I mean, saying the Sicilians civ represents all of Normans is kinda just a headcanon to make them make sense as a civ. Because just going by their name, they are not, well, normans they are sicilians, specifically. And we’re talking about a game that normally uses absurdly broad names like “sarracens” or “teutons”.
1 Like
Yes, that’s why I don’t think they’ll include the Balkans any time soon… next year they’ll definitely focus on Asia and America (to include two post-colonial civs)…
I would put Korea with Vietnam to encourage competition in East Asia; Persia as a region would fare better with Oman and Siam with Burma (as happened with Rise of the Rajas)…
In really it was…
It could also come with Argentina and be a complete DLC…
Yes, a DLC with Ragusa (Croats) and Serbia would be good and then another one with Greece and Wallachia…
Yes, that’s what I mean…
Yes, we will probably have new revs that come with the DLC…in KotM we had Revolutionary France…
Yes, the problem is that during this whole period Portugal and Holland controlled Indonesia, and the surviving sultanates were puppet states of both and in the case of Aceh, of the Ottomans…
Yes, although we didn’t have campaigns in TAR, the historical battles we had weren’t bad either and we had enough content with the civs and maps that I didn’t feel like I was missing something, although I hope they make another single player DLC later that includes more African historical battles where you play in Tondibi conquering Songhai with the Moroccans in 1591 and with the British overthrowing Kassa Hailu in 1868…
More Scottish units and the Royal house Stuart be likely to be the Birstish civ option and has Scottish element’s Jacobite Rebellion,Irish revolution for New DLC and big update
4 Likes
They would have been named Normans if that was the case. They clearly represent the Italo-Normans which includes everything in that map sans the Angevin Empire (though they still would have recruited heavily from there).
Then actually look at the whole civ…
The icon is a Norman shield, their unique units and buildings are Norman, and their campaign is based on the Hautevilles. And Sicily wasn’t really independent other than when the Normans were in charge.
1 Like
I mean, you put it best, they would have named the civ Normans if that were the case. But they didn’t. It’s Sicilians.
And arguing who was and wasn’t “independent” in the middle ages is a deeply silly discussion since states simply didn’t work that way back then.
At any rate, uh… DLC civs amirite?
1 Like
Arabs and Persians seem like fine choices for an middle eastern DLC, with Arabs being more of a umbrella civ.
Though they might make Persians an Asian civ, in which case I’d pair them with the Siamese.
Africans and Federal states only have 2 civs currently. If I were to guess I’d say they’d add the Shona as a south African umbrella civ and then probably Brazilians as the Federal state. Could come together or as single civs.
Mapuche seem to me like the most plausible native civ, if they’d want to add another one.
Morrocans seems a bit unlikely unless they’ll make a new culture group in which they’d fit.
Koreans seem popular as well, I don’t really care for them but if they’re popular enough they have a good chance.
This is all IF they’ll make new DLC after the Danes and Poles ofc. But I have good hopes.
5 Likes
Popular suggestions - there’s lots of fans for most of those.
I’d personally put the Omani in place of an Arabian civ, just to narrow it down. They had colonies/expansions to their empire and were one of the most worldly interactive Arabian power. Umbrella civs lose a bit of focus with who they’re trying to represent - taking Germans and India for example (the worst offenders!). Specific countries help to give them more character - for example we know the British represent the British Isles and the ruling institution for the whole timeframe.
5 Likes
It’s the Kingdom of Sicily which was a thoroughly Norman kingdom. You seem to be claiming it’s just some random Italian backwater and ignoring all their conquests spanning 3 continents.
1 Like
I also want the “Omani Arabian” and “Persian” in the one DLC. This is a great combination of two powerful civs.
2 Likes
The Moroccans could be similar to Arabs/Persia. A MENA type civ, to be exact.
2 Likes
That’s why I’d say theyre not so much suggestions, rather predictions. I wouldnt suggest Koreans for example, but I find their inclusion very plausible.
