New Civilisations to diversify old Civilisations

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
194

You are correct in stating that the Slavs are the ancestors of both the modern day Russians and Ukrainians, but you are wrong to state that Ukraine was not a state back in the Middle Ages.

There were (and still are) three main groups of “Russian peoples”: the Great Russians, the White Russians and the Little Russians. The *Russian people today are the main descendants of the Great Russians, the Belorussians are the White Russians (Belo = white ) and the Little Russians are the Ukrainians.
You, @Skadidesu speak of Ukraine as “weren’t a thing back then” but they DID exist. Ask any Ukrainian today, and they will proudly say that they are the Little Russians. The Urkrainian state DID exist back in medieval times, though it was not called “Urkrain” but “Kievan Rus” or “Principality of Kiev”.
ALL THREE Russian groups are classified as “Slavs”.

image
image2448×3264 1.55 MB

Photo from “Rise of Russia” TIME-LIFE Books, by Robert Wallace

Which movie are you referring to?

And no, you are wrong to state that the Celts “are a meme”. They were a people that did actually exist. The Ancient Romans wrote much about them. Plus, the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish peoples have had their DNA traced back to the Ancient Celtic peoples. So whatever evidence you are basing your claim on that the Celts are fantasy and not “real”, seems crazy, considering that the Ancient Romans themselves AND modern day historians and genealogists have proven the Celts existed.

As for the Celts civ in Age of Empires 2, why not name the medieval Scots, Irish, and Welsh “Celts”? The Celtic Church (founded in Ireland) was named such during the Middle Ages, which shows that even the medieval Irish themselves acknowledged their Celtic heritage. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that the 1999 Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings developers chose such a name to define the medieval Scots, Irish, and Welsh.

I very much know about Eastern Europe. I am a historian, and I have plenty books on my shelves about Eastern Europe. I am also of Finnish blood, so I am familiar with northeastern, and eastern Europe.

I fail to see what claim you are drawing here? The Portuguese and Byzantines have almost nothing to do with each other, except in a small time when the Byzantines under Emperor Justinian I, conquered the southern fringes of the Iberian Peninsula in 5th-6th century AD. But the Portuguese were not even a distinct people yet at that time. The County of Portugal was not founded until 868 AD, and by then the Byzantines were long ousted from the Iberian Peninsula.

I can get around this claim of yours, if you can argue how different a Hussitian/Bohemian civ would be from a Slavs or Teutons one. Teutons civ and Slavs civ already have elements to represent medieval Bohemia.

Big does not automatically mean “they deserve more civs”. If the medieval Chinese were culturally, linguistically, and socially diverse enough from each other, then yes. But the answer is: no, the medieval Chinese were not quite diverse enough back then to warrant separate Chinese civs now, in Age of Empires 2.

If you are talking about the Tibetan peoples then yes! absolutely they can be a “second Chinese civ” though they are not Chinese. Tibet has a unique history compared to China, or Mongolia, or India or Afghanistan which surround Tibet.

But the Chinese civ already covers much of medieval China, north AND south. That is because the famous medieval Chinese dynasties, the Tang, the Yuan (ruled by Mongols, but technically Chinese in organization), and the Ming all ruled north and South China. Even the Song Dynasty, as you mention, had a lot in common with the rest of China.
Sure, there are some regional variations among the Chinese people in dialect, slang, food cuisine and local customs…but these are not enough to make there be TWO Chinese civs.

Not only that, but how the heck would you make the 2nd Chinese civ different enough and unique enough in units, techs, and civ bonuses from the current Chinese civ already in the game?

A few centuries is actually a really long time, considering the span of a average human’s life expectancy of 60-80 years approx. Some of the Chinese medieval dynasties did not last themselves more than a few centuries. Also: the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan is remarkable in that is stay UNIFID for so long as it did, considering its vast size. One of the things that makes that man so great is that he created a political and military system of succession that prevented Mongol and Tartar lords of great ambition to split the Mongol Empire in civil war.

