Huns are (surprisingly) the best case AGAINST inclusion of 3K

[Quasibrodo]

I’ve seen lots of arguments from 3K defenders. Huns have actually been cropping up again and again as good cases AGAINST 3K. IDK about you but if I time traveled back some three weeks ago and said to myself “Hey, the devs are gonna screw up and add three antiquity polities to aoe2, and the Huns are the best example of why that’s dumb” I would have found that counter-intuitive. So let’s dive in.

Argument 1) Huns were a short lived polity that may or may not last into the aoe2 timeframe (depending on if you cut off at 400ad or 500ad).

The Hunnic Empire was a short lived polity lasting from approximately 370AD - 470AD. The ethno-cultural group, Huns, can (likely) trace their roots back to about 220BC as the xiongnu. Furthermore because aoe2 civilizations are ethno-cultural groups, not polities, similar peoples of similar origin, ancestry, and culture, can be represented under the same civ even if the name isn’t technically inclusive.

As an aside imagine playing a game as “Proto mongolic peoples who migrated to the western steppe during the migration period” vs “Italo and Siculo-Normans”. Huns vs Sicilians just sounds a lot better.

So when you treat aoe2 civs how they were intended, the similar Pannonian Avars, another proto-mongolic people originating from the eastern steppe, who migrated west to the pannonian basin during the migration period would very naturally be represented by the Huns.

So we see that Huns don’t actually last from 370-470. Instead we have a civ who lasts from 370-820 and can trace their roots back to 220BC.

This is 100% impossible to do with Wu, Wei, and Shu, because they’re political entities. They can only represent those political entities. And those political entities only lasted about 100 years.

Argument 2) Well if Chinese, representing the various Han chinese polities, are in the game, and Wu, Wei, and Shu are Han Chinese states, therefore the Chinese could represent them, then transitively they too must be acceptable civilizations despite the timeframe.

The xiongnu (most likely hun ancestors) reached their height of power around 200BC.

Xiongnu being direct ancestors of the Huns, lived, fought, and had a similar culture to the Huns, absolutely 100%, if there ever was a xiongnu player in an aoe2 scenario, could and absolutely SHOULD be represented by the Huns.

There is no universe in which 200bc, is medieval and the Xiongnu should absolutely NOT be an aoe2 civ.

Saying Huns CAN represent Xiongnu doesn’t mean Xiongnu SHOULD be in aoe2, similarly saying Chinese CAN represent Wu, Wei, and Shu, doens’t mean ANY of them should be in the game… because they’re pre-medieval…and other reasons, but relevantly to this argument.

Bonus Argument) Adding Wu, Wei, and Shu can’t BOTH be a chinese split AND 3K not be acceptable inclusions. If Chinese CAN represent those three, AND chinese CAN be in the game, then transitively, so to can Wu, Wei, and Shu.

This argument has more to do about the “We aren’t splitting Chinese” statement than the inclusion of 3K itself, but again the Huns provide the answer.

Similar reason as above actually. Huns SHOULD represent Xiongnu. Xiongnu reaching their height around 200BC, are in no way a medieval civ. Xiongnu should NOT be an aoe2 civ, but if they were added, would absolutely be a Hun split.

In summary I just love how the Huns, at first glance may seem to support the inclusion of 3K, but dig just a little deeper, and actually they’re singularly excellent examples of why 3K has no place in aoe2.

[II.Selim]

Even Huns were added for a money grab, which shouldn’t have happened to preserve the original premise.

Huns might not have magically disappeared immediately after 470, but it’s a stretch adding them when their empire collapsed before Rome collapsed. The Romans have a similar issue, technically lasting as the Kingdom of Soissons as a remnant state. But again, it’s just a stretch.

[AbuzzJam4677680]

It is still disputed whether Huns descended from Xiongnu? At least Huns indirectly cause the start of Dark Age and existed for a century.

[SchwarzeGarde49]

It boils down to, how do you define medieval?

