I feel exactly the same about Armenia being represented by the Georgians or Byzantines.
I would say that it should be a combination of them all, although the main focus should be on the Cilician Armenians.
Khazars wouldnt be so similar civ design wise (they would be quite a bit diferent from Cumans while Armenians and Georgians could probably have the same design) and were a far more powerful empire. Also, Khazars didnt even share a religion with Cumans
Your lack of knoledge should not be your basis no dismissing other factions.
The cumans were united by means of their nomadic culture and their peoples. If you take time to read you will find that half of the Cuman societies were Jewish and the other half converted to Christianity.
1 Like
Its not lack of knowledge, its just that I tried to design two diferent civs for them two myself.
Both would be cavalry and monk civs, with good defenses, infantry and economy.
Ah didnt know that. Tbh havent read a lot about Cumans, it just feels like they dont represent Khazars properly in game
A civ that has cav, monks, defences , infantry and economy … you are literaly just describing 80% of the other civs.
If you have the historical knowlegde , you can make each civ highly diverse and interesting eventhough most of them share the same basic army structure.
The Cilisean Armenians had their kingdom in the moutainous reagion of South Eastern Anatolia , they were surrounded by the Turks to the north , the Byzantines to the West, the Persians to the east and the Saracens to the south thus they had to use the mountains to fight countless defencive battles to retain their kingoms. Frequently allying with difering factions (Byzantines, Crusaders, Georgia even sometimes the Persians) in order to overcome invasions. They did have srtong Ayruzdi cav but only when their kingdom was safe and they went on offencive gampaings with allies such as the crusaders or Byzantines. SO they will be an Infantry and Defensive civ
UU-Nakharar:Mountain Infantry. Average in combat , strong against buildings , high pierce armour with a large shield on the back that can bypass a cities walls much like a siege tower (without the need for the tower) .
Unique tech 1 - Sparapet (Allows you to train Ayruzdi cav)
Unique tech 2 - Mountain Keeps/Strongholds (Castles on elevated ground gain +2 attack
Civ bonus :Captured Relic = +1 Infantry attack.
Once Sarapet is researched (expensive) , then Ayruzdi cav can be created in castle.
Ayruzdi cav - similar to Cataphracts.
Where the Georgians had some of the strongest knights that made frequent forays (due to their Christian devotion) into the Levant all they way to Jerusalem, even at the times when the Jerusalem was in Musim hands. Thus they had to cover vast distances , traveling from the Caucasus south to Jerusalem with their elite knights, thus I feel they shall be a cavalry baced civ Cavalry / Monk civ
UU - Monaspa Mace wielding Heavy cavalry
Unique tech 1 - Georgian Reconqesta (Reduce Baracks infantry cost by -40%)
Unique tech 2 - Sword of the Messaiah (Decreases cool down duration from monks after a successful conversion)
I was expecting this point but… Not really? Outside Teutons, really nothing else covers all these five boxes (I think). Historically yes, it was what a lot of civs, like Poles, were centered around that, but there was an obvious focus. However I think both Georgians and Armenians are both too closely tied to filling those five boxes to not have a bonus (or at least good tech tree) for all of those. And that makes them somewhat the same in practice gameplaywise which is something that your designs also show
Yeah once again , it is easy to see when someone replys just to repeat their views instead of actually reading, injesting inforamtion and deliberating a matter.
The Armenians being so far south compared to the Georgians will have access to Cav archers and camelry that the Georgians would not have, their siege will be a lot weaker than the Georgians since they rely on their allies for siege or use their UU to infeltrate walled cities…
But I see I can say whatever I like , even using historical referances for both civs but you will still just reply with : ‘‘They will be the same.’’
And there I was thinking I could have a propper discusson in this forum. I must be mad.
1 Like
Dude, Im really tired but I still read eveyrthing and I still think the same thing (and its not from an “European bad” point of view, its just that they have very similar focuses.
Armenian having camels and Cavalry archers is nice, but its not something that really changes what the civ was mainly. And neither does having crappy siege instead of mediocre siege like their northern cousins
You are right: they wont be the same, but they will just be interchangeable. You could swap the names around of the designs you proposed without much problem.
And dont try to act as if its onlt the people around you who is unreasonable with some stuff and not yourself sometimes as well.
