Would Love to see the red X in the Cacasus be ■■■■■■ with Armenia,Georgia and Khazars.
Good work sir.
Then we hope to see Africa, the ME and Asia further expanded.
4 Likes
This is both wrong and even more accurate for Europe as well. Heck, Burgundians and Sicilians dont add ANYTHING that couldnt be represented by Franks. Bohemians are basically perfectly represented by Teutons since they use plenty of siege, monks, infantry and gunpowder and Poles were made diferent from their historical version to diferenciate them from Liths. It shows that you havent looked that much into Asia
5 Likes
Regarding the Asia-Pacific region I think you made a few mistakes
-
Vietnamese shouldn’t cover Southern Vietnam since that area belonged to the Chams (a potential new civ), but I see that you already made the correction in a later map.
-
Khmer probably shouldn’t cover Laos or at least not the entirety of Laos, but should cover parts of modern-day Thailand and also the southern tip of Vietnam around Ho Chi Minh City (at that time the area was called Prey Nokor which was a Khmer settlement)
-
Malays shouldn’t cover Western Papua, but should cover more areas on Borneo and on the Malay Peninsula.
-
It’s wrong to call Chinese as Han since the Han ethnic group wasn’t created until the early 20th century. The Chinese area outlined on your map corresponds the best to the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644). You could even leave certain parts of Southern China (such as Yunnan for instance) blank since the Nanzhao/Dali Kingdom used to control the area and it’s a potential civ too.
-
The Japanese civ shouldn’t cover the island of Hokkaido. They officially annexed Hokkaido in the 19th century, out of the scope that this game covers.
Overall a very well-made map, good job!
2 Likes
Interesting for whom exactly? What is the criterion for judging this? If I leave all my opinions written on blogs, forums and social media and you leave only basic facts (where/when you were born, studied, married and died) on the internet, does that mean my whole life was much more interesting than yours? Or is it just telling us the obvious: that we don’t know how much we’d like to make any kind of comparison?
I agree on the importance of writing. I just want to clarify this: people at that time didn’t foresee the future, so they couldn’t have known how important writing would be today (in fact, even today, most of us don’t think about leaving our whole lives recorded for the future generations, and like many areas of life today, people survive without writing), but many peoples had their own ways of writing tho.
Unfortunately, some civs also had no way of predicting that European colonialists would destroy their records in an attempt to justify the colonization (“look how primitive they are, incapable of having a government or even knowing their history, they need us soooo much”). This makes our knowledge very difficult.
- having empires ironically was never a criterion for any civ in AoE2 (cough Celts cough)
- Please, I understand that was not your intention, but the term “tribe” is part of the prejudiced legacy of colonialism and means nothing more than “savage” when applied to non-Europeans. So if possible guys, do not use it.
Well, this was never a criterion for any civ either. Just look at the Huns and Mayans
I would suggest Africa first, but otherwise I agree
There is nothing to fear. These technologies were not needed by everyone (wonders, in fact, weren’t at all) and many peoples managed to do without them. We just need to figure out ways to translate this into the game. As I suggested in Discord, a simple and effective way would be to decouple certain technologies from others, for example: removing the requirement of Heavy Plow for Crop Rotation research. So not only do you (1) allow logical space for civs who had crop rotation, but not the plow (or access to cannons, but no Chemistry, in the case of a civ who get gunpowder units through trade); but also (2) shows that the game threw out the refuted idea of linear technological progression
If it felt like a personal attack, please forgive me, it’s not my intention. English isn’t my native language
6 Likes
For everyone, it has been proven that games focused on east asia don’t perform as well sales wise compared to ones with the action in europe/north america.
Ridiculous claim, considering the egyptians knew, the greeks knew, the romans knew. Now as to why we don’t have that much written information from asia, half of it didn’t have a written alphabet and didn’t care about writing things down. East asians did have alphabets, did record a lot in terms of what happened when, but with very low accuracy. The only place whose records of time got lost due to colonization is central and south america, the natives in north america didn’t really bother with writing things down either. And it’s sad that it happened, but what can you do.
Whether it was destroying and whether the spaniards and portuguese had their legitimate interests in doing it is up to debate, but your answer becomes politically charged, which you should try to avoid in the future.
They were tribes, your personal feelings towards the word don’t affect that.
Sub-Saharan Africa has no written history or technological advancement to speak of, so it’s absurd to expect a DLC focused on that part of the world when much more important areas are yet to be added where things actually happened. The rest of africa is largely covered by Saracens, Malians, Berbers and Ethiopians.
Cope
And when europeans arrived there with magical boom sticks on ships larger than their villages we saw how much they did without them.
Makes the progression in the game too complicated and would require a lot of work in order to be achieved, and then it would be counter intuitive. I’d rather have historical inaccuracies like chinese not getting gunpowder units or native americans getting galleons than such exceptions for civs that… get hand cart, but no wheelbarrow, but have an unique imp wheelbarrow… or things like that.
It’s alright, you don’t like what I say because of how you feel about historical things should be approached, so you went on the aggressive, but remember, don’t shoot the messenger, and try to give more thought as to why things happened the way they did historically, not just after europeans went out and about in the world, but before that too, and what it entails for the current state of certain things.