If it’s strictly starting at the fall of Rome and ending with the fall of Constantinople, so between
476 and 1453 AD
then yes the 3K shouldn’t be in-game. But then the battle of Lepanto, Montezuma, Francisco de Almeida, Ismail, Babur, Alaric etc etc shouldn’t be either.

If you define it as “knights in cool armor sieging down castles” (as a fool like me does), then - why not? Just disable them for ranked because of hero powers

[DukeOfLorraine]

@II.Selim

Even Huns were added for a money grab, which shouldn’t have happened to preserve the original premise

The Koreans were added for money grab (Starcraft had sold 2 millions copies in Korea). The Huns were added because the devs liked Attila’s story.

Looking at the original roster for AOE2, the game already leaned heavily toward the invasions period

• the Goths
• Frankish throwing axeman
• the Persians who were based on the Sassanids
• some heroes in the character editor

[II.Selim]

From 476 to the mid-1550s is the most convenient timeframe. After that, hand cannons and arquebuses totally replaced crossbows, but in the game, they don’t. So, no civilization from 1550 onward should be added to the base game either.

Campaign dates can go a little further or back with the correct tech scaling and regulations.

[Kamandaran]

Give this man a job at World’s Ege ASAP.

[DukeOfLorraine]

It’s more complex, the game ends earlier in Europe (1500, Lepanto being a weird outlier) while in Asia you can safely push it to 1600, as Europe indeed had a tech boom.

As for the beginning… considering the invasions period starts around 200 (immediately after Rome got nerfed hard by the antonine plague, while the Sassanids take over Persia in the 220s), it can slowly start then. The situation was very different than the hegemonic Rome that was the main power standing at the end of classical Antiquity.

Many considered it starts in 395 with Theodosius splitting the Empire in half, in my head canon it was 312 with Constantine embracing christianity, but really you don’t need more chess pieces to push back around 200.

[RatcicleFan]

@II.Selim

Even Huns were added for a money grab, which shouldn’t have happened to preserve the original premise.

This is the absolute worst dogshit argument in this forum, and that’s saying a lot. And what premise? The one about having Gaulish warriors in William Wallace’s time? Or having ancient Chinese (Chinese, not Koren, idk why people don’t complain about that like they complain about the Huns) in 1600s Korea?

[Darkness01101]

@Quasibrodo

I’ve seen lots of arguments from 3K defenders. Huns have actually been cropping up again and again as good cases AGAINST 3K.

I might be wrong (misunderstanding), but I think you meant to write “FOR 3K” here? Or have there really been a number of cases of Huns getting used as good cases ‘against’ 3K prior to you writing this thread?

@Quasibrodo

So we see that Huns don’t actually last from 370-470. Instead we have a civ who lasts from 370-820 and can trace their roots back to 220BC.

ChatGPT says they lasted as a major force for only about 80 years.

And “by the end of the 5th century, the Huns had essentially disappeared as a dominant force in Europe.”

Since Early Medieval Ages were about 500-1000 CE, Huns seem “Three Kingdoms-like” in that they were mainly Classical/Antiquity era.

I’m not sure we should use “but they can trace their roots back to 220 BCE” with so much certainty (Xiongnu - New World Encyclopedia → “Did the Northern Xiongnu Become the Huns?”).

Remnants of the Huns getting absorbed into barbarian groups 469-500 CE, or getting displaced or assimilated into the rising powers of the time, does not equate to the Huns still existing beyond 500 CE, imo based in ChatGPT’s opinion.

Huns info from ChatGPT (click to expand)

The Huns were a powerful force in Europe for about **a century**, roughly from the late **4th century CE** to the **mid-6th century CE**. Here's a more detailed breakdown of their timeline:

1. Arrival in Europe (circa 370 CE): The Huns first appear in the historical record when they began moving into Europe from Central Asia and the eastern steppes. Their initial contact with the Roman Empire was through their pressure on the Gothic tribes, which helped spark the Gothic War in the 4th century.

