no,just read it carefully
“AI” is Adam Isgreen if you don’t understand,creative director of Age of Empires IV
2 Likes
Wow I almost forgot how few civs there was in AOE2 at time of launch. ITs amazing that it has grown so much. It would be cool if AOE4 was similar in that they started with a handful of civs and just added expansions over time. If the game is as popular as AOE2 there is no reason it can’t have that sort of longevity.
6 Likes
Agree, a Polish civ would be really nice. Poland (and later in Union with Lithuania) was a pretty big empire in Europe for a most of the time beginning at 1000 AD. They could be named Lithu-Polonian (just like in AoE2?) Factions with a similar requirement would be Hungarian, the Kievan Rus and the Cuman.
Ofc I hope there will be no more Teutons as this is just nonsense since they extinct already 100BC. That annoyed me pretty much cause the people living in the Teutonic Order were German and Balts and not “Teutons”. I am also curious how they solve this problem with all the German nations within the Holy Roman Empire. If there would be a civ HRE how would the people be named? Holy Roman? 
3 Likes
Spain as a whole did not exist in the middle ages. There was solely Castilian, Aragon, Navarro and Portugal each by its own smaller than for example Burgundy. And you cant put em into 1 faction since the unnification (and foundation of spain) was 1492 which is already at the end of middle ages. but indeed reconquista would make a nice singleplayer campaign.
At least if you have spain you cant have berber and goths because spanish people are a mix of berber, iberian and visigoths. would be weird nonsense if you play Goths vs Spanish. It would be like if you play franc vs french or roman vs italian.
1 Like
Agree. AoE3 vanilla with only 8 but more differentiated civs was a big improvement from perspective of factions imo.
It would be very fun to play even if you have just like 6-7 civs. you can still add mmore civs in the DLC (which is planned to be compatible with the game in future as I´ve heard). For example if you have Brits, French and German you can bring out 3 DLC´s already, for each civ some that interacted. (Hopefully not for 50 bucks each).
Brits you could add Scots, Vikings and Irish.
German you could add Lithu-Polonian, Hungarian and Slavs.
French you could add Burgundy, Italian and Spanish.
Same for middle east and asia which makes up to 9 starting civs. I would not make African, South-east Asian or American civs for the reasons mentioned above.
you cannot have Poles at the same time and a civilization called the Slavs. at the very beginning of the Middle Ages, the Slavs differentiated into different groups. I would personally introduce Polish civilization because it would represent the entire culture of the Western Slavs, Bohemian Moravia and other smaller states. therefore, it would only have Poles under that name who would represent the broad linguistic and cultural sphere of the Western Slavs, who, although not under their own separate state, inhabited the vast area of then-Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Poland would be their representative. so I wouldn’t think they need to find a place in the initial release but through dls i think it’s possible. as far as 6 7 civilizations are concerned I would certainly not be satisfied considering the time of development and the fact that it is 2020. we are witnessing to go towards hyperrealism with huge maps in any type of games and with what has already been seen it would be a real disappointment to have only a few civilizations because one of the main features of this franchise is precisely the number of civilizations.
2 Likes
kievan rus poland and hungary would fully represent the area of eastern europe
1 Like
yes. either slavs or polish. i think it is a fair idea to have polish as a represantative.
i know it might appear poor to have few civilizaions, but if they are very different it is more fun to play and easier to learn how to handle em. because you can only play good with your civ, if you know where the strengths and weaknesses of the civs are, you can play your own civ more accordingly. this brings in more elements of strategy and tactical warfare.
at the same time, if you have 35 civs like in aoe2 definite ( I even lost the overview of the traits of units in aoe3 tad), all civs are somewhere similar and boring but at the same time you dont know how to adapt accordingly since there still are some slight differences. this was less an issue at aoe3 vanilla with 8 civs but become a problem with those additional factions. it mainly concerns multiplayer, but in the end i did not play japanese, indian or chinese at all and I did not know how to encounter them so I stopped playing basically cause it wasnt fun as the vanilla anymore.
1 Like
ye but kievan rus are slavs too.
but hungary is an own ethinicity (finno-ugrian people originating from the ural mountains).
it seems so to people but they have connections just like the Germans and the French. Slavs existed in ancient times, but at the beginning of the Middle Ages they existed and spoke separate languages like Russian Poles … it would be best to make one but give it a historical name because having Slavs is the same as with the Goths … simply impossible if we take history and culture language…
everything that makes up the state and the people
1 Like
I took those two because they are the most different two (slav) states and I don’t think either of them would be undeservedly on the list.
1 Like
ughh… no
there are some differences from the roots. like germanic tribes all came from the north and flodded into the Roman Empire. And the routes of several tribes are known today, so you can say Spanish are descandent from Visigoths, since they settled down there but Italian have more from the Ostrogoths since they settled down in Italy and Greece.
It is known that there are nowadays 3 slavish ethnicities: North (russians), middle (polish, czech, slovak) and southern (balkan) and that they are all slavs primarily.
But hungarian and finnish have same roots, you also can see it in the language they speak.
Czech is nearly similar to Polish while Hungarian is complete different but very similar to Finnish.
2 Likes
maybe they would have the same first age so they would separate later depending on the player’s choice
And the “romanic” languages are french, spain and italy, because they have been part of the roman empire for a very long time while germany, scandinavia is more “germanic”. Despire germanic tribe of franks come from the north and settled down in france.
lol idk
tbh i dont think so^^
yes but politics, culture architecture, language are different in these two mentioned and hungarians and finish didn t have as much states and population as slavs u can find info on internet by urself
I just think that it would be more correct to organize a slavic civilization and I think that my solution with the first same age is not so bad xD
1 Like
i know that population is not so big as slavs, but they have different culture. if you make a civ called slavs, it would be a mistake to have hungary in it. but nowadays most of it got destroyed by communism anyways.
but thats picky, im happy if the game is somewhat okay and if the game architecture is fun.
1 Like
this applied to Russians and Poles (first age) who have common roots. of course the Hungarians are special. I agree about communism
1 Like
but as a slav i can tell you if it wasn’t for communism we would probably find a way to fck it up maybe even more efficiently xD