Modified from original map by u/Zaghawa_ (Reddit)
21 Likes
Armenians should definitely be on here.
8 Likes
Interesting map.
Don’t think we need all of them on here though. Tlaxcalans in particular seem like a poor choice, being far less interesting relatives of the Aztecs. Would be hard to differentiate them positively, except by inclusion of Spanish-influenced units/techs, although other civs could also be contenders for those.
2 Likes
I removed Armenians from the map because they don’t make much sense for AoE2 time period.
Their original kingdom is of antiquity age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)
Then in classical - medieval age they were occupied by foreign powers.
Then in high medieval they had a kingdom briefly named Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia/Lesser Armenia/Little Armenia/New Armenia. This was located outside the Armenian Highlands formed by Armenian refugees fleeing the Seljuk invasion. Eventually it got absorbed by foreign powers again.
Actually I removed a few other civs from the original map as well which you can check comparing with the original posted at reddit because I thought they are unfit for time period being too old (Vandals, Wari, Toltec) or are too modern (like Filipinos, Ghanaians)
1 Like
You didn’t mention the Bagratid kingdom of Armenia, which existed for two centuries and whose capital was one of the largest cities in the world at the time.
9 Likes
I also think Armenia should be on the map. They were important during the crusades.
4 Likes
160 years
?Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ani 1 lakh is largest?
Interesting.
Ok there goes Armenia
2 Likes
Very nice! Really useful tool.
2 Likes
It’s always hard deciding which civs are worth mentioning as “missing”. I doubt Sundanese and Javanese would be introduced separately, but I would personally add Soninke (the Ghana empire fits in the timeframe as the predecessor to Mali), Jolofs, Fon, Deccani, Croatians and a few others, even though I know most of them probably won’t ever make it.
Caucasus and more sub Saharan Africa are the regions I am looking forward the most. In Africa were so many empires an until now we have only 2 of them.
3 Likes
Nanzhao
Uyghurs
Gokturks
Mossi
Assamese
Deccanese
Poleynesians are missing.
2 Likes
Come now, we don’t want this to become a Paradox game or anything.
5 Likes
We’re long past the point where you can say there are too many… and moreover, the developers have recently shown that they can still produce unique civs.
the money has to come from somewhere, and there are certainly still some civs in the world that could be brought into the game. especially Africa and Asia.
- new fresher content keeps a game alive longer and gets it into the news of magazines. I think one can be happy to live in such times where Age 2 gets the support it deserves.
5 Likes
I think an important civ you are missing is Gokturks/Uyghurs, as the early Turks were one of the great powers of the dark ages and did a lot of stuff across Eurasia. They are a big one missing imo.
Some civs I think could be mentioned which I doubt will ever happen:
- Ganda/Ugamdans: from modern day Uganda, representing the Great Lakes kingdoms that existed for most of the AoE2 timeline
- Mon: they were actually one of the most longlasting and influential South East Asian civilizations, they controlled both Burma and Thailand for a loong time. By the 16th century they only controlled southern Burma before being conquered
- Wari: probably a better option than Tiwanalu because we have a clearer idea of themnbeing an empire rather than just a culture. However we dont know enough about either of them so adding them would be complicated
- Guptas: a nation that didnt survive the Dark ages, the Guptas held control over large parts of India.
- Khorasani/Tajik/Afghans/Sogdians: I think a civ representing the nations from northern Afghanistan and Uzbekistan would be interesting
- Mossi: the Mossi had a bunch of kingdoms in Burkina Faso. They fought both the Songhai and Mali but outlasted them. Theres other similar civs from West Africa like the Bilala, Sao, Fulani and Zaghawa but the Mossi are the most recognizable, are fairly well recorded and were fairly powerful.
1 Like
I don’t think Tupis would fit the game, but I’d add them to the map just comparison/curiosity’s sake
Vandals are fringey for sure, but it seems odd to DQ Toltecs (or Wari) for being too old. ~700 to ~1200 fits very comfortably within the AoE2 timeline. Also far more influential than Tlaxcala before 1519 - on the original map, Tlaxcala is a small dot wholly contained within the larger Toltec domain. (and Toltec influence is evidenced far outside the areas where they had known cities).
4 Likes
Tbh I like Vandals because we have too little dark ages content and in general Vandals just sound like a fun civ to play
But yeah they arent needed at all
3 Likes
To be honest, I sometime feel like AoE2 should have been split into two games, one about the Early Middle Ages (and a little bit of Late Roman Empire) and the second one about High and Late Middle Ages. It would solve a lot of problems with some civs design.
1 Like
Tbh I still appreciate that they included some dark ages content considering how the period is so undeexplored compared to the late middle ages
Anyway if we get more campaigns I think some civs could have camapigns from the dark ages
Chinese, Koreans, Mayans and Persians could have campaigns from the 5th to 7th century
1 Like
I’ve mentioned my modern AoE game concept before. My original plan was to have that represent both WW1 and WW2, with everything in between and after up to the year 2019. However, the Great Depression really made things difficult for me, and I decided a better course of action was to split them into two separate games, one based on WW1 exclusively, and one based on the Great Depression and beyond.
The reason I bring this up is because the devs could’ve done something like that, but ultimately decided not to for whatever reason.