2. Attila the Hun (circa 434–453 CE): Under the leadership of Attila, the Huns reached their height in power. Attila ruled from 434 to 453 CE, and his reign marked the peak of the Hunnic Empire. During this time, the Huns raided vast areas of Europe, including the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) and the Western Roman Empire. Attila’s campaigns are among the most infamous in European history.

3. Decline after Attila’s death (453 CE): After Attila’s death, the Hunnic Empire rapidly fragmented. His sons couldn’t maintain control over the vast territories he had conquered, and the Huns began to lose their power. By the end of the 5th century, the Huns had essentially disappeared as a dominant force in Europe.

4. Final Disbandment (circa 469–500 CE): The Huns, by this point divided and weakened by internal conflicts and external pressures from other groups (such as the Goths, Franks, and others), faded from history. Some remnants of the Huns were absorbed into other barbarian groups, while others were displaced or assimilated into the rising powers of the time.

So, the Huns lasted as a major force for about 80 years, but their influence lingered longer through their impact on the migration and settlement patterns of other barbarian tribes in Europe.

[PaidPlains6999]

The Huns were a civ, had lead no duchy, autonomous province, nor a kingdom, but an Empire. Atilla was a conqueror, that conquered continents and formed a scheme for what was yet to become the medieval atmosphere we all learned had rissen. It’s only fair to add such “bridge” period to what I would call the catalyst to an irreversible state Europe/others had fallen into.

[RatcicleFan]

@Darkness01101

ChatGPT says they lasted as a major force for only about 80 years.

Repeat with me: ChatGPT is not a reliable source

It only repeats what other people say, which means it can and has referenced troll posts instead of reliable information

[Darkness01101]

@RatcicleFan

Repeat with me: ChatGPT is not a reliable source

I don’t disagree. It sure can be a confident AI troll, saying things with such conviction!

Oh well. I wonder why some AoE2 campaigns take place in Antiquity era if it’s such a Medieval game. I think I remember it’s mainly the short length of time the 3K civs existed that’s a big problem with Three Kingdoms DLC, so Antiquity events are probably fine/permitted by the AoE2 crowd, as long as the civ exists long enough and has much time in the Medieval era…

[Mahazona]

At least those campaigns are for existing civis and not adding new factions to make campaigns.

A complete grand campaign like the chronicles one would have been the best way forward for 3K.

[Julix3748]

@Darkness01101

ChatGPT says

Ah yes, what a great source, everyone knows AIs are 1000% infallible

[II.Selim]

They had broken their promise by adding the Huns in the Conquerors expansion; they were originally going to add the Magyars but decided to go with the Huns because of the name recognition and being a better fit for the word “conquest.”

And when the Huns were added to the base game, the official timeline moved back from 476 to the beginning of the 400s. Thus, no reason was left to not add a Hunnic campaign.

[RatcicleFan]

@II.Selim

And when the Huns were added to the base game, the official timeline moved back from 476 to the beginning of the 400s. Thus, no reason was left to not add a Hunnic campaign.

You’re mixing the order of things, they added Huns for the campaign, not the other way around. And this still doesn’t make Huns the cash grab. Koreans are the cash grab Microsoft forced the devs to add.

And again, the game already had a civ that somehow covers both Gauls and 1200s Scots. Stop acting like Huns break some previously established rule.

Edit for the record: I’m not saying you can’t complain about Huns, I’m saying your complaints suck balls.

[UnAutreVoyage]

Are you seriously complaining about a 1999 advertising content?
This game is about the middle ages, beginning with the fall of Rome, so it seems natural to include the Huns, as they play a big role in the end of the empire (like the Franks, the Goths…). Magyars were added later, so no reason to complain…

[Darkness01101]

That example was debunked. Search this page too see it was fake: Fake Google AI Overview Screenshots Go Viral After New Feature's Rollout | Snopes.com

But yeah, it’s the internet. Just like anything on the internet, including AI overview and ChatGPT, take the info with a giant grain of salt

[PeakHornet46539]

White Huns, Hephthalites, Chionite Huns, Alchon Huns, Xiongnu and the Attila Huns. These lasted a long time…