I’d prefer having xiongnu, sarmatians and Scythians over Huns cause Huns are already in aoe2 and maybe you could add them later like they did with Romans in aoe2, meaning once you have a reason to add them. Same for Franks (I’m not against them in aoe1, I just think it’s better to add different civs from aoe2 first).
Vandals, goths and alamanni are fine cause they were already very present when palmyrians are.
Germans and Celts seem a little too generic to me. If you add them it would lead to something similar to Indians in aoe2, at one point you’ll need to split them. For Celts I would add Gauls, Iberians and Brittons/Picts.
For Germans quadi/marcomanni, Cimbri/Teutons and cheruschi/chatti.
You can imagine a campaign for each of these 6 civs.
I would live suebi for aoe2 cause they could eventually represent Swabians in later middle ages.
Well we do have Greeks despite subdividing them being easy (Athenians Spartans…) and Greece only having been united by the Macedonians.
Attempting to split the Germans would be complicated by the absence of large long-lasting groups before the invasions that start at the border with AOE2, even Arminius’ coalition against Varus didn’t survive long enough to remain united when Germanicus came back with a vengeance. Splitting the Celts is easier (Gauls Britons Dacians).
People focus too much on middle age civilizations. This game is based on antiquity.
Yes, we could have used 3-4 dark age civs (Celts/Gauls/Huns/Numidians/Illyrian/Dacian)
But IMO the game needs more Mesopotamian civs (Amorites/Hurrians/Akkadians), as they have a bigger impact and fit the time frame better.
Also Sargon campaign as Sumerian civ is dissapointing. They could have made a Persian/Babylonian campaign and add the Sargon campaign with a new Akkadian civ. Or Assyrian, but not Sumerian. It is inaccurate.
We already have Dark age civs in age 2. We don’t have many antique civilizations, on which AOE1 is based on.
Civs like the Gauls are not from the Dark Age, their most famous conflict was when Caesar conquered them, and they had been on the radar since long before (sacking Rome 60 years before Alexander). The Dacians were conquered by Trajan.
The Huns should not be here indeed, put the Scythians indeed.
Probably you’re right but if palmyrians are a civ everything is allowed lol. Teutoburg is enough to justify a civ and a campaign when you have Zenobia.
Maybe Germans could experiment a different playstyle…
Unique units could go a long way to make civs more unique, the berserker being an easy choice for the Germans, but they’d need being made for all existing civs.
There are groups of German nations that existed before the fall of Rome and throughout the Middle Ages and were the ancestors of many other nations - so they are suitable for both AoE 1 and AoE 2:
They’re not suitable for AoE1, and most of them are not for AoE2 because of the nature of their scope, size, importance, influence and organization. On top of them being just a building parts of nations-peoples that are already included in the game, so it doesn’t make sense at all to clutter the civ pool with them.
The lengths people go to present the most fractioned, weak (or at the period where they were much more relatively weak) and/or obscure tribes and local groups as legitimate civ proposals for the game is mind-boggling.
I’d put alemanni in aoe1 and suebi/Swabians (but also the duchy of alemannia) in aoe2.
All the others seem to me perfect candidates for an aoe2 dlc about late antiquity (Danes and Swedes are a little later, probably better as a Viking split).
For now aoe1 doesn’t cover the migration period so I’d just introduce first the ones I mentioned above (alemanni, xiongu, Scythians and sarmatians) leaving the others for aoe2 which is already well prepared for it.
In aoe1 I’d focus more on Gauls and proper ancient civs, specially Africa, America, Asia and territories not yet represented but it’s just a matter of priority, I can see the two games one day overlapping in late antiquity like aoe2 and 3 do for early modern age.
They are not the ancestor of the civs in the game!
Burgundians, Franks, Goths, Vikings (Norwegians) - all these peoples existed before the fall of Rome and were the ancestors of completely different peoples: French, Dutch, etc.
They don’t match and fit AoE1 and are weak/irrelevant/not interesting/ not substantial to justify a whole playable civ. And certainly are not well-defined in terms of warfare and culture, compared to the standard present in this game.
Just existing in history does not automatically equals good gameplay and good design.
Have you even played Age of Empires game? Many of your proposals would maybe fit the ‘minor civ’/ native concept in AoE3.
There is nothing easier than creating civs for AoE 1, because there is so much uniqueness that the cat cried. I think that in AoE 1 these Germanic civs could appear:
Goths
Saxons
Suebi
Vandals
In this way, the Celts could get their own DLC and a separate Architecture Set. These could be Celtic civs:
Why do you always need to promote so many European civs? I totally agree that AoE1 needs more European civs, but you really don’t need to go so overboard. Also, all of the Germanic ones except the Suebi are too late for the AoE1 era, as are the Gaels.
At most we may have a split between Western (Franks, Alamans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Marcomani…) and Eastern Germans (Goths, Lombards, Burgundians, Vandals…), but even this seems unlikely to me.
Celts, on the other hand, could absolutely be split, but I think they should maybe first appear as an umbrella civ to avoid wasting too much time on them while we still need to cover many other parts of the world.
Gauls : good medium cavalry, armour, trade and agriculture
Britons : low armour but chariots, and I also see a speed bonus for infantry (would tie in with the AOE2 Celts)
Dacians : dreadful 2h war scythes, so a very hard-hitting infantry
How to split the Germans at this time, I do not know. Maybe making the Western Germans more disciplined and the Eastern Germans berserkers ?
Because these people are not presenting realistic ideas. They are just writing their own desires, even if those completely do not fit the game.
It doesn’t make any sense to include this proposed batch of ‘civs’, it would heavily shift the focus and identity of AoE1, and this DLC is de facto AoE1, little more (one new Viet civ, new mechanics and bonuses) but certainly not less.
It’s possible and developers in theory can do that. But if they wanted to- they would.
It’s pure fan fiction. Why updated gameplay of ancient-themed AoE should morph into ‘European tribes around fall of Rome extravaganza’.
Sadly if you browse the forum for AoE2 or 3 there’s loads of threads about people proposing the introduction of the most fractioned, obscure, irrelevant, unappealing, not fitting etc. concepts. Just because they like certain themes, or live in that areas or simply are even interested in said period of time.
Dacians weren’t Celts, I think? Iirc, Dacians, Thraces and Illyrians formed the Balkanic culture group, which the Albanians may originate from.
As for the difference between Western and Eastern Germans, I think the Eastern ones were far more cavalry focused in general. Especially the Vandals, but even the Goths which AoE2 presents as THE non Meso ultimate infantry civ used cavalry far more extensively than Franks, at least at the time when the two culture coexisted.