I recommend that you read the Harper Encyclopedia of Military History by R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy to learn on how effective Genghis Khan really was, and how impactful the Mongol Empire was in the world stage.

image
image1248×1664 611 KB

Hatred does not necessarily mean that they were not related on ethnic terms. The Danes and Swedes used to “hate” each other during the Dano-Swedish Wars of the Early Modern Era, and yet they all came from the same Viking stock. The Welsh and English “hated” each other, and yet are closely link through blood.
The Saudi Arabians, the Iraqis, and the Egyptians all look at each other fearfully and have fought some wars against each other…and yet they all are descended from medieval Arabs, the “Saracens”.

6 Likes
195

They werent related on ethnic, religious and cultural terms. :wink:

1 Like
196

Hmmm…very well. I see your point.

Also: I realized that I made a mistake: I lumped the Omani people as an “African people” and I forgot that they are the Arabic Omani peoples. You have my apologies.

But the question still remains: how different and unique can these proposed civs be, compared to the already existing-civs, of Ethiopians, Saracens (Arabs)?

Saracens for instance already reflect the Omani naval tradition through the faster-firing Galleys and 2x transport unit capacity.

197

Somalis could be good at every situation in which Ethiopians are bad: Somalis had powerful Cavalry, especially Light Cavalry. Somalia had the most Camels and it was a Gunpowder-Naval powerhouse in the late Medieval Age and a trading center too: They traded with Chinese, The first African in China was actually a Somali. So:
Somalis could get strong Cavalry and Camelry, while Ethiopians don’t.
Somalis could get strong Navy, Gunpowder units while Ethiopians don’t
Somalis would have Champions, no Halberdier, better Cavalry Archers and possibly no Arbalest.
Heavy Infantry or Light Cavalry or Gunpowder unit or Cavalry UU rather than a fast squishy Light Infantry.

4 Likes
198

I will do some research on this. I could be wrong, I have made mistakes before. Not every historian is perfect. :laughing: :+1:

But people! You need to all understand: you cannot just throw in new civs just because “there needs to be more representation” The videogame can only do so much.

It is quite frankly a miracle that the game has grown from its original 13 civs, to the 39 civs that we currently have. But do not delude yourselves into thinking that it is a piece of cake to add 20 or more civs at a flick of a finger!

New civs need to be properly researched for unique history, cultural characteristics, and variation that they bring to the table. This is a videogame on strategy. It is NOT a history simulation. There are other videogames that do a better job in that kind of thing.

Questions that must be asked, and whihc many of you are forgetting:

  • What will be the Wonder of the new civ?

  • Do they have an excuse for a proper castle-like structure? (for in the case of the Meso-American civs, who were not really known for making specific “castles”, the AoC opted to make their castles based on religious temple pyramids.

  • What will be their civ flavor? And will said flavor not borrow from other existing-civs (in other words, NO REPEAT civs!)

Now…is there reasonable cause to add new civs? Yes there is.
I think that a few more civs can be added. But, I think that many of you will be disappointed in that they will not be any new African or North American civs.

It is more likely, I feel, that we will see a Georgian civ, a Dutch civ (though Burgundians do represent them through Flemish Militia) an Indian civ (likely the Moguls), and a Nubian civ (the only African people I find are qualified enough to be a new African civ. they beat back several Saracen and Mameluke invasions, and they had a flowering of arts, crafts, and were powerful Christian Kingdom, that even the Muslims respected. Archers of the Eyes come from Nubia, and that archer Hero unit might be rebranded into their Unique Unit)

I see MAYBE the possible inclusion of a Mississippian civ. They would be similar to the Meso-American civs, in having access to Eagle Warrior, but no gunpowder or cavalry. But they would not have any major stone structures and would likely have to be given their own building set.

All in all: I think perhaps 5 more civs, and then the devs (and gamers) will have to conclude that the medieval era is adequately represented by all the civs in the game.

And besides adding new civs, there is PLENTY for the devs to work on: bug fixes, civ balancing, new seasonal content: holiday events, new gamemodes, Challenge Scenarios, and the like.

