I’m about to Cossacks history now but is take It is unclear when people other than the Brodnici and Berladnici (which had a Romanian origin with large Slavic influences) began to settle in the lower reaches of major rivers such as the Don and the Dnieper after the demise of the Khazar state. Their arrival was probably not before the 13th century, when the Mongols broke the power of the Cumans, who had assimilated the previous population on that territory. It is known that new settlers inherited a lifestyle that long pre-dated their presence, including that of the Turkic Cumans and the Circassian Kassaks.[12] In contrast, Slavic settlements in southern Ukraine started to appear relatively early during Cuman rule, with the earliest, such as Oleshky, dating back to the 11th century.Early “Proto-Cossack” groups are generally reported to have come into existence within what is now Ukrainein the 13th century as the influence of Cumans grew weaker, although some have ascribed their origins to as early as the mid-8th century.[13] Some historians suggest that the Cossack people were of mixed ethnic origin, descending from Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Turks, Tatars, and others who settled or passed through the vast Steppe.[14] Some Turkologists, however, argue that Cossacks are descendants of the native Cumans of Ukraine, who had lived there long before the Mongol invasion.so the Developers making new civ and Revolutionary country new units and heros
Ok i the Cossacks 3 new civ in history battles and campaign 、skirmish # Ukrainians (other optional names are: Ruthenians or Cossacks)
Home City
- Kyiv
- Personality - Bohdan Khmelnytsky
Units
Barracks
- Pikemen (Royal Guard)
- Cossack Archer - rapid-firing archer that fires flaming arrows
- Musketeer
- Serdiuk - ranged infantry
Stable
- Sich Cossack - very fast cavalry unit with saber and flintlock pistol
- Register Cossack - cavalry with a lance
- Cavalry Archer
Artillery Foundry
- Falconet
- Mortar
- Petard
- Tabor (Royal Guard) - a horse-drawn cart armed with small caliber artillery that throws grenades. It covers the units behind it.
Unique Features
- Hetman is a unkillable hero unit instead of the Explorer (cavalry unit, can train a Ukrainian unique cavalry units and also can build a Outpost, Stable and Sich).
- Chaika is a unique Ukrainian boat that replaces the standard Fishing Boats. It is cheap, quick to train and fast. It can transport units and catch fish. When transporting units, it deals ranged attacks.
- During each Age Up, they receive a random Wagon: Stable Wagon, Barracks Wagon or Outpost Wagon.
- Sich is a unique Ukrainian Fort. Heals units in its vicinity, and military buildings in its vicinity work a bit faster. It is cheap, but unfortunately has less HP than the standard Fort. Settlers can build it.
Royal guard:
- Pikeman - Cossack Pikeman
- Tabor - Cossack Tabor
No! I think its the worst possible timing for such a civ. Especially with an important, but very controversial figure like Bohdan Khmelnytsky (Bohdan Khmelnytsky - Wikipedia). Modern day historians (aswell as people in ukraine) dont know how they should handle/interprete his actions; doing a cossack/ukraine civ now, gives me 2006 Lakota vibes but worse.
Persia (or other muslim countries) should be next, since they are very underrepresented
The only two worthy civs that should be added from Europe are Poles and Danes.
But I’m sure most of us want Persians to be next (hoping it’ll shut up the vinifriss alts and co too 21)
Every unique unit just being called “Cossack” something sounds like very, very bad design.
It seems that there is only one way. Cossacks are suitable for historical battles and campaign, so they are not suitable for skirmish
Also, please, no more Guard Pikemen. Those units are bloody useless after Fortress.
They would work best in skirmish as a revolution for Russia, Germany, and Poland (if they ever get added).
Prussia would also be a worthy addition. The few Prussian elements in “Germany” are extremely superficial and could be easily swapped for Austrian elements.
Then what is the point? Most games are either SP or MP skirmishes.
I find the Cossacks to be interesting and compelling, but I think the Poles and Russians could represent them well enough already.
Yes i talking about the Cossack culture to early times, an ataman (later called hetman) commanded a Cossack band. He was elected by the Host members at a Cossack rada, as were the other important officials: the judge, the scribe, the lesser officials, and the clergy. The ataman’s symbol of power was a ceremonial mace, a bulava. Today, Russian Cossacks are led by atamans, and Ukrainian Cossacks by hetmans.
Cossack on duty (portrayal of 16th–17th century), painting by Józef Brandt
After the Polish–Russian Treaty of Andrusovo split Ukraine along the Dnieper River in 1667, Ukrainian Cossacks were known as Left-bank and Right-bank Cossacks. The ataman had executive powers, and in wartime was the supreme commander in the field. Legislative power was given to the Band Assembly (Rada). The senior officers were called starshyna. In the absence of written laws, the Cossacks were governed by the “Cossack Traditions” – the common, unwritten law.
Cossack society and government were heavily militarized. The nation was called a host (vois’ko, or viys’ko, translated as “army”). The people and territories were subdivided into regimental and company districts, and village posts (polky, sotni, and stanytsi). A unit of a Cossack troop could be called a kuren. Each Cossack settlement, alone or in conjunction with neighboring settlements, formed military units and regiments of light cavalry or, in the case of Siberian Cossacks, mounted infantry. They could respond to a threat on very short notice.