3 Likes
maybe because they focused on the wrong regions of east asia? i can’t imagine a dlc that focuses on china and japan would do badly, considering the plethora of various novels and shows that focus on those regions that people love.
3 Likes
Generally speaking, I imagine it works like this?
Europeans, Americans and all east Asians play games focused on Europe.
Americans play games focused on North America.
East Asians play games focused on east Asia, but Europeans and Americans generally shy away and would rather play a game focused either on Europe or on America.
Besides Indians, nobody plays games focused on India.
Indians on the other hand play games regardless of where they are focused.
It’s just that different world regions have different interests and most of them align around Europe.
It won’t, but that’s only because this is a well established game and all other regions are covered. We are hardcore gamers that would generally speaking buy any dlc no matter where it was. During the development in the game though, such considerations were made- so we can safely assume that if microsoft has said “make this” they have their reasons behind it, not just historical, but also commercial-
2 Likes
Except aoe2 isn’t a grand strategy game. and i bet if you did something about best rpgs it would almost universally be chalk full of JRPGs.
i agree that East Asia (more south east asia then anything) wouldn’t appeal to many people, but Japan, China, and India? those would sell amazingly well.
either way, i think Europe is overdone at this point and we need a break from the Region.
3 Likes
Thing is, Microsoft probably doesn’t know enough about marketing and what appeals to the east asian audience as a whole, compared to an audience like Tencent. We have a limited chinese and vietnamese communities here, but it’s not enough to say AoE2 is performing well in east asia. The aoe1 phenomenon is something else that isn’t related to what the game is about, so I don’t think it should be taken into account.
This of course is for if MS made a new game that focused on east asia. I think it’s guaranteed that we will get presumably 1 or more DLCs focused on asia, so I don’t think it’s a concern.
As I said before, we can probably expect, considering we can have 9 more civs, one DLC in America, one in east asia, one in greater europe (including caucasus for example), maybe 1 in south asia, and sprinkled in 1 african civ more.
You do realise that’s not a map of a “Celtic Empire”, right?
What they really mean by that (according to more recent interviews with Sandy Peterson) is that some Microsoft executives demanded that they add Koreans because StarCraft sold so well in South Korea.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t mind if they got back to Europe EVENTUALLY but for now just give me at least 3 non-European DLCs in a row
1 Like
Imagine using ancient small Celtic chiefdoms to justify calling medieval Celts an empire. At that point we can easily justify Mississippians being added, who are comparable to ancient celts
Also, A TON of games add non European content successfully including AoE games
3 Likes
I noticed you’re trying to go by current states sometimes. That leads to some minor inaccuracies:
- Khmer/Angkor empire can cover all the unassigned area to the left of Laos. They were pretty big even before the height of their power.
- Part of “Slav” area was actually steppe tribes quite closely related to modern Tatars. Cumans/Tatars could be expanded around the Caspian and north of Black sea, the central asian states can be assigned to Turks instead. In the west, the area of current Slovakia was part of Hungary for the majority of medieval and modern age.
- Vikings/Danes/Norse didn’t significantly settle all of Scandinavia, especially not the north and Finland which had its own tribes. Finland only became part of Sweden in 13th-14th century. On the other hand, you could give them Iceland.
It is a rough cultural estimation on what the civs represent. You can’t do it properly without adding at least a third dimension too it, namely time. Some civs didn’t coexist with others too e.g.
I decided to take modern country borders mostly and sometimes I messed a a bit around to make place for civs which do not have a modern counterpart.
I will anyway have to remake my map with the upcoming Indian DLC so I’m going to do my best to fix criticism.
1 Like
And Spirit of the Law, if you’re reading this, thanks to feature my map in your latest video. I’m a big fan of your content and I hope you’ll keep doing videos for at least a while 
8 Likes
In this case Burgundy is only Swiss and the french Provence. It is not as northern as it is shown on this map, that is of really later times.
In this case Burgundy is only Swiss and the french Provence. It is not as northern as it is shown on this map, that is of really later times.
The Burgundians in Flanders is 1600. I totally disagree with the tech flemish revolution
You can add Iceland, the southern shore of Greenland and Norfolk to the Vikings.
You could make Afghanistan a contested area of Persia and India and Tatars.
The areas west and north of China and Korea you can make these Mongol.
Siciliy actually included the south of Italy. And was closely bordered to Rome.
Isn’t the Mali area way too much to the west?
The whole “Burgundian Netherlands” period happens around 1400. That’s still too late to include the battle of the golden spurs (though our history around this point is a mess, so there are probably a bunch of ties you can draw between that event and the Burgundians), but it’s closer than 1600.
Edit: by the way, very cool map. The other aoe2-map-contributions in this thread too.
1 Like
Fix Königsberg. It was founded by the Teutonic Order in a baltic region. It was never a Slav (Rus) enclave during the middle ages. It only became a fief to the Polish kingdom (before the Duchy of Prussia), but still was a German region, not corresponding to the modern oblast of Kaliningrad.
2 Likes
Do you have this in .psd form?
No, but as .png. Don’t know that format to be honest.