Exactly, Hephthalites are rarely mentioned. The white Huns.
What rubbish word soup is this man? I explained to you why Huns fit the game. There were various groups of Huns and they lasted a long time. I urge other posters in this thread to ignore anything this guy posts.
6 Likes
What did you explain? I only see this one post from you:
Which is jsut a holistic list with groups that are called Huns and are in debate if there is actual ANY cultural overlap with the Atiila Huns.
Which is btw the same issue I criticized on the OG post. Unfortunately there is so little we know about the Attila Huns. We even don’t know what language family they spoke. That should tell everybody how little we actually know
And given this how little we know it’s actually quite absurd to even try make this an argument for anything Huns are in the game because they added an interesting Campaign. That’s it.
I think in your word soup is a key part missing, man. Or maybe the leftout comma is intentional?
Though it would be kind of rubbish to construct a man out of word soup. Sounds like a work for syssiphos.
I think everybody should have their own decision on this kind of stuff. The forum has an ignore function you can use when you can’t stand someones posts anymore. Though you shouldn’t use it only because someone else just has a different opinion on things or you can’t understand what he’s writing. As this is how you built up for this urge I think you should work on your handling of that. Cause if you can’t handle THAT how do you even remotely survive in the real world out there?
Also as a reminder: Neither flagging for “off-topic” nor urging others to ignore is actually ignoring people. It’s right the opposite. And calling it ignoring is actually an attempt to disguise the own antisocial behaviour as some kind of self protection.
This topic just makes little to no sense. And there are actually good points to make against the 3K
Cause ofc there would be like 30 other civ ideas which would fit perfectly in the game. Many of which I also already have seen when I colllected civ design ideas in my hub project for civ designs. And it also means that we most likely will never see stuff like Tanguts and Tibetans as China is now basically “covered” with 6 civs.
So why don’t we argue with core reasonal arguments here? Is it only because everybody whishes for different civs to be added? But you still all agree that in comparison the 3K civs look a bit “unimportant” in the great scheme of history. And could have been easily represented by a single Han civ?
Let’s pretend the Huns don’t fit the game, it’s certainly arguable they don’t (if you don’t believe they represent the White Huns, etc.) if I were to make my own game set in the medieval period, I probably wouldn’t include them, same with Romans (those were controversial in their own right), these civs are not strictly medieval, more like late antiquity, they are what kickstarted the medieval period
Does that mean it’s ok to add more non-medieval civs to the game instead of more medieval ones? Ones that deviate even more from the timeline? I would say no, especially not ones that are all so close culturally, lasted so little timeline-wise and are just based on political entities and not cultures. I mean, yes, the Huns and Romans are on the verge of the timeline, but at least they were culturally distinct, they aren’t really represented by other civs, you can argue that the Romans can be represented by Bizantines, but those are Greek, and they are separated geographically (despite being part of the same political entity), Sicilians are even more distinct, since they were a totally different group of people settling roughly the same geographical area, the strongest argument against Romans is the Italians, and yes, that’s why I was against Romans and why I mostly am today, but at least you can argue that they don’t resemble each other at all culturally (the Lombardi people coming in and influencing/assimilating with the Latin north “Italians”) and that they represent different geographical spaces (Central Italy for Romans, North Italy for Italians), you can’t do that with the Wu, Shu and Wei, while there’s a cultural gap between them and the og Chinese civ, there is not a big one between each other, and that’s on top that you can’t even argue that they represent a different geographical space than the classic civ, hell, I wouldn’t minded AS much (would still be against, but not as strongly) if “early medieval Chinese” were a civilization (let’s call it, “The Tang”, as bad as that would be), but THREE political entities from the same time being represented that were about a time period that isn’t even in the scope of the game is far too much
TL/DR: Past “mistakes” doesn’t mean we have to repeat them, and nitpicks that we can do about previous civs are WAY more prevalent in the Three Kingdoms civs
PS: Sorry for the bad redaction and poorly punctuated wall of text, I’m tired, hope my point still came across
5 Likes
So when was this game renamed to “Age of Cultures”?
Athenians and Spartans are just the same greek people yet they received their own civs just last DLC.
Yeah, I just found this… sorry if it’s been posted before. Sounds like you saw this before, but posting for others to see, as well, if it helps anything. I found it interesting, personally, to hear Ensemble Studios’ thoughts on the Huns:
How Ensemble Studios Picked the Civilizations
EASTERN EUROPEAN – the choice was between Huns, Swiss, Magyars, Habsburgs, or Slavs (the latter being an all-inclusive group in which we’d put Poles, Russians, etc.) We speedily decided the Swiss were too Renaissance, the Habsburgs were too obscure (besides, I hate them. I think they were a bunch of untalented reactionaries who looked funny). This left Magyars, Slavs, & Huns. For better or worse we chose Huns. Here are the reasons why:
- Huns were strong at the very start of the Dark Ages, so it drove home the fact that this was NOT a “Renaissance pack”, and we wanted to make that clear.