A high regard for education was a tradition among the Cossacks of Ukraine. In 1654, when Macarius III Ibn al-Za’im, the Patriarch of Antioch, traveled to Moscow through Ukraine, his son, Deacon Paul Allepscius, wrote the following report:
All over the land of Rus’, i.e., among the Cossacks, we have noticed a remarkable feature which made us marvel; all of them, with the exception of only a few among them, even the majority of their wives and daughters, can read and know the order of the church-services as well as the church melodies. Besides that, their priests take care and educate the orphans, not allowing them to wander in the streets ignorant and unattended.[111] this is to Cossack’s culture history so the cossack is Good point‘a
Do you realize that the name of the unit (in the civ idea) is a trifle? The term “Cossack” archer etc. are working names. Sich Cossack and Register Cossack are proper names and have been used in the history of history (these terms are of Polish origin).
Thus, such names are perfectly correct and in line with historical truth. If you don’t like them because you think “sounds like very, very bad design”, this is your problem, because they sound correct!
Why? It could be a gesture of solidarity with the Ukrainians and counteracting a false historical narrative by Putin’s Russia about the history of Ukraine. I also think that such a Ukrainian DLC (could be in tandem with the Polish-Lithuanian civ) could be to some extent intended for charity in favor of Ukraine (for example, half of the income from the sale of DLC).
Much less controversial than Ivan the Terrible (probably the greatest psychopath and murderer to ever rule in the history of mankind), who leads the Russian civ in AoE 3.
A Ukrainian civ would be fine. I just think it shouldn’t be based solely on the Cossacks (because it’s only part of Ukrainian culture). I think that adding Maltese civs to AoE 3 opened the way for other civilizations (which were not huge 19th century empires, yet were strong and very important in the history of Europe and the world).
Nobody is denying that Persian civs (as well as Moroccans and Arabs civs) are extremely needed in AoE 3 - I am looking forward to them myself.
Same with other civs and regions around the world - AoE 3 has no exorbitant restrictions on potential civs, because alongside European colonial and continental empires you have Asian powerful dynasties and African rich kingdoms, and you have American tribal confederations, pre-Columbian highly developed civilizations and post-colonial powers - AoE 3 in terms of civs is truly versatile and diverse.
I think the present Germans civ should not have the possibility of a Ukrainian revolution. It’s just that Germans civ is undefined as to what it is - because it is the Renaissance Holy Roman Empire - nothing else.
The Austrian (Austro-Hungarian) civ could have the possibility of a Ukrainian revolution (as the western part of Ukraine was part of Austria-Hungary). No other German civ should be allowed the Ukrainian Revolution to be kept true to history.
You’re right. If the Prussians civ were added to divide the German umbrella then the current Germans civ (if it had been renamed Austrians civ) could have the possibility of a Ukrainian revolution (as well as Hungarian and Romanian + potentially Czechoslovak and Yugoslav revolutionary - listed for the sake of simplification).
BTW. If the Germans civ were to be divided into two civs:
- a completely new Prussian civ
- a revised old Germans civ renamed to Austrian civ
Then more Royal Houses from Germany could be added to increase the immersion on European maps (completely new!) And the most accurate representation of the most diverse and interesting region of Europe, which is the German lands.
Prussians and Austrians civs could have revolution-like mechanics - Unification of Germany (for Prussians, that would transform a Prussian civ into Imperial Germany) and Austro-Hungarian compromise (for Austrians civ, that would transform a Austrian civ into Austria-Hungary).
One huge huge umbrella for all Germans is unrealistic, therefore two German civs such as Austrians and Prussians (as the two largest German powers in the AoE 3 timeframe) + German Royal Houses based on strong and influential German states such as Saxony, Bavaria and Hannover . In this way, not only Germany can be sufficiently and satisfactorily represented, but also other parts of Europe - especially Italy and the British Isles.
I would give the current German civ a Ukrainian revolution option because it’s mainly Austrian themed. However, if Germany got split into Austria and Prussia, only Austria should have a Ukrainian revolution.
I don’t think more royal houses are necessary for more German inclusion. I’d give Prussia the federal state mechanic like the USA has and that would be how other German states are added. It could culminate with fully forming Germany by age 5.
I think @HoopThrower was trying to convey that even the Royal Guard units are named with the “Cossack” prefix (Cossack Pikeman, Cossack Archer, Cossack Tabor), which doesn’t really sound inspired and doesn’t actually denote anything special about the unit (the whole civilization is Cossacks, why do they need to denote that this kind of unit is a Cossack anyway?)
If you were to add names, let’s have the Pikemen become Opolchenie, Tabors become Tachankas, and I can’t think of what to name the Cossack Archer.
I guess why people might not want a Cossacks civilization is because we know that there will only be so many DLCs to come out, so people want the developers to focus on other civilizations that might be more popular or desirable; as it stands, with Italy out of the way finally, Persians, Koreans, and Poles seem to be the most popular options. I personally wouldn’t be too pleased if they released a Cossack civilization before Persians.
Ok. But it sounded like the idea of a Ukrainian civ being crossed out because of the “working” name.
Sounds cool.
Maybe you can call it just - Luchnyk (лучник) - Archer in Ukrainian language.
But the Ukrainians civ would fit perfectly with the Polish civ in a shared DLC - just like the Maltese and Italians in KotM DLC.
Persia and Oman at least then we also have representation of East Africa in addition to be only Ethiopia…
Exactly, we must take advantage of the fact that aoe 3 is more open to the assymetry and diversity of civs than aoe 2…