How I would've named the civs if i were the developer of AoE2 DE

Hello, this is my first post.

This is kind of a suggestion for future civs and kind of a discussion topic on how to define “civilization” (in the game, obviously for the definition go look a dictionary).

The game seems to be undecided on whether to portray cultures or countries. I mean “civilization” is not a sufficiently clear word, the game really portrays civilized (and feudal and nomad) countries and cultures.

First, the game civs can be divided into these two categories:

Countries:
Byzantines
Spanish (not even medieval)
Portuguese
Burgundians
English
Malians
Aztecs (represent specifically the aztec empire, not necessarily the náhuatl people)
Incans (Aztec case too)
Teutons (the order counts as a country)

Cultures:
Italians
Franks
Magyars
Slavs
Tatars (this is really weird because it includes a multitude of cultures, some of them are already in the game as proper civilizations. It also represents the Timurrid empire.)
Mongols
Turks (specifically the seljuk turks, other turks already in the game)
Sarrasens
Berbers
Persians (Country too)
Vikings
Celts (Another case similar to tatars)
Chinese (Country too)
Japanese (Country too)
Koreans (Country too)
Sicilians (Too specific in my opinion)
Indians
Ethiopians
Vitnamese (Country too)
Mayans
Goths
Huns (Completely unnecessary, should’ve been Khazars at least)
Cumans
Lithuanians
Bulgars
Khmers (country too)
Birmanians (Country too)
Malay (Country too)

I would not portray countries, instead i would portray cutures (ethnic groups), and for the countries i would have used the player names. For example in a match against 3 Italian AI’s, the player names would be “Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia”, “Duchy of Milano” and “Republic of Genoa”.

In the case of culture = country (like greeks or chinese) i would have used dynasties. For a match vs 3 byzantine AIs the names would be “Isaurian Dinasty”, “Komnenid Dinasty” and “Heraclian Dinasty”.

So, these would be my choice of civs for the game, focusing on cultures instead of countries:

AoE2 DE —> My suggestion
Mediterranean architecture:
Byzantines —> Greeks
Italians —> Italians
Spanish —> Iberians (these include portuguese, galicians, aragonese, castilians, leonese, catalans, etc)
Franks —> Franks
Eastern European architecture
Magyars —> Magyars
Slavs —> Eastern Slavs (could be called Rus for abreviation)
Lithuanians —> Western Slavs (Could be called Polish for abreviation)
Bulgarians —> Southern Slavs (Could be called Yugoslavs for abreviation)
New Nomadic architecture
Tatars —> North Western Turks (could be called Tatars for abreviation. These include the Gokturks, the Khazars, the cumans, the kipchak and the timurrids)
Turks —> South Western Turks (could be called Turcomans for abreviation. These include the ottomans, the seljuk turks, the khwarezmians, Ghaznavids, etc)
Mongols —> Mongols
Middle Eastern architecture
Saracens —> Bedouins
Berbers —> Berbers
Persians —> Iranians
Western European architecture
English —> Anglosaxons
Teutons —> Germans
Celts —> Goidelics
Northern European architecture
Vikings —> Norsemen
Eastern Asian architecture
Chinese —> Han
Japanese —> Japanese
Korean —> Korean
Vietnamese —> Vietnamese
Indan architecture
Indians —> Indians
Afrcan architecture
Malians —> Malians
Ethiopians —> Ethiopians
Mesoamerican architecture
Aztecs —> Mexicas
[Sicilians slot] —> Toltecs
Mayans —> Mayans
[Goths slot] —> Tarascans
[Huns slot] —> Mixtecs
New Andean architecture
[Cumans slot] —> Aymaras
[Portuguese slot] —> Tihuanacos
[Burgundians slot] —> Huaris
Incas —> Quechuas
Indochina architecture
Burmese --> Burmese
Khmer —> Khmer
Malay —> Malay

Resons for the deleted civs:

I had to sacrifice the goths, wich mixed and converted into the iberians and talians (they can be portrayed as germans/norsemen in 5 to 9 century campaigns and italians/iberians in 9 to 15 century campaigns). I mean, the longobards are not in the game and it seems that there is no need for them.

