Map of Civilisations not in AoE 2 (as of December 2022)

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
24

Really good map.

  1. I like Africa and the Caucasus the most here - for those areas i would love to see all these civs in the game!!!

  2. For the both Americas, I think the best candidates to add are: Chimu, Muisca and Tarascans.
    Adding Haudenosaunees, Mississippians, and Mapuches as civs would open a can of worms. It would be something like adding civs like US, Mexican etc to AoE3 - we just already have a huge list of potential civs that deserve to be in AoE2; better not to extend this list by another bunch of civs because you run the risk of needing to add 200+ civs to keep everyone happy.

  3. East Asia is a very good idea. In a way, it can be called the breaking of the Chinese umbrella.

  4. The next partition of India seems to me that if it were to take place, it would only take place at a somewhat distant time interval.
    Nepalese civ sounds interesting. Maybe Punjabis would be good for this DLC.

  5. Southeast Asia absolutely needs Siamese civ!
    Javanese (and potentially Visayans) could accompany them in DLC.

  6. As for Europe, the proposal of these civs is really decent!
    We already see the Balkan DLC here - Croats, Vlachs (Romanians) and Serbs.
    Swiss civs are lonely so they could use comrades from their region; thus they could appear together in the DLC alongside Bavarians (South German Umbrella) and Saxons civs (North German Umbrella). The division of the German umbrella is necessary!
    In addition, it would be useful to break the Viking umbrella. Danes and Swedes would be really interesting new civs!

5 Likes
25

It was probably mostly for marketing reasons. Few people may have been interested in an exclusively “Dark Age” AoE game, at least at the time. Besides, it would have pushed the High/Late Medieval AoE further down the line by years, or even prevent it from ever happening if it was preceded by an unsuccessful game in terms of sales and critics.

Tbh, I also think Rise of Rome could and maybe should have been its own game. AoE base game feels like it ended when its expension would later start, with clearly pre-ptolemaic Egypt, the Greek campaign ending with Alexander, almost no civ which rose to power before Rome (aside from East Asian ones), etc. while RoR was explicitely focused on the previously left out time period. And I don’t think it would have been a bad idea to separate those two eras in term of game designs, but I’m not sure it would have worked in terms of sales.

1 Like
26

I made this map! Really cool to see it posted here + thanks for the credit!

Since posting this on Reddit (last year?) I have made civilisation concepts for almost all of the civs on the original map and I’m pretty pleased with some of them. I’ve even bunched up the concepts into named ideas for future DLCs/Expansions.

The civ crafting has led me to read a variety of historical books/scholarly sources/blog posts to better understand these civilisations, which is a really great thing. I also feel that this pursuit has enhanced my understanding of the game as it is.

However, I have changed my mind about several civilisations included on the original version of the map and, if anyone’s interested, I would make the following adjustments:

Add:

  • Ghanaians/Soninke (were on the original map; have enough known history for a wonder/campaign/unique gameplay potential; militaristically distinct from Malians)
  • Vandals (unique gameplay potential; Late Antiquity civ specialising in navy and camels)
  • Wari (more militaristic than Tiwanaku and thus better for aoe2; could be umbrellaed with the Chankas, making civ design easier)
  • Croats (really rad history; we don’t have an Eastern European/Slavic naval civ yet; easy to group with Romanians+Serbs in a DLC)
  • Telugus (powerful Indian people which I had previously overlooked; were the greatest diamond miners of medieval times and founded several key dynasties)
  • Bais (key ethnic group of the Dali and Nanzhao kingdoms)
  • Mixtecs (highly militaristic civilisation with unique opportunity as a naval+siege Mesoamerican civ; previously thought they were too similar to Zapotecs but I’ve changed my mind upon deeper research)
  • Gökturks+Uyghurs (these were historically significant and there are a lot of Steppe Lancer bonuses remaining)
  • Totonacs (controversial, but they were key to the defeat of the Aztec Empire)

Remove:

  • Sundanese (can’t personally make distinct from Javanese)
  • Nepalis (don’t feel they are that necessary compared to other South Asian peoples)
  • Visayans/Filipinos (couldn’t find enough info to qualify them as a civ in the game)
  • Haudanasaunee & Mississippians (don’t personally feel that these fit in the game because they just weren’t as militaristic as I feel is needed; wouldn’t mind them being added though)
  • Tiwakanu (Wari would be preferable)

There also some civs that I feel are contentious suggestions, but which I do support passionately. Tlaxacalans for example have unique gameplay potential as a Meso siege+archer civ and were very historically significant. Furthermore, we know a great deal about their military, society and economy. I likewise feel that the Mapuche would be a great choice. they would be the only civ to realistically have Eagles, Cavalry and Bombard Cannons. I also strongly support the inclusion of Armenians for a “Queens of the Caucasus” DLC with Georgians.

