It would make sense if the ancient illyrians will be incorporated into the overall game. One of the most advanced and oldest races in europe before the romans and ancient greeks. New artifacts and scriptures are being rapidly discovered in the balkans regarding the Illyrians. This civilization was expected to be added to the Forgotten series of AOE but for some reason it’s still missing.
Some other great ancient civilizations that would be great to be included in the definitive edition would be:
I don’t think so. Until DLC. And there are most important civs than those.
Angkor isn’t middle age city?
Polynesian… I don’t know much but I don’t see as Empire , they colonized island but they don’t even have armies like Romans, Macedonians and Carthage.
Would be fun to see some factions from late antiquity, such as huns (could use the aestethics of Shang/Choson/Yamato), Hephalites, Goths, Franks and Vandals. There is a substantial gap that AoE doesn´t really cover between principal Rome and Medieval times.
I would just like to say that the correct term is not races (because we are all of the same human race as ■■■■ sapiens). The right term would be civilizations.
@Augustusman said:
I don’t think so. Until DLC. And there are most important civs than those.
Angkor isn’t middle age city?
Polynesian… I don’t know much but I don’t see as Empire , they colonized island but they don’t even have armies like Romans, Macedonians and Carthage.
I think they are very good because in 3000-1000 BC they began to colonize other islands, besides being the first civilization to arrive to America through a boat (there is also a theory that they were natives of Canada and through that boat Went to the Pacific, this theory belongs to Thor Heyerdahl) **. Anyway, it would be an excellent naval and rush civilization if I were the lol design.
Most of the civilizations suggested here are outside of the AoE1 timeline. Polynesia, Cahokia, Angkor, Franks, Hephthalites, Vandals and Goths all came long after the time period of the game.
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
Parthians are the only civilisation that springs to mind as potentially ‘missing’ given their famous fights with Rome. They could have bonuses on horse archers (most obvious - the famous parthian shot), perhaps a discount on market technologies and be limited to war galleys and no scythes. Make them play like a better land version of Assy in Iron Age but a weaker bronze and navy perhaps.
@the_choson_one said:
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
From what I know AOE begins in the age of stones, and nowhere has it ever been said that the first game was limited to a geographic region, so Polynesia does fit in the historical context of the game. Aside from the fact that in the RoR expansion the period extends to the Roman expansion then this indicates that there is even more possibility of adding various civilizations and ethnicities and cultural groups in the game.
And let people imagine civilizations for DLC, I find it fun to discuss this by raising HYPE and still running the forum that is almost dead.
@the_choson_one said:
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
From what I know AOE begins in the age of stones, and nowhere has it ever been said that the first game was limited to a geographic region, so Polynesia does fit in the historical context of the game. Aside from the fact that in the RoR expansion the period extends to the Roman expansion then this indicates that there is even more possibility of adding various civilizations and ethnicities and cultural groups in the game.
And let people imagine civilizations for DLC, I find it fun to discuss this by raising HYPE and still running the forum that is almost dead.
One think is imagining about new civs, which of course people can do freely, but another one is doing it with some judgement (and I only said that because there are some people saying civs near-crazily). What I said about Polynesia because of it’s location, is because they were not ‘‘discovered’’ when in the first Age of Empires period (Age of Empires always worked like that), and of course by the Stone Age there was not a civilization like ‘‘Polynesia’’. Only Rapa-Nui/Maori people with not much development. If they were included in the game, then we can add nearby-every primitive culture in the world…
@“Mystic Taboo” said:
Parthians are the only civilisation that springs to mind as potentially ‘missing’ given their famous fights with Rome. They could have bonuses on horse archers (most obvious - the famous parthian shot), perhaps a discount on market technologies and be limited to war galleys and no scythes. Make them play like a better land version of Assy in Iron Age but a weaker bronze and navy perhaps.
Parthian has a similar culture from Persians.
@“Mystic Taboo” said:
Parthians are the only civilisation that springs to mind as potentially ‘missing’ given their famous fights with Rome. They could have bonuses on horse archers (most obvious - the famous parthian shot), perhaps a discount on market technologies and be limited to war galleys and no scythes. Make them play like a better land version of Assy in Iron Age but a weaker bronze and navy perhaps.
Parthian has a similar culture from Persians.
Greek and Mace are similar, Carthage and Phoenocian cian are similar cultures. I’m not saying there should be new civs but Parthia is a fairly famous absentee
@the_choson_one said:
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
From what I know AOE begins in the age of stones, and nowhere has it ever been said that the first game was limited to a geographic region, so Polynesia does fit in the historical context of the game. Aside from the fact that in the RoR expansion the period extends to the Roman expansion then this indicates that there is even more possibility of adding various civilizations and ethnicities and cultural groups in the game.