I had to sacrifice the lithuanians, because they were more of arnaissance civ, i am kind of tired of developers slipping in late renassaince stuff in a medieval game. It seems that they go more for popularity than actual period relevance. Instead i added the western slavs, which could be the medieval equivalent of the local regional power (you know, poland), but i would prefer W Slavs rather than poland because it can include the bohemians, moravians, etc. The W-slav/polish UU wouldn’t be yet another Hussar, it would be the Pancerni.

Burgundians, just like goths and longobards, they can be portrayed as germans.

Sicilians, well, if you have italians you can’t have sicilians, if you have sicilians you can’t have italians and must have venetians, lombards, genoese, etc you know what i mean?
Either: Italians
Or: Sicilians, Venetians, Genoese, Lombards…

Cumans, included in North Western Turks/Tatars. It’s strange how the game differenciates cumans from tatars. Is like differenciating americans and californians (similar to italians and sicilians) if you have californians you must have texans, new yorkers, etc. If you have americans, don´t have californians.
Either: Tatars
Or: Cumans, Timurrids, Kipchak, Khazars, Gokturk…

Huns, do i really need to explain myself?

Portuguese, same with italians and cumans. Either have all the smaller sub-cultures or have only the big culture.
Either: Iberians
Or: Portuguese, Galicians, Castilians, Leonese, Navarrans, Aragonese, Catalan…

I would change the (very beautiful btw) Central Asian architecture and make a nomadic arcitecture with yurts, that was such a missed oportunity to finally have a nomadic architecture. This is how i would have done it. Make the wood yurts the dark age houses for the nomad architecture and the cloth yurts the feudal age houses, make some feudal age nomadic buildings (TC, barracks, archery, stable, blacksmith) an then for the castle age, depending on the civ, make them “migrate” architecture:
Mongols: Nomadic (I, II) to Eastern Asian (III, IV)
Tatars: Nomadic (I, II) to Central Asian (III, IV)
Turcomans: Nomadic (I, II) to Middle Eastern (III, IV)
That way I would only have to work on 5 buildings graphics.

I also left the northern european architecture with only the norsemen, perhaps i would have used those skins to create a custom viking architecture for the norsemen, just like the indians.

Mostly cosmetic changes but that would diminish the ambiguity of the civ selection process focusing on the greater cultures instead of the smaller subcultures, and leaving the countries for the player names. Also more historically accurate names.

No worries about the goths, they could be repurposed as Tarascans for example, they were the goths of mesoamerica. The Huscarl unit would be now the Otomí Warrior, for example.

These are the other civs (cultures) i could add as a DLC later

Mesoamerican arch
Zapotecs
New Caucasian arch
Armenians
Georgians
Kurds
Nomad to Eastern Asian arch
Jurchen
African arch
Ghanians
Eastern Asian arch
Tibetans

2 Likes

You should have removed the Indians as well .

I feel as if you’re not very in touch with history.

10 Likes

Completely changing a lot of civs is a no go for me.

1 Like

Indeed the devs did many mistakes about civs naming and adding especially from AOK. As you said they still do the same mistakes by keep adding weird civs that already exist and with weird names. If you want my opinion the whole game need a redesign but unfortunately it is too late. The old devs when they designed AOK they maybe assumed there will not be more civs in the future or not that much, so they gave general names that cover many things in the whole world and cover long period of time which was a very big mistake and wrong decision. All we can to say that it is too late, the ship sailed away.

2 Likes

No need for another tribe.

1 Like

yep enuogh of the undevelopped tribes

Why necro this thread.
Why are you all so harsh. It’s not like he was adamant to pass this as a solid suggestion.
He said “kind of a suggestion”, he was just sharing his thoughts.

On topic:
No, you are going to ruin many civs in the process.

1 Like