Additionally, Toltecs (were on the original map), Mossi, Sogdians and Assamese would all be cool, but I don’t mind either way. I do think the absence of Toltecs allows the Aztecs civ to cover more historical ground, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway, essay over, glad people like the map. I’ll post an updated version with better quality/presentation some time soon.

7 Likes
27

The devs hinted that the community really liked “A civ broken apart”.

Maybe we would have a DLC with: Slavs renamed to Rus, Croats, Serbs and Romanians.

And I will finally be able to play Vlad Dracula’s campaign as a Romanian civ. A lot of civs in the campaign are weird. Like the locals are Celtic (wtf?) and you play as: Turks, Slavs, Magyars.

3 Likes
28

While more culturally distinct from the Aztecs than the Tlaxcaltecas, they played a very similar (but lesser) role. Thing with both them and Tlaxcala is it would be hard to find unique bonuses/units/(even buildings) for them except those that explicitly reference their cooperation with the Spanish, which isn’t as complete a basis for a civ as I think is ideal. Not that I’m “against it,” depending on how many civs are ultimately added, but considering we’re probably still a long way out from even Chimu/Muisca/Tarascans, this may be a conversation for far into the future.

I’m not sure what you mean by this, other than the lack of other options forcing Aztecs to fill an outsized role in terms of representing other peoples or pre-imperial Nahuas (for which they are poorly suited IMO). If Toltecs were added, that would give more options to represent pre-empire Nahuas, Chichimecs, and related nations or tribes, as well as giving more unit options in Aztec-related campaigns.

IMO a lot of civs could have this setup though. Tarascans and Chichimecs (not that I think the latter needs a civ) were particularly famous for their archers. As far as military, I’d be curious how you’d differentiate them from the Aztecs, as they were really overshadowed by the Aztecs in just about every way until the Spaniards arrived. (Bernal DIaz talks about Tlaxcala having very limited access to gold, cotton, and other important goods due to the Aztecs controlling trade/tribute in all the surrounding lands).

Mapuche would be fun. I’ve been uncertain of them in the past (and have yet to see a design for them I really like), but I think it could be done.

Other than that, I agree with many of your “adds,” including Mixtecs.

1 Like
29

I get what you’re saying about the Toltecs and I now agree with you there.

Totonacs are not a priority for me and could definitely be umbrellaed with the Tlaxacalans, as civilisations which worked with the Spanish to overthrow the Aztecs.

I don’t agree that Tlaxacalans would be hard to come up with a concept for though, and I have already designed one which reflects history. I feel that, compared to a lot of Mesos, the Tlaxacalans are actually quite easy to design because the Spanish wrote a lot about their military units, their economy and their culture. There’s definitely unique unit potential. Also there are plenty of pyramids to choose from for a wonder, as well as a clear campaign choice (Xicotencatl).

1 Like
30

Perhaps not. I guess more what I meant to say was that I think that many of the bonuses people would propose for them are things I would prefer for other civs in areas that are not yet (as) well represented. Or that several other civs are at least a higher priority. In terms of making a custom scenario for example, you can make a very credible Tlaxcalan civ with an Aztec base (even sharing the language of the Aztecs, if they actually spoke Nahuatl in game), whereas you’re more limited in making a Tarascan/Mixtec/Zapotec civ using existing Aztec or Maya units and buildings, so I’m much more interested in those civs having priority.

1 Like
31

Now that Poles and Bohemians are in, Slavs are primarily just Rus and don’t really need to be broken up.

The most likely next candidate for being broken up would be Saracens.

3 Likes
32

@Juggernaut8704 what about the Moldavians?

http://comenius-legends.blogspot.com/2010/07/legend-of-romanian-tricolour.html**strong text**

It’s incorrect o describe only Wallachia as “Vlach”.

Technically:
Wallachian → Citizen of the state of Wallachia.
Moldavian → Citizen of the state of Moldavia.
Vlach → Vlach ethnicity, both the Wallachians and Moldavians were Vlachs.
Romanian → How the Vlachs actually called themselves. They were called “Vlachs” by other people as “Vlach” came from the old Germanic word for “stranger” which the germans used to describe the Romans, but the Romanians never called themselves “Vlachs”, that’s what they were called by other people.

Wallachia and Moldavia have some differences despite being culturally similar. For starter, they are 2 different states. In Moldavia, every peasant was trained how to fight and had to carry a weapon all the time or else he would be put to death. Wallachia - Vlad the Impaler. Moldavia - Stephen the Great.

Stephen the Great could easily have a campaign of its own: Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler were cousins and polar opposites. You probably know about Vlad the Impaler’s dark tendencies, Stephen the Great on the other hand was the polar opposite. He was a faithful man and for every victory he would build a church in the name of God.

Stephen the Great and Vlad the Impaler were contemporaries, one ruled Moldavia and the other Wallachia, sometimes they helped each other in battes. Stephen the Great is less popular than his cousin in international history, because being a religious man is less cool than impaling the opposition. However, military-wise, in my opinion he was above Vlad the Impaler.

