Yes though it would be fairly due to split Celts in Picts and Gaels (further split in Scots and Irish) rather than splitting Burgundians in Burgundi. Celts just don’t make any sense as a medieval civ.
I don’t think any civs that clearly come after the Romans are controversial.
Also debatable if Alans should be considered a European civs. Even Vandals had their own kingdom in Africa.
The Castle Age Catapharct likely needs some adjustments because you don’t need a Castle anymore but since they are only better vs. Infantry I don’t think that is really a big issue.
Making the Knights of the Byzantines better would just mean that we see their unique unit less. I generally don’t like that.
A lot of Cavalry UUs are rarely seen because the Knight line is just too good.
Hard to come up with a new naval bonus that hasn’t already been used.
Yes. But don’t we already have other cases where one civ just has the better version of another civs bonus?
You sure it is? There isn’t that much huntable food. Other bonuses for secondary resources are all 33%.
They added one for the Fire Archer.
Could be a cool secondary UU from the TC or something like that.
Units usually don’t do that many kills so I don’t think it will be that powerful.
I don’t agree. Mules were very widely used.
Also a movable building works well with a nomadic civilisation.
The Upgrade is pretty expensive so it will very rarely be researchers.
Also I reduced their pierce armour by 4.
I simply gave them the existing Armenian bonus and removed it from the Armenians.
It is working perfectly fine for them so why should it be an issue with another civ?
Poles get 33% free Gold for their Stone Mining. 25% Food seems like a lot weaker bonus to me.
Also it would be their only economic bonus while Poles have their Folwark too.
The unit would be balanced around having already killed some units.
Also it’s literally a worse version of the Tiger Cavalry bonus which gain attack and HP just with a lower ceiling.
Both Teutones and Burgundians represent different things.
Especially Burgundians are a lot more French then German in their design and language.
That would make more sense for sure.
That would make them use Tarkans more. I don’t think that Paladins make to much sense for Huns. Also the DLC would add new Paladin civs for people to play.
I am aware of that but it would be cool. I think that is reason enough. It feels right and gives them more flavour.
They would practically be pretty bad because of the missing techs.
Alans were a very distinct group of people that didn’t just ally with the Vandals but also with other groups including the Franks and they settled in multiple places.
Some parts of the Alans never migrated and stayed in the northern Caucasus. More reasons to not make them part of the Vandals that ended up in Africa.
Since the was the Emperor of the HRE the Teutones make more sense in the campaign.
You only really play as Suebia in the first mission so it would be strange to just change that.
I don’t think the playable civ should be replaced but other civs can be replaced in the first 2 missions.
The Barbarossa campaign is likely still an important way for new players to learn to play the Tuetones and people have a lot of nostalgia for it.
You mean making the Hanseatic League part of the Saxon civ? A lot of Hanseatic cities were (or still are) Saxon.
Anarchy is redundant when Huskarls are already at the Barracks.
Hand Cannons and Bombard Cannons are replaced by the Mounter Throwing Axeman. A cavalry unit that does melee damage at range (like the Mamluk) but does bonus damage vs. Infantry and Siege.
They would fill the anti Infantry role even better because they can hit and run Infantry a lot easier.
So it wouldn’t be too much of an issue that Huskarls now take bonus damage from Infantry.
Why not +10%. That is 2x as good as now but I don’t think another 10 cheap Infantry are going to win them many matches.
It has to be either Suebi, Swabians Alemanni or Swizz. I don’t think we can have more then 1 of them.
I added some Swizz related thing like Reisläufer instead of Landsknecht.
The Gold trickle from Castles (that is stolen from the Spartans) is also a reference to the Switzz as well as the Spearman Line bonus.
One can dream. We can get anything in the Definitive Edition other then good pathing and new architecture sets.
Just to get an integer number, it must be a multiple of 4% to get exactly 1 per slice of 25.
Yes, probably better to keep Barbarossa for the Teutons and just change few non-playable civs.
Yes, some kind of unique tech or something that reflects their later history as the Hanseatic League
People very likely only play at population numbers like 200, 300 or 500 and not like 75. I don’t even know if that is possible.
And would it be that bad that the number has to be rounded in some cases?
We have units that cost 0.9 population.
We are getting to the point that almost all civs in the first 2/3 of the campaign will be replaced. The ones in central bit already got mostly replaced.
In the last section we have all the correct civs already.
I gave them a navel UT but not sure if that makes sense to be renamed for the Hanseatic League. A trade focused bonus would make more sense.
Maybe allow Trade Cogs to construct Docks?
I think the Alans should be considered an Asian civ. They stem from Asia, and the Eastern Alans settled in the North Caucasus in what is now Ossetia.
