Which one of these following civilizations do you think the Byzantines should pair with if another two civ DLC gets made that has the Byzantines?
- Aragonese
- Bulgarians
- Castilians
- Italians
- Serbians
- Sicilians
0 voters
1 Like
releasing ottomans separately has made things really awkward. I used to be 100% sure that ottomans and byzantines would be grouped together in an expansion. I vote castilians or aragonese for sure, though
4 Likes
Bulgarians is strong. But best is not on list, thousand times more personality and stories to tell, Byz’s classic rival in “classic empires”, Persians. Spain could come with Inca and Aztec.
4 Likes
Castilians, so you have kingdoms on both sides of the Mediterranean…
Yes, a very rare dlc, Malians and Ottomans have no relationship between them, except that both are Arab, Muslim and African empires (in the Ottoman case, European and Asian as well)…
Yes, Byzantines and Persians or Bulgarians would be interesting too… If in AoE 3 they get to put the Persians in the next dlc, surely later they will put the Persians in AoE 4…
3 Likes
Castilians does seem to be the best option so that DLC can be two civs that’s on one side of the Mediterranean and the other on the other side. Now, the Ottomans weren’t an Arab or African empire. It was a Turkish empire, but a lot of Arabs and North Africans did live under the Ottomans though. Now, the fact that Ottomans and Malians were both large Muslim empires and as well as the developers possibly might have wanted to add in an African civ in a short time than with AoE2 and 3 are both possibly the reasons why the developers decided to pair up the Ottomans with the Malians in this upcoming DLC for AoE4.
Italians probably, since the two cultures are so related and intertwined. They collaborated and clashed so much times since the western roman empire fall that is hard to not think of one when thinking of the other during that times.
Although, no Italian civ, just pick 1 state/kingdom/republic and go with that.
3 Likes
Consider how they liked releasing civs that had no conflict with each other and limited interraction.
I won’t be supriced if they added Byzantines, and the Koreans just to completely bamboozle people like they did with ottomans and malians.
Or maybe they are to similar. as both are defensive and naval oriented.
Perhaps Byzantines and Japanese, but that would be 2 of the most popular ones.
TBH I have a strong feeling it would be Byzantines and Khmer (because Khmer would be in a completely untouched region of the world, kinda how the Malians are first african one)
5 Likes
Yes, that’s what I mean… Arabs and Africans for ethnic and geographical reasons and Muslims obviously for religion… although with the Abbasids it would already be the second or third African and Muslim empire of the game;that’s why I don’t think they put the Persians in the game, since they would be encompassed with the Abbasids, although the same applies to the Bulgarians and the Ottomans…
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Four-Great-Islamic-Empires
Most likely, they will get Venice because of the theme of being the oldest and most powerful Italian republic, the fourth crusade and Lepanto…
Of course everything can be… or it can be like in the AoE 3 DE that with the departure of the game launched the Swedes and the Incas who had no relationship with each other and then started with the thematic dlcs…
1 Like
They could also do Lombards and Genoese as well.
This era was not a good time for the Byz. Let em come with Bulgarians just so they can make a good showing.
The aoe 4 time period is just after they lost a crapton of land to the early muslim expansion, got kicked out of Anatolia by the Seljuks and, got sacked at least twice by crusaders, and finally were finished off by the Ottomans.
They had some border scuffles with the Abbasids which were mostly even, but the Abbas were more about infighting than anything else. They events of the Bulgur Slayer are probably the only golden moments the ERE can find at this time. Without Bulgarians, it’s gonna be a pretty sad story imo.
1 Like
None of these, they should be paired with Persians, they historical enemy from since before the middle ages, and another cultural superpower that influenced even the Seljuk turks and then the ottomans that would be in conflict with them.
