Your suggestions would be fine for me too with the exception of Venetians which are kinda covered by strong navy boni for the Italians civ.
Noā¦
Noā¦
Hungarians are simply Hungarians! Lithuanians represent the Balts!
The Slavs present in the game represent Kievan Rus.
Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats and the rest of the Slavic nations are not represented in this game. We absolutely need at least two umbrella civs for the South Slavs and the Western Slavs.
Youāre not going to say that these nations were irrelevant?
5 Likes
Names like Southern India and Southern China are too general and cover many ethnic groups and peoples. You either have to mention the specific ethnic group (Tamils, Dravidians, etc.) or the specific kingdoms (Chola, Nanzhao, etc.). Personally I feel that for Southern India the Chola kingdom fits best for the time frame of aoe2, and for Southern China itās the Nanzhao kingdom.
1 Like
I have no problem about adding another civ to represent Southern China, as the notion āHan Chineseā is a relatively recent creation based on geopolitics, and such a notion didnāt exist back then. However, the problem is that most of the native tribes in Southern China never established any lasting kingdom of their own, and most of the kingdoms in that region were established by Sinitic elites who had fled from the north. The only exception was Nanzhao, who was established by the natives of Yunnan, and had lasted quite long. Hence Nanzhao is the best candidate if you wanna add a civ for Southern China.
Not necessarily, there were 4 maritime republics at the time in the peninsula. Venice was one of them, and the Italian civ is more based on Genoa than Venice.
1 Like
i like how all new civ threads become political debatesā¦ like aoe2 is that realistic
what do you mean by this? it will decimate rams you realise that? +10 vs rams? fo real?
otherwise some interesting ideas, not sure why someone would take the UT for cheaper twrs thoughā¦ might be too little too late type of thingā¦ especially since they actually lack twr techā¦
Wallachians! Ignored in the original version, ignored often in history, they deserve to be in the Definitive Edition. Iām not going to tell you what they could bring, just make sure you do a research and youāll see they have several strong points that many would find appealing.
In case youāre curious, here is some info: The core of the army was the noble cavalry, largely armoured with lighter armoured followers. Light horse archers on the flanks and foot archers provided the main infantry base. Smaller numbers of mercenary and locally raised armoured foot, crossbows and handgunners were also available. Thatās just a part of their military approach, the entire civilization had many fascinating aspects which Iām sure many players would enjoy.
2 Likes
Some changes to my ideas:
Southern India is named Dravidians.
They donāt have Camels. They only have Battle Elephants and Light Cavalry so they have to rely on their Unique Unit.
Southern China is more complex. There are a lot of different ethnic groups and even the āHanā-Chinese form there have different languages than the one in the North. Maybe they should speak Cantonese.
But I really like the gameplay concept of my Southern China.
The Fire Lances could be a really cool unit in late game because of the AoE, basically small Onagers. They should make a good army in combination with crossbows. Mass pikes can help against enemy cavalry. The only big weakness are siege weapons.
The main bonus of cheaper villagers would be unique and make them interesting and different to play especially because itās their only bonus.
Teutones arenāt fitting for Switzerland at all. And Southern part of Germany is very different from the North. Just because itās the same country today doesnāt make it the same 1000 years ago.
So to get Poland you have to play 3 civilisations at the same time?
The Slaves, Lithuanians and Hungarians are all very different from Poland. Poland was historically more important than like half of the civilisations already in the game.
West Slaves arenāt in the game at all. The Slaves in the game are very certainly East Slaves while the Bulgarians are Southern Slaves.
Poland also has a higher priority than Czechs.
China wasnāt united for most of the time frame of AoE2.
Iām not sure if thatās a bit too powerful against Rams. They already do damage to them because of the 0 melee attack.
If I reduce the number the effect on Infantry would be 0.
The idea is to make towers not OP. Making them a lot cheaper but not as good.
Itās a unique technology because if the bonus would be available earlier it would be much stronger because all the early upgrades for towers are available.
The towers still have good HP and Armour because those technologies are available so placing some will slow down an enemy attack even if they donāt do a lot of damage.
Maybe Arrow Slits should be available.
The Romans in AoE1 are more the Republic. Some of the later timeframe is in the campaign but there is no other civilisation from that time in the game.
AoE1, for the most part, ends at 0 AD.
The name was originally for a Germanic tribe but is still used in half of the world as the word for Germany to this day.
Austria would better fit into AoE3 because thatās when they actually got important.
The Alammanians that I described would be better at representing them or the Bavarian than the Teutones though.
Italy already is a navy focused civilisation. Itās obvious that they are more Genoese but they are still culturally relatively close to Venice.
Inca are completely isolated right now. (Unless you count the Spanish)
North America wouldnāt be much different.
7 Likes
The current meso civis were empires and has a good name recognission unlike north america where people were called indian.
AoE2 can help to change that.
āI didnāt learn about them in history class so they shouldnāt be in the gameā is very narrow minded.
AoE3 already did itās part to help with that.
Games are a perfect was to shine a light on parts of history that no everyone knows yet.
6 Likes
Broder appeal is when people know about something and more money can be earned.
Here is a question for you without google tell me what you know about the word sinhala.
Southern India ethny.
1 Like
Itās better to be part of the solution that to be part of the problem.
A lot of people discovered their interest in history through Age or Empires.
I bet most people picking up AoE1/2 only know half of the civilisations if not less. (Different for AoE3 because itās more modern)
Also there are more people besides Western Europeans and North Americans that play games nowadays. The world is not just limited to what those people know from pop culture.
5 Likes
You just proved my point. Sales matter money matters even more.
Dont get me wrong im interested to see more of the world represented but this is not a civilization game.
The campaign goes on until the Huns, where the aoe2 campaign pick up.
So they cover the Roman kingdom, the Roman republic, the romans empire, and when the empire was split between WRE and ERE.
Actually, not that much, byzantine are cloreser to the Venetians than the Italians civ. There are very few aspects of the venetians included in the civ, and for the most itās related only to their land holdings, not their overseas power.
2 Likes
None of the civilisations the West Roman Empire come into contact with is in AoE1. Thy made a few missions that take part after the early days of Rome but the civilisations in the game donāt reflect that, while the Huns and the Goths are in AoE2.
AoE2 and 3 also have an overlap by at least 100 years. AoE1/2 only overlap for Rome and Yamato that donāt really fit into a game that is mostly centred around Bronze Age and early Iron Age.
1 Like
For what it matters, since there isnāt any gauls or other italic cultures, not even the kingdom and republic era is well covered. Usually, when you look at the time frame covered by an aoe, you look at both the civs included and the campaigns. The problem with aoe1 is that aoe2 simply get more attention, and so aoe1 never get the DLC that it deserves with gauls, germanics, etruscans, britons, Iberians and Indiansā¦
Those would be a significant addition. Throw in the Indus Valley civilization and the Dacians, and you could be in for something great.
These statements are so wrong and I really donāt want to bother trying to explain the differences to you ONCE AGAIN.
Poland IS NOT covered by the unique unit of another (and non-Slavic) civilization. Poland IS NOT covered by Lithuanians (Non-Slavic as well as huge language divide, unlike Bohemia).
Poles had good farmers, so did Rus. So what?
Also calling them āboringā is not making any argument as why not to add them in the next expansion.
6 Likes
There would be a ton of civs that it could be added to aoe1, but that is unlikely to happen. Because that would also require a rework of some meccanics and of expanding the tech tree, and that would require a lot of effort, and aoe2 simply sells better.