- Attila the Hun had major name recognition and a really cool campaign we could use. There was no corresponding Russian or Magyar hero.
- Since we were naming the pack “The Conquerors” we wanted to have as many conquest-oriented civs as possible. We already had the Spanish and the Aztecs, but we needed more, because the Mayans and Koreans, frankly, are not too famous for their conquests. The middle-age Russians did very little invading of other countries, to their everlasting credit, so we decided not to include them. The Magyars did plenty of invading, but we decided for the Huns and against the Magyars simply because of name recognition.
Source: Conquerors Expansion – Age of Kings Heaven - (at bottom of the page)
1 Like
It’s Age of Empires because you as a player build an empire.
For.a.separate.game.mode.
5 Likes
Then why isn’t antiquity mode checked here? It’s the sam selected datamod = same game. I don’t own the greek dlc.
Yes, Xiongnu fits perfectly into the game, but as a civ in Chronicles, not in the main AoE 2… you rename the Huns to Xiongnu in Chronicles and that’s it…
Yes, if expansions didn’t exist AoE 2 would cover from 476 to 1453 as it happened in AoK (although you would start in 1152 with Barbarossa to finish in 1453 with Joan of Arc)… if you keep the same chronology with the expansions, you would have to start with Bukhara in 559 and finish in Fetih in 1453… that would be AoE 2 in the strict sense (not Xie An, Alaric, Genseric, Attila or Vortigern in the 400s nor all the campaigns and Historical Battles from Dracula and Almeida onwards until 1598)… in AoE 1 you would have half the Yamato campaign out if you finish in 476 and in the case of 1453, you would have the Chinese campaign from AoE 3 out (they can save it if they want it, nobody likes that messy campaign) and half the Rus campaign and the battle of Townton from AoE 4…
You literally went out your way to change the Civilization set to allow the BfG civs, don’t play dumb
6 Likes
That’s like a game rule.
Or is limiting the difficulty or map size turning aoe into another game too? Don’t be silly
A setting is not a mode.
I suggest picking up a dictionary.
AoE:RoR is a separate gamemode, because it’s incompatible to 2 (different datafiles).
I can literally see it saying “AoE2” and “Chronicles” in separate civilisation sets…
And so is Chronicles because it changes the entire tech tree when in use.
2 Likes
If I may be an Italian nitpicker, the Longobards actually spread over the whole of the Italian peninsula, with the exception of Rome (overpopulated and over-armed despite everything) and coastal cities like Naples. Even the islands were not touched.
The reason why this region of Italy is called Lombardy is certainly because it was the first place they settled, but also because they chose Pavia as the capital of the kingdom (Pavia is part of the administrative region of Lombardy).
The Sicilian-Norman kings also write about how they had to fight not only against the Arabs but also against the Lombards (although in practice it was mainly Italo-Romans who thought they were Lombards, after all, the identity of a people is what you have in your head), who had established centres of power independent of the Lombard king (defeated by Charlemagne three centuries earlier).
2 Likes
No it’s not.
You can open the * empire*.dat in genie editor and check for yourself, athenians achaemenids and spartans are civs # 47 48 49 iirc
Egyptians Macedonians etc aren’t there.
If you take the back of the CD AOK case at face value then why do we have east asian civs (China and Rome barely had any interaction with each other, though mostly because some Parthian merchants lied…) or why does The Conqueror go to the Americas ?
My opinion
Huns: A civ that is related to Magyars
3 Kingdoms: Civs that is the bases of China (Wei the Nothern empires, Wu the Sothern empires, and Shu the Western empires)
Chinese: A civ that is represent of China (like Hindustanis in India)
I hated the dic for the first time, but now I preorder it. The dlc gives us the Chinese details with new features.
They aren’t related to Magyars. People seeing Magyars for the first time thought they were Huns, but that doesn’t mean they’re related.
1 Like
They don’t need to interact with each other. They just need to exist as civilizations between 476 and 1453.
I don’t know why you are using the Chronicles civs as “evidence” as to why it’s ok, no one is disagreeing with you about the Three Kingdoms being perfect for Chronicles, everyone is asking for them to be moved to Chronicles!
We just don’t want them in ranked, just like how Athenians, Spartans and Achaemenids are not in ranked
6 Likes