Much appreciated. I expect everyone here to be able to read, otherwise wouldn’t have written this lengthy post.
Some seem afraid to look at history in the eye though. Because it exposes what’s happening.
Anyway, it’s fair, logical and obvious to say, from my perspective this is a work of love for AoE: the real Age of Empires, with the fair, apolitical, respectful reverence and love that it treated history.
Yes, that is, after the fall of the kingdom of Leon in the 13th century, you had 6 kingdoms on the peninsula: Portugal, Galicia, Leon, Castile, Navarre and Aragon… in the 14th century, Castile annexed Leon and Galicia. In the 15th century, Castile and Aragon united and created Spain and in the 16th century, Spain annexed Navarra and Portugal until Portugal regained its independence in 1640…
Yes, you are both right…
Yeah, let’s say it’s stuck in the middle of the timeline (1200 CE)… so think about 1200 CE civs for AoE 4…
No one can say wether the variants are good or bad, they either didn’t try them or they’re under NDA. That includes you, by the way. Also, the majority doesn’t have anything to say and some of those who did say something were excited. It’s not at all true that everyone thinks the variants are crap. And you can’t fix everything, what does make you think that?
You compare the variants to sexual violence?!? You went too far.
Thank you very much for your reply. Just to politely inform you, so you don’t guess: this reply is not qualified enough to be worthy of my time to address in detail here.
I invite you to contribute something constructive to the important topic, focus on history, and I promise to consider it in good faith.
I notice a lining of arrogance in both your answer and OP.
Here’s some constructive criticism.
You can’t make a scientific model by which decide the most deserving civs to be added, for a couple of reasons (at least).
There’s no strong link between your conclusions and the data you provided. It’s not clear how the arguments provided support your thesis. You have to specify what interpretation of the data leads to your conclusion, you didn’t do that.
When you have a proposal, be humble. Nothing any of us write can be sold as a definitive, game-changing, do-or-die solution. You aren’t entitled to command anything to the Devs.
You have a partial opinion on the Persians. That collides with a fact-based proposal, it’s inconvenient. This whole topic reads like a surreptitious way to have them added ASAP.
Considering all of the above, your post is too biased to be taken seriously, despite your claims for an indisputable solution to the grievous problem of the variants. So, you should try to edit it and make it better.
Now a spot on comment about the civs you proposed.
Incas, Majapahit, Spain are seemingly good proposals, nothing to say really about them.
Mamluks seem lower priority than other civs, more for the already present Abbasids and soon to be added Ayyubids variant.
Cholas could be a candidate, though in other threads other good proposals have been made. The Indian civilizations issue though applies to the Persians as well. In the middle ages, none of them had a single, enduring state/kingdom/empire by which represent the civilization. It’s inconsistent to advance a specific empire for the Indians and a generic one for the Persians.
About the Vikings, you fall short of what you originally intended, calling them Vikings and not Danes. AoE4, more than AoE2, tries to be specific about the Empires represented.
To end, a worry.
You make names and point out what you call major empires. What if somebody proposes a name outside that list?
About “being the best AoE game”, that’s way too subjective of an opinion.
“It’s not over.” … AoE 2 is still going strong with an ever increasing population and it’s been going for 24 years. I always thought these games were as eternal as chess.
Thank you very much for this contribution. I’m endlessly curious and excited about amazing Indonesia, but it’s a region I have relatively less knowledge about.
Do you think it would be a good idea to call a potential future AoE4 Indonesian civilization “Majapahit”? After all, they made “Ottomans” including the Seljuk political states as well. Very similar situation.
I actually would prefer Nusantaran (“Indonesians”) because it’s a civilization, not a polity.
I do accept the very reasonable Civilization-Polity duality as historical legitimacy for a AoE civilization (which excludes “Jeanne D’Arc”, “Zhu Xi”), but I prefer civilization names including multiple states (English, Chinese, French) to specific polity names (Ayyubids, Delhi Sultanate, Ottomans, HRE).
A Majapahit and a Persians civilization in AoE4 would be nothing less than MIND-BLOWING, because the most basic and most apparent element in the game is architecture. It would transform AoE4 like Mongols and Malians did.
Yes, they’re a little far from that…
The most likely thing is that they will only put Malays in and that’s it…
Maybe because they are represented by the Abbasids?..
I don’t agree with the first post.
Game is over for aoe4.
It’s just gonna get worse from now, all competitive players will leave eventually.
Many who came from other games to try and see aoe4, have already gone.
With more content, worse balancing and STILL poor graphics, pathing and tons of bugs, it’s just going down the drain.
I’m 99% sure I myself willl stop playing after the coming expansion cash grab as well.
I’m going to play it and then uninstall it until the next dlc arrives next year xd…
Even if that were true - I don’t think so - that’d make a small difference: 95% of players are casual. Competitive is a rare species
Deeply impressive how the Persians are a mega influential culture and civilization, always among the top 2 / 3 civ in the world for almost the entire timespan of Age of Empires IV (much longer than Delhi, Abbasids, English, HRE, Ottomans, Mongols, everybody), with so many powerful empires and dynasties both Persian and non-Persian.
It’s beyond me, how the Persians are not in Age of Empires IV.
I think you understand this is peak Abbasid, a snapshot from 850 CE only. It’s nothing. AoE4 post-Byzantine goes from 600-1650 CE, over one thousand years!
Persians are a hyper important civilization this entire one thousand years. Abbasids are only a short period of the early Caliphate. Even worse: it was the Persians (Saffarid and Samanid dynasties) who broke the Abbasid Caliphate.
Saying Abbasids “include” the Persians is like saying “one small tree, is bigger than - and includes - the whole forest”.
You can see all the pictures on OP.
Sure, but in most of the time the Persians were under the Abbasids, the Mongols (Ilkhanate) and the Timurids until the arrival of the Safavid dynasty in 1501…
Persians only really exist during the timeframe as an important or moderately important nation from 870-1150ish, and post 1500 (which is end of game). Unless you want to call the Timurids persians, but that is kind of a stretch.
It’s enough where they should get a civ eventually, but not so much that they deserve it over any current civ (except maybe variants but idk if they count)
I would put Persians as probably top 5 nations we should get next though. They are important enough.
And nobody say the contrary…but the Persians were under others civs in medieval times…
Not that simple. Very far from it. Just need look at the maps 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. You’re mistaken about this point, see?
Oh and moreover:
1- Timur acclaimed himself as “Emperor of Persia”, look it shows Persia on the map part of Timurid time, “Persia” it’s under Persians agree with me?
2- you can’t have AoE4 withour Safavids which is part of Persians, they were structurally important in world geopolitics
3- Persians were the longest, main rival of Byzantines while the Roman Empire was a world A-power; think DLC