We all need to cool our jets a bit, and not get so riled up. We need to look at this debate thoughtfully and reasonablly. There is no use demanding the devs give us things we want that they cannot deliver. Even though they have an obligation to satisfy the customers, they need to think things thoughtfully too, and not just plow head on in adding new civs just because the gamers say so.

Let me just conclude by saying that this forum has been the BEST gamer forum that I have ever experienced. And I would hate for it to devolve right now into a dirty mess of angry, toxic gamers.

Stay civil and thoughtful, people! :relaxed:

5 Likes
199

The Almnara tower.

image
image664×823 218 KB

As you can see they built big cities, fortresses, fortified walls. They could use Middle Eastern or African architecture. The African civ which needs a new Architecture set are the Ethiopians.

image

image
image691×676 214 KB

We won’t do that. :smiley: There are enough bonuses left and we could make them very different from their Ethiopian neighbours

Dutch aren’t medieval at all. As you said, Burgundians are enough to cover Flemish and Frisians.

They aren’t Medieval at all. Current Indians are mainly Muslim Indians and cover Northwestern India. I can see Tamils, Bengalis, Kannadas or Oriyas instead of them.

Somalis weren’t the defenders, they invaded Ethiopia lots of times. For example: Adal-Ethiopian Wars or Ajuran-Ethiopian Wars, not to mention the Ajuran Empire destroyed the Portuguese fleet, which was so huge considering to power of the Portuguese ships. The most important thing both Ajuran and Adal (Somali states) became empires.
Campaign: Adal-Ethiopian War (Ottomans, Somalis vs Ethiopians, Sudanese and Portuguese)
Historical Battle: Naval battle between Ajuran and Portuguese.

Nubians would be amazing too. I can see lots of possible Somali UUs: Billao Swordsman or Belawa Swordsman or Malakh or Jezail Camel Gunner or Uwassiye or a Light Cavalry (I forgot the name)

We need Mississippians

6 Likes
200

The Saracens seem to represent islamic empires from Egypt and the levants more than they represent “traditional” Arab civs from arabia. Omanis can be differentiated from them by making them a monk and naval civ, representing their theocratic imams and maritime traditions respectively.

They can have two UUs, a trash naval unit (the Dhow), and a camel lancer, with an extra melee range like the steppe lancer.

same as the middle eastern civs, or they can have a unique castle style, like the burgundians and sicilians. Look up omani castles/forts for more details.

trash naval + monks

4 Likes
201

Good idea. What would be the campaign? If Omanis what about Yemenis?

202

Perhaps a campaign about the kingdom of Hormuz, or the Mamluk-Portugese/Ottoman-Portugese wars, which were heavily centred around the indian ocean and control over Oman and strait of hormuz.

Omanis and Yemenis can be combined into one civ, though i am not sure what the umbrella name for them would be.

2 Likes
203

Sorry but your arguments of “not being well-documented” just stems from your lack of knowledge. Omani and Zanzibar were hunter gatherers? They were two Empires in conflict over who gets to control the Indian ocean sea routes.
Moravids, are a mix of Berbers and Spanish civs since they moved to North Africa from Andalusia after the reconquista… they are culturally distinct from Berbers.

The argument that Europe’s history is well documented in medieval ages is just a conclusion of your history of studying not lack of documentation. It is easy to make whatever elements like unique units… etc. just by doing a bit of research. And perhaps they could get information from people from those areas to help.

For someone like me who is non-European, I see Spanish and Portuguese in the same way you see Berbers and Moravids which could be an outrageous thought to you. It all has to do with your cultural background as to noticing the differences so maybe just keep an open mind.

