Slap Byzantines in there.
1 Like
I donât think there will be 30 civs or even close to that. Isgreen already said that this time they went for quality and uniqueness over quantity. So even with DLC and all that, in my opinion, i think it will reach a maximum of 18 civilizations, wich is quite a lot if they are different from each other.
Age III had 14 with all his expansions and was a pretty ok number to play with
2 Likes
England
France
Germany
Spain
Italy
Byzantium
Hungary
Poland
Russia
Vikings
Ottoman Empire
in Europe
it would be â â â â â â â beautiful
1 Like
that would be horrible, not beautiful. Hungary? Spain? Poland? Italy? even Russia is redundant for the middle ages. The ottoman empire hardly falls within the timelapse of the middle ages too. Where is Asia? Whereâs America? Whereâs Africa? There are way more important civilizations than those mentioned.
No Japanese SamurĂĄis or Aztecs Eagle Warriors there. Sadderino 
i said in Europe⊠so that doesn t excludes them
if there is enough players everything is possible even 30 nations
Not the Persian empire? One of the certain powers at that time? What? (OK I saw the in Europe nowâŠ)
I believe AOE 4 should have most of the AOE 2 civs
India should be there as well, since it was a notable empire
1 Like
Italy Spain Hungary Poland reduant in middle ages? and English are not??? and mongols are not?
a nomatic nation with almost no legacy who played a historical role in just one relatively short period in history are not??? re-examine history againpls. the problem here is that you probably learned history from games⊠of course, the game should not be based just in the european territory, but that does not diminishes the fact that what you just stated is utter nonsense.
Mongols actually managed to create the largest contiguous land empire in history. Their impact has been tremendous on the way Asia and eastern Europe look today.
Thereâs a reason Genghis Khan is a name very well known worldwide, while names like Yaroslav or Sviatoslav are just locally popular in eastern Europe. Just because something seems important to you at a local level doesnât mean that it is at a world level as well.
We already know that the English and the Mongols are going to be in game, so thereâs nothing you can change by complaining about them.
In addition, what you call âRussiaâ in middle ages was just a loose federation of slavic and finnic people that eventually succumbed to the Mongols as well.
Now, Iâm not saying that Slavs shouldnât be in game at all, having âSlavsâ in game would be ok, but there have been more impactful states and people around the globe that you didnât even mention, while you mentioned others that do not even belong in DLCs.
You should re-evaluate your list if you want it to be taken seriously.
1 Like
just read what i said first
''i donât expect them in the first 10 ââ
''I expect there will be no fcking ââslavsââ ââ because thay fcked up that in aoe 2
and i said
IN EUROPE
I LOOK TODAY AND THERE IMPACT IS 0 IN EASTERN EUROPE
Ii live in Eastern Europe so i would know it if it was ââtremendousââ
just read what i said first
''i donât expect them in the first 10 ââ
''I expect there will be no fcking ââslavsââ ââ because thay fcked up that in aoe 2
and i said
IN EUROPE
I know what you said, thatâs why suggested you to re-evaulate your wishlist. It is already known that the game is launching with less civs than AoE2 did and that their approach on civsâ amount and design is going to be vastly different (which is for the best). So, there wonât be so many nations from Europe, nor should they be.
I LOOK TODAY AND THERE IMPACT IS 0 IN EASTERN EUROPE
Ii live in Eastern Europe so i would know it if it was ââtremendousââ
Living in eastern Europe doesnât mean that you would know. First of all, Mongols spread the bubonic plague in Europe, decreasing significantly its population, in Europe alone the population dropped around 25%.
They brought a huge amount of consumer goods, weapons, beliefs and technologies from Asia, opened diplomatic and commercial routes that were never known before. Their onslaught provoked huge fleeing of refugees westward, also what you should know is that Russia became unified for the first time under the Mongols.
The advancement of the Seljuk Turks towards Europe was also halted and delayed because of the Mongols, which sparked a chain of other events, like the emergence of the Ottomans and so on.