I agree, but that seems to be the overal design theyre going with. Smaller states like Zulu or Omani will probably end up as natives or alliance options. They added Hausa and Italians just last year, Id say they’ll continue using umbrella where they see it as plausible. Therefore I sooner predict Arabs before Omani and Shona before Zulu for example.
With Zulu, absolutely.
I’ve always been in the camp of and actively pushed Shona over Zulu as a playable civ anyway as Shona covers Butua, Mutapa and Rozvi Empires (with Rozvi being the area’s most long-lasting and powerful empire). They offer pretty much what Zulu offers military (bull-horn formation tactics were used by them way before Zulu for example) and more plus the Shona were far more advanced with infrastructure (wall cities, mining, etc) than the aforementioned.
Zulu runs 90% on pop culture. They’re impressive in what they achieved in such little time, but it was all but a flash-in-the-pan in the whole timeframe of AOE3 (Shona were around in power the whole time).
Zulu would make a fantastic Minor Civ though.
3 Likes
Oman wasn’t a small state.
They also aren’t the only Arab power. Egypt would make for another good option with them starting off as the powerful Mamluks and remaining defacto independent for most of the time they were under Ottoman rule.
Then there’s also Morocco that has a significant Arab component in addition to Berber.
3 Likes
Three great candidates for new civs!
1 Like
Saw the title, saw the number of replies, already knew what happened.
That civ literally gets renamed to “Normans” in every campaign appearance except its own campaign. No other civ ever got such treatment.
It is by all means Normans. It should be called Normans. The name Sicilians seems to me as a last minute change which I don’t understand.
And the DLC is called Lords of the West.
The devs tried to justify that name by saying the civ covers Byzantine, Arabian and Norman influence on Sicily, but I don’t see the other two. It’s 100% Normans. Generic Normans.
What they did is like renaming Goths to Asturias or Vikings to Greenlanders.
1 Like
I don’t think the civ is meant to represent the Angevin Normans (except in other campaigns) so that’s why they’re specifically called Sicilians. It is more to exclude the Normans that have too much overlap with Franks and Britons rather than to be inclusive of Byzantine/Arab/Italian elements. But to anyone not familiar with the history, that name makes it look like they are adding a random Italian island as a civ.
Of course, let’s also remember that during this period the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt was mostly part of the Ottoman Empire. They had their wars with the Saudis and weakened them very much until WWI… That’s why I see the Omanis with more strength in this period, having territories in East Africa from Somalia to Tanzania and Madagascar…
Yes, although Sicily and southern Italy fell under Aragon and then Spain in the 15th century…
Yes, in addition to maintaining the regional DLC of being civs of a certain sea… Poland and Denmark are Baltic civs and Persia and Oman are civs of the Arabian Sea…
Moroccans would put them with another African civilization like Bormu or Kongolese…
Yes, I agree…I see more Shonas than Zulus…
Yes, they put Sicilians in AoE 2 mainly because of the Kingdom of Sicily. The Normans predate the Kingdom of Sicily, as they were Vikings like Rollo established in Normandy who, after being weakened by the Capetian Franks, began to carry out their raids as mercenaries in Sicily…
I’d argue that they wouldn’t fit with the (Sub-Saharan) African civs. Culturally North Africa (covering the Morrocan Empire and the majority of Egypt) are completely different and would fit better with the MENA ‘belt’ of culturally and religiously similar civs. IIRC, Morroco was originally left out from the African DLC as a full civ due to not really fitting into the African civ mechanics.
MENA civs would work pretty well with shared traits tied to Caravanserai (as Tavern-types as opposed to stables!), spice trade, Ribats (frontier fortifications to protect trade) and Camel trade.
1 Like
In my opinion, a cool and unique Age Up mechanic for MENA civs could be the one known from Abbasid Dynasty civ in AoE4 - House of Wisdom. I think this could work in AoE 3 for MENA civs. Of course, this should be adjusted to AoE 3 standards.
1 Like
It’s okay that the civ is given a generic name but selectively covers some elements while not the others. Like AOE2 Britons is solely England, while AOE3 Germans covers most of the German states and their influence sphere. including (oddly) Bohemia, but not Hungary.
3 Likes