204

I like the idea of the Dhow…
If we think a bit outside the box, Omani were famous for pearl harvesting so maybe a unique tech/bonus could be gold generating fishing ships or a pearl harvesting villager that can dive in water for some distance from shore (it could prove to be quite some work but we already have Sergeants that can build Donjons :wink: .
For fighting UU, I am thinking maybe some unit that uses the traditional Khanjar which is their national symbol. Khanjar - Wikipedia

For Nubians:
They must have some sort of a farming bonus being a Nilotic civilization. They could mainly be an archer civ since their bowmen were quite well known historically Military of ancient Nubia - Wikipedia

Those are what I thought of for now.

1 Like
205

Big does not automatically mean “they deserve more civs”. If the medieval Chinese were culturally, linguistically, and socially diverse enough from each other, then yes. But the answer is: no, the medieval Chinese were not quite diverse enough back then to warrant separate Chinese civs now, in Age of Empires 2.

Actually medieval Chinese were quite diverse (even today China is still quite diverse both culturally and linguistically), however the problem is that most dynasties were founded by Sinitic elites, and the southern natives, despite numerous, failed to establish any lasting dynasties or kingdoms. They did rebel against the Sinitic authorities many times, and in some cases those rebellions had even lasted for decades, but in the end they had all been quenched.

The only exception was the Nanzhao kingdom, which was founded by southern Nanman natives and lasted quite long (738 to 1253 if we include its successor Dali), hence the only civ that we can possibly add to represent the natives of Southern China is Nanzhao. However, I think if there’s gonna be a campaign centered on China in the future, then certain southern native units could appear as campaign and scenario editor units, since the Sinitic dynasties indeed hired them as mercenaries from time to time to fight against invaders from the north.

Not only that, but how the heck would you make the 2nd Chinese civ different enough and unique enough in units, techs, and civ bonuses from the current Chinese civ already in the game?

Actually it isn’t that hard to imagine. I’ve always thought that the Chinese should have a second unique unit, preferably a fire-lancer that can effectively counter siege. Plus they also had primitive grenades, bombs, and even landmines. And also in the south of China among both the southern natives and the Sinitic people that migrated there, they had some unique armor types like paper armor, lacquered leather armor, and rattan armor. I could imagine some sort of militia or infantry unit with high pierce armor as well. And last but not least, poisonous arrows were frequently used by the southern natives as well, so I could imagine an archer unit that deals poison damage to enemies, similar to the Inca Jungle Bowman in aoe 3, however I’m not sure if the game mechanics of aoe 2 would support such an effect.

2 Likes
211

Looks like people are still interested in having new European civilizations in the game after all.

Ok, not many votes and Africa and South-East Asia get 25% each, but it’s still relevant.

Poll

2 Likes
216

I’d say that’s 25% European vs. 75% everyone else :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes
217

I think new DLCs should focus on the following aspects:

  1. More emphasis on water: could be new civs with unique naval units, or could be more types of ships available to everybody (for instance, a siege ship that throws stones)

  2. More emphasis on siege: Petards and Siege Towers need more attention, perhaps newly added civs could have bonuses on them. And there could even be unique siege units.

  3. More campaigns.

  4. More terrain related bonuses to make the game more playable. For instance, sandy terrains would slow down knights but not camels, and shallows or swamps would slow down most if not all land units.

  5. More civs outside of Europe. At this point I feel that Europe has become saturated with civs, but there’re still some regions with few or no civs.

That being said, here’re the civs that I would like to see in future DLCs (Those in brackets are plausible civs that could be added if we still have space left, while those not in brackets are civs that I deem to be a must-have)

East-Southeast Asia:

Tanguts, Siamese, Chams, (Visayans), (Nanzhao), (Jurchen), (Khitan)

India: Tamils

Central Asia: (Uyghurs), (Tibetans), (Khazars)

Caucasus: Georgians, (Armenians)

Africa: Swahili, Kanem-Bornu, (Congolese), (Nubians), (Zimbabwe)

Europe: (Poles)

North America: Mississippians, Pueblos, (Haudesaunee), (Beothuk)

South America: Chimu, (Mapuche)

Oceania: (Polynesians)

3 Likes
218

Actually Europe is more important in terms of recorded history, international impact etc.
The only thing you may say about Africa is culture.

