivia

Priority for Microsoft is sales. No sales, game is put into maintenance mode, which means no fixes.

Reality is a bitch!

2 Likes

Man, the game is hard to balance and hard to fix with new contents, this game lived for 20 years because the devs weren’t focusing on new expansions rather than fixing the game, more contents means more hard fixing and more balance problems and more issues, actually after the last expansions many people now complain about how the game became unplayable and got many crashes and bugs lately even the pros said that not only in multiplayer but even in single player too