The only thing I think about with a persian civilization being added is they having a somewhat similar concept as the Chineese, with different “Dinasties” with different units and mechanics that represent the various powerhouses that passed through there, influenced (and were influenced by) Persia, starting with Sassanids, Seljuks, Ilkhanids and then ending with Safvavids (to be honest, that would be one logical explanation that they added “ottomans” to represent the turks, since osman and so forth were much reserved to the “end” of the middle ages, so to speak, so adding Seljuks as a separate entity, maybe together with Persia would be nice).
Also, yep, since those would be probably my favorite civs (since I’m a fanboy of both) I would reall love for both of them to be added together.
2 Likes
Agree with Byzantine and Japanese, Its been long overdue if they didnt include China in the 1st draft i wont be begging for Japanese civs since it will more likely to become Eurocentric game like total war franchise.
In that case they would have to be simply “Italians”…Gothic huscarl in 1st age, Sicilian sergeant and Genoese crossbowman in 2nd age, condottiero and Venetian galeazza in 3rd age and Renaissance architect and the lombard building in imperial…
Yes, I think a Byzantine campaign would have to go from Justinian/Belisarius to Alexios I Komnenos (534-1116)…
Renovatio Imperii (534-540)
-
Conquest of the Vandals (534) (Byzantines vs Vandals)
-
Conquest of Naples and Rome (536) (Byzantines vs Goths)
-
Conquest of Ravenna (540) (Byzantines vs Goths)
The Iconoclasts (717-740)
-
Defense of Constantinople (717) (defense of the bastion yupii
) (Byzantines vs Umayyads -custom Abbasids) -
Excommunicating the Iconoclasts (727) (Byzantines vs Byzantines)
-
Battle of Akronion (740) (Byzantines vs Umayyads -custom Abbasids)
The Komnenos (1081-1116)
-
Revolt against the Botaniates (1081) (Byzantines vs Byzantines)
-
Siege of Dyrhakium (1108) (Byzantines vs Sicilians)
-
Battle of Philomelion (1116) (Byzantines vs Seljuks -custom Ottomans)
Of course, I think so too…
1 Like
Venice!
Venice was the big rival of both the Byzantine and later the Ottoman Empire.
Surprised you split up Spain into Castile and Aragon but kept Italy.
If they stick to their naming convention for civilisations I won’t expect Italy not Spain at any point.
Genoa and Venice make sense. Venice is more popular and probably more important though.
I also voted for Bulgarians but I think it’s obvious why they are a good match.
2 Likes
They should be paired with Ethiopians rather than those garbage European civs.
2 Likes
Venice was not really a big rival or even a rival to the Byzantines. In fact, it was Byzantine territory, vassal and an ally to them most of the time. Eventually it grew independence but kept close ties before the 4th crusade happened. Sure it had a lot of financial interests to ravage Constantinople and split the empire’s lands but to call it a big rivalry is a stretch a bit too far I believe, it was just a backstab.
Bulgarians are indeed the only good match in this list if you are looking for a pair of civs that fought one another extensively. It doesn’t have to be like that though.
2 Likes
I did it this way because it is easier, since the most important Spanish kingdoms of the Middle Ages were Castile and Aragon (Asturias, Navarre and León passed without pain or glory); on the other hand with Italy it is more difficult since all the Italian cities were more or less important during the Middle Ages, that’s why I grouped them as an “Italian” people…
maybe we get three civs
Considering how much republics within Italy there were, I did also have the thought of this civ using the generic name “Italians” and having the Genoese Crossbowman (or Pavisier) being a unique unit that replaces the regular Crossbowman unit and perhaps an Italian infantry that replaces the Men-At-Arms.
2 Likes
Yes I think such a concept would be amazing. The entrance of early powerhouses like Byzantines and Persians would naturally pull AoE4 timeframe a bit earlier to the 600s, the same way Chinese civ pushed timeframe forwards to 1644.
Sassanid, Samanid, Ghaznavid, Seljuk, Ilkhanid and or course, Safavid eras could be represented in a major Persians civilization of epic scope and depth.