|Sioux||@WedInk504838973||800/1300 -1700 AD|
|Armenians + Georgians||UpmostRook9474||AD|
|Khitans and Jurchens||UpmostRook9474||? AD|
|Umbrella Split||StereoQuasar163||? AD|
|North America||CheshireWig3203||? AD|
|Multi||TungstenBoar +||? AD|
|A lot||PryingIvy454910 +||? AD|
THX a lot, @TheConqueror753 !
If there is anything to discuss please contact me. I will regularly update and backup the pages.
Currently only civ proposals after 2020 are included, but I will put in the missing ones step by step.
Ofc everybody can put in and edit the wikis if needed.
Uh tried to answer a comment and ended up editing the wiki
Yeah, it changes the button, you have to click the arrow, don’t worry, I can revert it. Nevermind @casusincorrabil already fixed it.
That’s why I made a backup
There is edit history as well, in case you don’t have something backed up.
Either way, AoE2 timeline includes the 5th century
That’s not up to me to decide though, I just wrote down what I was told to, it’s @casusincorrabil’s call.
Yes this is kinda set “randomly” by me. I’m open to change this if requested by many people.
Fact is we have to set a aoe2 timeframe so we can exclude civ concepts like “romans” or “usa” or whatever. For me i set 600 cause that’s 100 years after the “middle ages” officially begun. And I wanted at least 100 years of overlap.
The AoE2 timeline has been 5th to 16th century since AoC so I dont see any reason to establish any arbitrary number
Also, what do you mean by 100 years of overlap? Overlap with what?
I have no official source for what the aoe2 timeframe is 11
But yeah we are here to discuss this.
I just wanted to make sure that the civ mentioned has at least 100 years of existence/relevance after 500. In my opinion it makes no sense to insert a civ like xianbei which has almost the same time of existance as the roman empire. It’s a medieval game, not an antique game.
Campaigns. We also have the Huns and the Turtle Ship representing the span of the timeline if you want to look at non campaign content
The thing is that thats not completely true. We have rthe whole colonization thing and the last yearsof the Romans as very important parts of the game.
I think we discuss different things here.
I speak about the civ has to exist until 600 to be “in timeframe” - ofc if a civ only exists until 600 all events depicted in the game have to occur at earlier dates.
That’s what I mean with 100 years of overlap. middle ages go from 500 to 1500. So I want the civs to be existing later than 600 so there are at least 100 years of overlap witht the middle age period.
Otherwise we add a civ that ends before 600 than there will be events in 300 so we can add the romans aswell and if we add the romans we can also add the greek and then the aegyptians…
Do you see what the problem is if we argue like this?
But ofc we can say that a civ needs to be existent in a 500-1600 timeframe if this is the general perception. But we can’t go further cause then we have to include civs like the romans.
No we dont have to. The game is from the 5th to 16th century. We dont need a Chinese campaign in the 200s just because they are in the game
And we already have Romans as Byzantines.
But Huns disappeared before the 500s
But again, we can’t argue like this cause then everything would be ok. We need to set a boundary.
The concepts are also not gone, they are just in the “out of timeframe” category.