I see people picking up the “historical accuracy” strawman again. Fine I get it. “This is a game not a historical textbook”.
So let’s talk about the game. Especially, what constitutes a good civ/faction.
People have been saying “but you can have Romans fighting Italians, Goths fighting Spanish, Huns fighting Aztecs” etc etc etc. Yes these are not historically accurate, but anyone notice? Each of the civs mentioned here has a strong and distinct identity.
More specifically, it’s actually smart to choose “civs” from different time periods, when there are clear identity differences, even if they overlap geographically sometimes. Because they can design civs with unique and coherent gameplay instead if spreading all over the place.
In fact AOE games have always choose a more narrower and focused scope to an acceptable extent, when they design most of the civs, despite shared techtrees, or broader names. Here are the examples:
- Teutons does not have anything to do with the ancient Teutonic tribe. It focuses on the HRE and Teutonic Order after 1000s.
- Britons is neither Celtic Britons nor “generic British”. It is by all means Norman and Plantagenet England.
- Slavs after DOTD is Rus, and very distinct from Poles or Bohemians.
- Sicilians is mostly Norman Sicily.
- Vikings is mostly Viking-period Vikings. Not the later Christian Danish, Norwegian or Swedish kingdoms.
Now there are some really whacky ones like Celts, but let’s try to improve them instead of adding even worse violators.
More case studies:
Goths vs Spanish and Italians
Yes they overlap geographically but not chronologically. So they didn’t design Goths to have Spanish and Italian elements. Goths were most about migration period Germanics (they even use them to represent Anglo-Saxons). Spanish were focused on the exploration era, and Italians the late medieval northern Italian states. There is no overlap in their in-game representation.
Now imagine if instead of Spanish and Italians, they added Visigoths and Ostrogoths. They are from the same era with limited differences, and you can only give them the same migration period UUs instead of conquistadors and Genoese crossbowmen. Then they would feel much more bland.
Franks vs Teutons
Teutons represent the HRE, and Franks were the predecessors of the HRE. So they designed the civs to be distinct. Franks have early medieval Frankish units (throwing axeman) and a generic cavalry bonus that stereotypically applies to both Franks and later French. Teutons on the other hand represent later HRE after Otto I (defenses, Teutonic knights, etc.)
Aztecs vs Mexicans (AOE3)
Now these overlap a lot geographically, but the in-game design of those civs are very distinct. The Aztecs civ focuses on pre-contact Aztecs with no gunpowder or horses. The Mexican civ focuses on colonial and later independent Mexico. You cannot upgrade from an eagle warrior into a chinaco.
Though I’d prefer the Mexicans to remain a Spanish revolution, they are still miles away from “Aztecs but later”.
So what constitutes a good civ? It’s not historical accuracy. It’s not mutual exclusion. It’s a strong and distinct identity that gives it a fun and unique gameplay, look and feeling.
Why are the three kingdoms bad, and “Goths vs Spanish” is not comparable here? Because they each only lasted a few decades and did not develop strong identities. They don’t offer enough uniqueness (look at their UUs and bonuses, they are gimmicky and all over the place), and cannot represent anything out of the Three Kingdoms era (less than a century). It’s like adding different Japanese warring state clans, or really making East/West/Middle Francia instead of Teutons/Franks/Burgundians (all with early medieval UUs), they are all too narrow* to offer anything unique and exciting thematically.
Even a Han, Tang, Song, Ming “split” would be much better than this, at least each can offer coherent UUs and bonuses that are distinct from each other.
otherwise, I don’t think they would’ve had any trouble finding another civilization that existed between 476 and 1500.