2 Likes
Why the trade cog and not a more generalist fishing boat ?
In SWGB the Gungans (those annoying frog-like things from episode 1) can build some buildings with fishing boats, that on top are underwater so they don’t have a collision box and are stealthy (invisible to enemies unless seen by a unit with radar). This could be some nice bonuses to some civs, allow some buildings (houses, docks, outpost…) to be made on water.
(Minus the invisibility part, as submarines would be a little bit anachronistic, first designs during the US Civil War and with questionable results…).
It wouldn’t fit the Hansa who was still very much land-based, but maybe for Polynesians or some African civ…
Because they were a trade league.
It would certainly fit the Polynesians but not sure how well they could work in AoE2.
This is, in fact, a bonus I gave to the Micronesians. It was originally walls, towers, and houses, but someone said it was too broken, so I changed it to Docks, then decided to later add back towers and houses, with the caveat that all three have less armor and take increased bonus damage.
You can also restrict it to shallow waters and not the deeper ones. And yes buildings built like that won’t be as sturdy as a stone tower.
I think the Polynesians could work very well. Unfortunately, the devs stole the most logical eco bonus for them and gave it to the Jurchens.
Speaking of Barbarossa Saxons, Lorraine, Bavaria and Austria are still Teutons. Eventually one day Lorraine could be represented by Frisians/Dutch, Saxons by… Saxons and Austria/Bavaria by an Austrian or Bavarian civ (since I doubt they will be two different civs) or maybe Bavaria could be Swiss/Alemans/Swabians (unless you play as Swabians instead of Teutons).
Meat not decaying ? I’d see it more in the dry eastern steppe than in the less dry Pacific Ocean
Either Burgundians (who could cover all of Lotharingia, and in EU4 they have the burgundian culture. Will get a proper lorrainer culture in EU5) or Franks. But I don’t see why you’d pick Frisians for them.
The Dutch are heavily influenced by the sea, while Lorraine is maybe the furthest french region from the sea (at least from Alsace you only need sailing down the Rhine which is easier to navigate than the upper Meuse & Moselle rivers…). Lorraine is a plateau a few hundred metres above sea level, quite far from polders…
I think Swabians/Alemans and Swiss as 2 separate civs could work. Swiss are kind of unique to the late middle ages and it would be too busy to have a civ representing Suebi, Alemans, Swabia and Swiss.
It was to give each faction in that scenario a different civ but I won’t enter an argument about Lorraine with the duke of Lorraine itself lol so be it Franks.
1 Like
We are pleased 
1 Like
the suebi have a long history. why would they just be based on the late middle ages? they are perfect for a migration period dlc
I would like to suggest the Gepids too.
I tried looking into the Gepids, but there’s just not that much information to go off.
1 Like
So many different Germanic peoples who were short-lived. The less noteworthy will have to use placeholders.
Let’s do the list of germanic civs (existing and that could be added)
- Franks : the undisputed winners of the period, forming the 2 strongest nations in WE (France and the HRE) which would influence most of Europe as France. + crusader offshoots
- Teutons : the HRE. + also did some crusading
- Goths : formed 2 kingdoms on the ruins of Rome after having sacked it, albeit short-lived.
- Vikings : mostly famous for terrorising everywhere with shores or navigable rivers after Charlemagne.
- Burgundians : mostly based on the later Duchy of Burgundy, as during the Invasions Period they played second fiddle to the Franks who vassalised them (still included at the time as they exist, but their core gameplay is 100% 14th and 15th centuries)
- Saxons : took over Britania which they mostly controlled for 6 centuries, as well as significant parts of Germania until Charlemagne charlemagned them.
- Vandals : formed a first realm in Hispania then in North Africa, mostly infamous for sacking Rome after stealing its navy.
Compared to that… others don’t feel very significant. Lombards, Gepids, Herules don’t feel different from the Goths, and indeed speak eastern germanic too. I’d say the same about the Burgundians if they weren’t mostly based on the late medieval period (and I can recommend an excellent book about that). The game isn’t a grand strategy, sometimes keeping a placeholder is good enough. Which would be Goths for most of them.
- Lombards feel like a repeat of the Goths, a second wave after Belisarius crushed the Ostrogoths. Though due to the devastation in Italy at the time I could put the Vandals instead
- Herules indeed ended the WRE after it had been considerably weakened (no sack of Rome this time though, they forced the child-emperor now in Ravenna to abdicate), but they got conquered by the Ostrogoths very shortly after
- Gepids did revolt against the Huns after Attila’s death but as they seemed to tag along the Ostrogoths then Lombards so often, hard to find how to make meaningful differences.
1 Like