And let people imagine civilizations for DLC, I find it fun to discuss this by raising HYPE and still running the forum that is almost dead.
One think is imagining about new civs, which of course people can do freely, but another one is doing it with some judgement (and I only said that because there are some people saying civs near-crazily). What I said about Polynesia because of it’s location, is because they were not ‘‘discovered’’ when in the first Age of Empires period (Age of Empires always worked like that), and of course by the Stone Age there was not a civilization like ‘‘Polynesia’’. Only Rapa-Nui/Maori people with not much development. If they were included in the game, then we can add nearby-every primitive culture in the world…
Primitive culture? Dude, what a horrible Eurocentric view! They only managed to get to America in the time of the stones, really they are not very much developed to create a boat that crosses an ocean? please!! The Europeans only achieved this in the 17th century!
Another thing, no civilization needs to be “discovered” to be integrated into the game, or, much less, be discovered to be a civilization. In short, this Eurocentric view of the world does not play the role of analyzing cultural variations and only tends to impoverish the diversity of the world.
@the_choson_one said:
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
From what I know AOE begins in the age of stones, and nowhere has it ever been said that the first game was limited to a geographic region, so Polynesia does fit in the historical context of the game. Aside from the fact that in the RoR expansion the period extends to the Roman expansion then this indicates that there is even more possibility of adding various civilizations and ethnicities and cultural groups in the game.
And let people imagine civilizations for DLC, I find it fun to discuss this by raising HYPE and still running the forum that is almost dead.
One think is imagining about new civs, which of course people can do freely, but another one is doing it with some judgement (and I only said that because there are some people saying civs near-crazily). What I said about Polynesia because of it’s location, is because they were not ‘‘discovered’’ when in the first Age of Empires period (Age of Empires always worked like that), and of course by the Stone Age there was not a civilization like ‘‘Polynesia’’. Only Rapa-Nui/Maori people with not much development. If they were included in the game, then we can add nearby-every primitive culture in the world…
Primitive culture? Dude, what a horrible Eurocentric view! They only managed to get to America in the time of the stones, really they are not very much developed to create a boat that crosses an ocean? please!! The Europeans only achieved this in the 17th century!
Another thing, no civilization needs to be “discovered” to be integrated into the game, or, much less, be discovered to be a civilization. In short, this Eurocentric view of the world does not play the role of analyzing cultural variations and only tends to impoverish the diversity of the world.
The Polynesians were primitive during the AoE1 timeline. The Moai statues are indeed impressive, but they were put up a thousand years later. There are no evidence of any large cities or great empires in Polynesia within the timeframe of the game.
@the_choson_one said:
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
From what I know AOE begins in the age of stones, and nowhere has it ever been said that the first game was limited to a geographic region, so Polynesia does fit in the historical context of the game. Aside from the fact that in the RoR expansion the period extends to the Roman expansion then this indicates that there is even more possibility of adding various civilizations and ethnicities and cultural groups in the game.
And let people imagine civilizations for DLC, I find it fun to discuss this by raising HYPE and still running the forum that is almost dead.
One think is imagining about new civs, which of course people can do freely, but another one is doing it with some judgement (and I only said that because there are some people saying civs near-crazily). What I said about Polynesia because of it’s location, is because they were not ‘‘discovered’’ when in the first Age of Empires period (Age of Empires always worked like that), and of course by the Stone Age there was not a civilization like ‘‘Polynesia’’. Only Rapa-Nui/Maori people with not much development. If they were included in the game, then we can add nearby-every primitive culture in the world…
Primitive culture? Dude, what a horrible Eurocentric view! They only managed to get to America in the time of the stones, really they are not very much developed to create a boat that crosses an ocean? please!! The Europeans only achieved this in the 17th century!
Another thing, no civilization needs to be “discovered” to be integrated into the game, or, much less, be discovered to be a civilization. In short, this Eurocentric view of the world does not play the role of analyzing cultural variations and only tends to impoverish the diversity of the world.
Well, little to say that after @qweytr24 . The ancient polynesian navigators were amazing, and the Moais are a wonderful artistic work, but when AoE 1 timeline they were no much more than local tribes of fishermen… and I need to correct you: europeans crossed the Atlantic ocean in 15th century, and vikings arrived to North America about 1000 A.D., not 17th century.
I really like tribal polynesian cultures, but man, Age of Empires always worked as an Europe-Asia-Africa-centered game. You can see it: very ancient cultures like mayans or incas (which existed as flourishing civilizations in AoE 1 timeline too) doesn’t appear since The Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when de discovery of America timeline. And the same way, Iroquois, Sioux and more doesn’t appear since AoE III, when the colonized America timeline.