I am not refuting this , for instance if they bring out a North American DLC, I have read to much on their history to ever want them in AoE2 and I will never buy such a DLC no matter whom says what.
At the same time, I’m just laying out Ideas on civs whos medieval histories I find interesting and whom I would love to play as.
With AoE 2, most civs are symetrical, and it can be easy for anyone to say that civ x is simmilar to civ y when they feel the convition to do so.
1 Like
I feel the exact same. NA tribes fit into AOE3 maybe, but here they’d just feel out of time and space.
3 Likes
My knowledge is very limited regarding armenians and georgians but were they unified at some point?
As sepporate entities yes, they had very strong , capable armies and although they fought as allies some times, they had differing phelosophies, origins, strategies, cities , rullers and motives.
2 Likes
Then they should have separate civis,i was under the impression they could both come under one umbrella by reading the above discussion between you guys.
1 Like
Yes many people think that because they are in a moderately simmilar region and are both Christian, they should be as one civ. But the Georgians Migrated from the north into the Caucasus and then built their kingdom to rule over the ME region.
Where the Armenians are a more ancient peoples, they already had a strong established empire during late antiquity, battling agaist the Parthians , Hitites and even the Egyptians but at the same time as Rome enterd the area, the Armenian Bagrati empire fell and they were forced to migrate and relocate. Due to their close proximity to the Levant, they became evangelised at an early stage and became the first ever Christian Kingdom. They came under heavy invasions and perescutions be the Persians whom were Zoroastrian and so when the Roman empire expanded into the region, they found a usefull ally in Armenia.
As time progressed and Eastern Rome eveoled into the Byzantine Empire, the Cilician Armenian kingdom also grew in streangth fielding large armies allongside their Byzantine allies and gaining imprtant victories against the Persians and later the Invading Turks and Saracens. On many oocasion when a certain Byzantine emeror would get shifty ideas, the Armenians had to fight against them and seek aid from Persia to form a defencive alliance against the Byzantines. Untill said Emperior would die and the next Emperor would sought a renewed alliance with them since Armenia was located at such an important crossroads.
They fought valiently against the invading Turks from the north and the Saracens from the south. Thus they defended their Kingdom and engaged the Saljuk Turks from the south whilst by this time the Georgians had started creating their kingdom in the Caucasus, battleing the Turks from the north. Both factions joined in an alliance and at the battle of Shamkor. they obtained a decisive victory against the Turks.
At this time the Crusaders entered into the Picture and since the Armenians were also Christian, they were more than happy to ally with them and aid the Crusaders in their endevour to retake Jerusalem.
The Georgians were further north and were thus preoccupied with giving the Turks and Tartars a bloody nose that only by the second Crusade did the Georgians under King David the Builder and later Queen Tamar, succesfully push the muslims aside and enter Jerusalem on their own.
8 Likes
Tbh Armenians being added at one point is fine, just like I would feel about the Chams (which on practice would just be an elephant and scorpion civ) getting added at some point after the unique unrepresented civs or ridiculously powerful states get added andI like the idea of an Armenian civ as much as a Cham civ. However I just feel like Georgians or a Caucassian umbrella would do the work more than well enough.
IMO these can be the new civs:
Caucasian (new culture set):
Georgians
Armenians
Indian:
Tibetans (Most likely won’t happen)
Afghans (Mix of Turkic, Persian & Tatars)
South East Asian:
Filipino
African:
Kanem
Polynesian (new culture set):
Samoans
Tongans
1 Like
This and add another African civ as well as Serbs alongside Wallachians as a separate Balkan expansion.
4 Likes
Adding Armenians with Georgians already over dividing Indians would be quite weird.
Nah I think we should give Asia 3 more civs than Europe before considering doing another DLC.
Particularly when you are adding fairly minor civs while keeping civs like Jurchen and Bengalis unrepresented
The Sultanate of Bengals is sufficiently covered by the current Indian civ in game which also represents the Delhi Sultanate, both of which had similar Muslim cultures.
We would only need Tamils as a second Indian civ. On adding Jurchens I do agree though.
1 Like
Next DLC should be either northern europe (maybe a new baltic civ, and/or dvide Vikings into more civs) or Caucasus (Armenians and Georgians)
7 Likes