In fact. Heraclius’ campaign is interesting, but I would say Justinian and Belisarius would be even better because (1) they are better known, (2) their time frame roughly covers the transition from aoe1 to aoe2, (3) as well as being the only time that the Byzantines tried to expand beyond their borders on the western side and (4) the reasons mentioned above.
4 Likes
I like it…looks interesting…
1 Like
Exactly…I would also add the fact that Belisario already appeared in the tutorial campaign of empire earth (from where they could get enough campaign material), but that in aoe 2 you could do him much more justice by having a campaign of his own for him, being he the maximum general of the Justinian period it is strange that he did not have a campaign until now…
3 Likes
Despite being a hero unit since AOK.
1 Like
Good points, though being more famous is a double-edged sword since more would be surprised by a lesser known story (TW Attila had a DLC about Belisarius), and as for the transition between Age 1 and Age 2, there’s an almost official one : Attila 5, which has an exact mirror in Age 1, “the Coming of the Huns” at the end of the last Roman campaign. As for western expansion, Belisarius doesn’t have a monopoly. Basil II didn’t earn his nickname without really working at it xD
Between the big 3 Byzantine campaigns, my tie breaker is mainly the fact that Heraclius would be more defensive so it would better fit the civ, in addition of seeing the start of the Arab conquests which were a game changer, the period from 476 to 632 is sometimes called late antiquity. But who said we had to choose only one Byzantine campaign ?
3 Likes
Of course, in fact here you have a Belisarius campaign for the 2 HD, they could do something similar for the 2 DE … Age of Empires II - Comandante Belisario Ep-1 - YouTube
1 Like
Of course, in fact the scenario of the coming of the Huns of aoe 1 starts in 373 and ends in 453 with the death of Attila, but without naming him but simply the entire Hun empire itself…and about choosing which campaign to put in, that they directly make a thematic sp dlc of the Byzantines as they did with the dawn of the dukes with Poland and Lithuania … it could be called “The Rise and Fall of the Byzantine Empire” where you would have a campaign with Belisarius (526-559) (you would fight against Persians, Berbers and Goths), one with Heraclius (608-634) (you would fight against Persians and Saracens) and one with Mehmed II (1444-1453/1480) (where you would fight against Byzantines (if it lasts until 1453), Slavs (if it lasts until 1456 and with connection with the Dracula campaign) and Italians (if it lasts until 1480)…
1 Like
I think all civs should get new campaigns. There is plenty of history to explore and derive these from.
5 Likes
The Berbers ? I’d rather use the Vikings as the Vandals, a Germanic people that was good at sea.
1 Like
But the Vandals also had a good cavalry, and they just so happen to have settled in North Africa. Ideally they would need their own faction, but I think we would get an uproar if we got a new germanic civ who disappeared so early.
1 Like
I’d accept Vandals as a new civ in the African DLC, similar to the Portuguese in the AoAK. It would feature looting, siege and navy, could represent the Vandals themselves and the Alans, its UU could also be the cavalry named “Alans”, similar to the relation between Cumans and Kipchaks. Anyway, they were the one of only 3 barbarian groups looting Rome successfully before the fall of the Roman Empire.
They were active in the overlapped part between AoE1 and 2. In my opinion, if they couldn’t be introduced in 1, it is not such bad to introduce them in 2.
1 Like
You’re right, introducing new civs and characters is one of the things that makes aoe2 special. And if we can only have one campaign for the Byzantines, let’s go with Heraclius. Then in the future we will add other campaigns.
1 Like
I think Alans could be introduced as a civ in a Caucasus or Pontic Steppes dlc. Some of them stayed behind during the great migrations, and their Kingdom of Alania was a local power until the XIIIth centuries when it was destroyed by the Mongols.
1 Like
No, no, please. I already think it’s a mistake to have added Portugal, we’re not going to put another European civ on a African DLC, especially when we have several other interesting African options. Vandals would be better suited to a DLC of barbarian peoples who sacked Rome in a kind of aoe 1.5 as suggested in Discord.
1 Like
The Vandals are too insignificant to be an ingame civ (keep in mind that the number of slots is limited). Their kingdom was crushed by Belisarius in the early 6th century and then, nothing, it’s not even like Persia that kept existing after the Sassanids fell. Even the Goths held more territory (much of Italy, Illyria, Spain and southern France) for longer. The Goths, Vikings and Huns, with the southern european architecture, look like good placeholders,
- the Goths would be closer since gothic and vandalic were both eastern germanic languages, and the Goths are the typical barbarian invasion Germanic tribe
- the Vikings would give them the navy focus, and are also Germanic
- the Huns could portray their good cavalry, and the pilllaging abilities fits them well (there is a reason why “vandal” became a common word)
The problem with using Goths would be that they would be the main adversary in later missions during the conquest of Italy, so it would probably be better not to use them there too when other civs could do the trick.
Then the best would be Vikings for the Vandal navy and Huns for the Vandal army. The local inhabitants that Belisarius tries to spare and would be neutral or allies anyway could be Byzantines.
Just combine the Vandals and Alans into one civ, you can use it to represent both the Vandal kingdom in Africa and the Alan nation in Asia.
I understand how you consider about the Portuguese but there are also people who regard it as a qualified civ. Although I am not a strong supporter of the Vandals, I think it should have the chance too. Sure we could use the combination of some current civs to represent it when we only need it in the campaign.
2 Likes
I disagree, despite their historical alliance and a strong focus on cavalry, the two are not related. Vandals were Eastern Germans while Alans were the remnants of the Scytho-Sarmatian peoples and ancestors of modern day Ossetian, all of which are Iranian people.