If you still think I have an irrational ‘‘Eurocentric view of the world’’, think about your own conception. I am not underestimating cultures, I am only saying they were too primitive in this timeline to appear in AoE as a civilization.
@the_choson_one said:
WTF. I understand people talking about possible new civs for AoE DE, but really, dudes, STOP. I’ve been reading some posts and comments suggesting civs that would make no sense in Age of Empires geography status and timeline, and here is another one.
If you know, civs like Mayans and Aztecs were included with the Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when was historically accurate because of the ‘‘discovery of America’’, so it will make no sense including pre-columbian civs in AoE DE. Well then, the same applies to Polynesia (the ancient Rapa-Nui would be more accurate for the timeline, and even them does not fit in AoE because of its geographical location), Angkor (the problem is their timeline, because they flourished as a great culture long after the initial setting of AoE, and because of that, you have them in Age of Empires II - Rise of the Rajas), and Cahokia (America wasn’t discovered in the first AoE timeline).
I only agree with the possibility of Illyrians, along with other possible civs like Tartessians, Nubians, Iberians, Indus-Harappan culture, and a few more possibilities, also excluding Franks (they are in AoE II, and their timeline is not compatible with the first AoE) or Goths (they are in AoE II too, and weren’t unified and well-organized like a real culture/civilization until the fall of Rome).
From what I know AOE begins in the age of stones, and nowhere has it ever been said that the first game was limited to a geographic region, so Polynesia does fit in the historical context of the game. Aside from the fact that in the RoR expansion the period extends to the Roman expansion then this indicates that there is even more possibility of adding various civilizations and ethnicities and cultural groups in the game.
And let people imagine civilizations for DLC, I find it fun to discuss this by raising HYPE and still running the forum that is almost dead.
One think is imagining about new civs, which of course people can do freely, but another one is doing it with some judgement (and I only said that because there are some people saying civs near-crazily). What I said about Polynesia because of it’s location, is because they were not ‘‘discovered’’ when in the first Age of Empires period (Age of Empires always worked like that), and of course by the Stone Age there was not a civilization like ‘‘Polynesia’’. Only Rapa-Nui/Maori people with not much development. If they were included in the game, then we can add nearby-every primitive culture in the world…
Primitive culture? Dude, what a horrible Eurocentric view! They only managed to get to America in the time of the stones, really they are not very much developed to create a boat that crosses an ocean? please!! The Europeans only achieved this in the 17th century!
Another thing, no civilization needs to be “discovered” to be integrated into the game, or, much less, be discovered to be a civilization. In short, this Eurocentric view of the world does not play the role of analyzing cultural variations and only tends to impoverish the diversity of the world.
Well, little to say that after @qweytr24 . The ancient polynesian navigators were amazing, and the Moais are a wonderful artistic work, but when AoE 1 timeline they were no much more than local tribes of fishermen… and I need to correct you: europeans crossed the Atlantic ocean in 15th century, and vikings arrived to North America about 1000 A.D., not 17th century.
I really like tribal polynesian cultures, but man, Age of Empires always worked as an Europe-Asia-Africa-centered game. You can see it: very ancient cultures like mayans or incas (which existed as flourishing civilizations in AoE 1 timeline too) doesn’t appear since The Conquerors expansion for AoE II, when de discovery of America timeline. And the same way, Iroquois, Sioux and more doesn’t appear since AoE III, when the colonized America timeline.
If you still think I have an irrational ‘‘Eurocentric view of the world’’, think about your own conception. I am not underestimating cultures, I am only saying they were too primitive in this timeline to appear in AoE as a civilization.
You are right, I was wrong in the historical century, it really was during the 15th century that this happened, but on vinkings (by the time it arrived in America) it did not fit into the European culture that had as a central reference the cultures coming from Greek-Roman , So I did not mention the Vikings that and yes, they were the first established civilization in Europe to find America ( Of course, then with the historical evolutionary process the cultures blended together creating the European culture that we know today and that we studied in the history books of basic education).
My point is that opening the horizons of the AOE universe is not a bad idea, and in the past it has been done by putting American civilizations in the game, opening up the possibilities and adding more cultural diversity is a big step for the design of the game. Another point that I would like to emphasize (this also refers to @qweytr24 ) is that big cities do not generate great impacts in the game, because if we analyze games of the franchise we find North American natives (who did not own big cities but several villages, as well as civilization) Another example would be the Berbers that neither a civilization can admit as, since in fact they are a cultural set belonging to a certain geographic space where their influences (of course, which received influences) reached the Arab world in the East, and Having as a great majority a nomadic population (as well as the Huns at the beginning of their acenss)
I’m not invalidating your opinion, I’m just saying that just because civilization does not fit the standard established by other civilizations with big cities etc does not mean that it can not be part of the same “universe”.