There is even a period often called âPax Mongolicaâ which allowed for the reopening of the Silk Road trading routes between China and Europe, increasing cultural exchange and wealth all along the trade paths. Scientific knowledge and many technologies from Asia were made known to Europe thanks to this period. There is undeniably a worldwide impact that Mongols left past them.
you could just put a wikipedia link⊠the influence of the Mongols of their culture as civilization was 0.
we can only view them as catalysts that led to historical processes that you mentioned above. i was speaking about cultural influence. if you know history, it is clear to you that those in the higher stage of development have never been guided by those in the lowerâŠthe whole of Europe was at a higher level of development than the horde. the opposite would be the conquests of Alexander the Great which left tremendous influence on conquered territories but as i said Mongols were just catalysts nothing more.
Their influence as a culture is still visible in the desolated Russian siberia, where people still live in similar conditions.
If you think thatâs an argument to diminish their historical importance, I may remind you that Slavs were not that much different before they settle into Europe. In fact they didnât even have an alphabet before they come in contact with the Byzantine empire, which created one for them and Christianized them.
You can call them âcatalystsâ if you wish, it doesnât change their huge impact on the Eurasian continent, which is the exact opposite of the minor slavic tribes of eastern Europe that were acting on a local level.
And since this is going off topic, to conclude, yes, Mongols have way more reasons to be in-game than the civs mentioned on that list.
1 Like
And germans had alphabet ? English had alphabet??? Wtf are u talking about all tribes that surrounded Roman empire got alphabet and cultural influence by successors of Roman empire???
1 Like
I don t wont do diminish there historical importance i just have different vision of how game should be developed xDDDDD so idk why u all pissed off about it
1 Like
Is this a joke? The game will reach the early modern period, Spain is by far the most important nation of that period, itâs like talking about late antiquity and questioning Rome, and Italy is another important nation for that period, besides that Spain and Italy are very relevant throughout the middle ages with their multiple states. There is no any relevant American civilization in any period for the universal history, including one would be redundant and would only make sense if a campaign about the conquest of America is going to be included. In Africa during the middle ages there is only the islamic states from Egypt and the Maghreb, and since they speak Arabic these places could be represented including a great Saracen/Arab civilization. We know there is a lot of hate towards Europe and there is people who want to include as many non-European nations as possible and try to reduce European nations to a minimum. But if you want a realistic representation based on the influence of the nations and civilizations of that period, Spain, Italy and Poland would be in the game.
3 Likes
The setting of the game are the Middle Ages, and it is going up to the beggining of the Renaissance, not the âearly modern periodâ.
There is no hate towards Europe at all, but the image that people have about the European history is often based on myths and lies.
Spain âby far the most important nation of this periodâ, you canât say these things seriously. Nationalism is still strong in Europe.
You canât even have a civ called âSpainâ, the Iberian was settled by Visigoths, a Germanic tribe, then conquered by the Arabs, and for most of its Christian period it was fragmented in individual Visigothic, Christian Kingdoms. Which one you want? Aragon? Castille? Asturias? Catalonia?
The situation is similar for Medieval Italy, It was part of Byzantine, Frankish or Holy Roman empires, then Venice? Naples? Sicily? Tuscany? Papal states?
Unless the devs find a way to put all of them in one bag, (which wouldnât be very accurate historically) I donât see the point of being so demanding and overestimating the importance of these states on the expense of others.
You should realize that there are many, many other nations around the globe that have been more powerful than that and also have the right to be represented while keeping the amount of civs at a reasonable number.
2 Likes
@ UrbanizedGem684
@ GrimStingray833
@ DebtlessWave735
@ InRagnaroK
Guys, I think you did point out some good and valid points.
There are civs who made a big impact on history, who were unique, and we should not forget todayâs nations would prefer to play their middle age version. I think its very clear, that a handful of civs just wonât represent properly the middle age.
2 Likes
OK, I think AoE4 should first definite the core units and buildings,
that should be accessible for all factions.
OK, so my next question, shouldnât Archers and Crossbows actually be handled as 2 different units?
I mean Bow and Crossbow are very different with speed and damage.
1 Like
Well,we saw archers on the walls.BUT archers arenât enough.
Byzantine was really good at defend the castle
They used hot oil.
Basically enemy soldier wants climb on the wall buuut byzantine soldiers pouring hot oil on the enemy soldierâŠ
This is can be an unique unit for the byzantine
1 Like
Well why not simply make a list of possible units than.
Greek fire would be a very epic unit for Byzantine
1 Like
Bruh,ofcourse i know greek fire.just i forgotted it(:
And Yeah its simpler