He was born in 1433, became ruler of Moldavia in 1457 and 1504, being a ruler for 47 years. He took the throne of Moldavia from his uncle who killed his father to take the throne (Vlad the Impaler helped him take back his throne). At different points he was at war with every neighbour: Hungary, Poland, Tatars, Wallachians and Ottomans. And he would defeat all of them. He had 46 victories out of 48 battles in his lifetime, his only defeats being at the hand of the Ottomans twice. He humiliated the Hungarians at the battle of Baia and the Poles at the battle of Codrii Cosminului. He was a devout Christian, for each of his 46 victories he ordered a monastery to be built where the battle took place (not a legend, the vasy majority of those monasteries still exist today). His most crucial victories were: against Matthias Corvinus of Hungary at Baia, against the Tatars at Lipnic and against Suleiman of the Ottoman Empire at Vaslui, and against John Albert of Poland in Codrii Cosminului. Imagine a small state beating around its neighbours, that’s what Moldavia was during the reign of Stephen the Great.

I mean, just look at the Battle of Vaslui aka “among the worst defeats the Ottomans suffered”:

(he was defaeted in battle a year later at Razboieni but Mehmed II was unable to conquer Suceava (the capital), so he signed a peace with favorable conditions for Stephen the Great.

I may be biased being Romanian but given his stats I don’t think I am, there’s one thing to win while outnumbered, there’s another thing to win all the time for 47 years while outnumbered.

1 Like
33

In terms of making a custom scenario for example, you can make a very credible Tlaxcalan civ with an Aztec base (even sharing the language of the Aztecs, if they actually spoke Nahuatl in game), whereas you’re more limited in making a Tarascan/Mixtec/Zapotec civ using existing Aztec or Maya units and buildings, so I’m much more interested in those civs having priority.

For sure. I definitely get your point and agree on the idea of priority. I wouldn’t want a Tlaxacalans civ over those you’ve listed, for the reasons you say.

Would also love it if the Aztecs actually spoke Nahuatl!

1 Like
34

Same

I’d love if Goths, Byzantines, Italians and Berbers had their languages replaced as well.

Goths speak German despite their language being well preserved, Byzantines and Italians speak Latin in-game despite speaking different languages during the game’s time, and Berbers’ in-game language is full of gibberish and anachronisms.

I’d also love for Portuguese to not speak modern Portuguese (I suggest Galician-Portuguese as a replacement).

2 Likes
35

I have to ask, how do people even pick up on that stuff? Maybe it’s just because I have basically no interest in languages, but I don’t understand how you would realize that certain ingame languages aren’t historically accurate.

2 Likes
36

^Part of the reason why is a lot of the languages in the game are still spoken, and on top of that, most use the modern variant, not what would be appropriate back then. Britons are the only civ ES made a point not to speak the modern language.

1 Like
37

Yeah, but I for one wouldn’t recognize the difference, not knowing other languages. Do you pick up on it because you know they are wrong, or because you recognize they are wrong? For clarification, by “know” I mean like how you just said that they are mostly modern languages, that’s something you would know, and by recognize I mean more like speaking the language, and hearing that it matches too closely with the modern for to be historically appropriate.

38

Portuguese is my first language, so the problems with the Portuguese civs’ voice lines are the most obvious to me.

1 Like
39

Break them in which factions?

41

I think both dimensions are important. The first is for people who know the language, or at least are familiar enough with how it sounds. I’m by no means fluent in Nahuatl, but I’ve studied it for several years, and have had conversations with native speakers. So for me, the mismatch of the Aztecs in-game not sounding anything like that is a bit jarring. I don’t have similar knowledge of the Berbers’ language nor of Medieval Greek or Portuguese to be personally aware or too bothered by that mismatch, but that leads to the second dimension,

Which is a general feeling of the immersion being diminished when you know that the in-game civ is an unnecessarily bad representation of the intended culture (even if you only know that because other people have told you). Ignorance is bliss and all that, but for some of us, once we’ve been made aware that something is “off” (and could have been fixed with a little more care and attention), that thought remains present, more or less, until it is resolved. AoE2 is the only game I play with any regularity, so I would like for the devs to invest in the civs in ways that make them feel more polished. Even if some of the improvements are things I might not have the education to fully appreciate, or would otherwise go over my head (like changes to the color of the roof on an English cathedral). Games, like other fictional media, are more enjoyable when the creators are passionate about making the experience appropriately immersive.

2 Likes
42

I think Persians and Berbers could be split as well. For Persians there could be Safavids and Sogdians, and for Berbers there could be Andalusians and Saadis/Moroccans.

43

Sarcasm is good. But clearly your joke is bad and inappropriate.

8 Likes
44

Yeah I was gonna say something about that