2 Likes
219

What ever is left of europe can be covered by current civis already which is not the case for the rest of the world.you cant use celts for north american indians.

4 Likes
220

Both the Ukrainians and the Russians trace back their roots to the Kievan Rus.
There were separation earlier but they are by far not as different as the Polish.

Braveheart. The Scots are not historically correct in the movie.
In 1298 the Scots definitely didn’t dress like the Woad Raider. That unit is very anachronistic, it belongs into Gallic Wars more than 1000 years earlier.
Of course the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish are Celtic (still not clear it the Picts were) I’m just saying that they aren’t depicted correctly.

So do the Russians and the Polish.

So you are basically saying because one Eastern European civilisations exists there is no need for any other?

This is just such an European way of viewing this.
Italy was part of the HRE no need for Italy in the game because we have the Tuetones.

Tibet is not China (despite they wanting to tell you otherwise). But I simply thing we won’t see them because of political reasons.

China has enough unique units that they could replace most generic units easily (same is also true for the Aztecs).
I mean there are games like Total War 3 Kingdoms that just have China in them an that in Ancient times.
Flame Throwers, Grenade Throwers , Fire Lances (like I suggested) are just some of their possible units. They adopted the usage of gunpowder early but they didn’t use it the same way Europeans did.
Also they perfected the usage of crossbows (normal ones not Chu Ku Nu) and even used volley fire to defend against cavalry charges over 1000 years before Europeans discovered that tactic.
The China in AoE2 is likely not supposed to be Ming because Ming already heavily used gunpowder firearms.

The Franks and the Tuetonians used to be the same Empire once, they have the same Religion and a lot of cultural similarities. There for they also should be the same Civilisation, right? And the Burgundians too of course.
I mean the Bohemians are already perfectly represented by the Teutones according to you so why not the Franks too.

The Mongols did have a huge impact on everything from Central Europe over the Middle East to East Asia and even Japan.
But China existed for thousands of years before and after the Mongol Empire.

Looking at some wonders in the game like Mongol big tent, Huns captured Roman Arc and Cuman captured castle, I feel like that’s not a serious challenge.

Some Castles like the Central Asian one are made up and never existed in real life.
I mean how can a Hun or Mongol Castle even work?

That already happens in the game. How many different variations of Farm boni do we have. Units only have so many stats (Cost, HP, Attack, Armour, Piercing Armour) and at some point civilisations have to have boni on the same stats again because there are only so many units (Infantry, Cavalry and Archers) (actually only 15 combinations of stats and main units btw.).

Those civilisations have a higher chance of offering something that no other civilisation has.
There are only 4 American Civilisations, there should be more possible ideas around how to design a civilisation that doesn’t have cavalry at all.
The Americans we have right now also manly have stone structures while the North Americans don’t so that would make a interesting difference. Maybe no access to Stone Walls but Fortified Palisades instead.

No we have to fight about something we have basically no influence on!
No dev is going to read all of this thread.

Water isn’t really fun in AoE2 and I think it’s hard to fix. It’s just wrong that ships cost as much as a single infantry unit and even less than a Knight (30 vs 75 Gold).

Let Archers shoot arrows from Siege Towers, that would be awesome!

Hard to balance. Making Berbers OP on desert maps?

North Americans are really needed I have to agree on that. I don’t even think it’s that likely that we will see them soon.
But there are still thing to cover in Europe.
Plus some civilisations are not able to be represented by AoE2s mechanics because they were very far away from having an Empire. The Inuit for example just can’t be represented by a AoE civilisation. There is no way you can tell me that Inuit Castles wouldn’t be stupid. Such a low population density area just doesn’t work for an Empire.

4 Likes
221

I fully agree not every isolated tribal community fits the game and should not be added,but europe is pretty full now.

1 Like
222

No, most Ukis would say they’re Ruthenians, and point to Andrey Bogolyubsky razing Kyyiv and trying to move the capital to Vladimir-Suzdal in 1169 as the first point of divergence between the Ukrainians and Russians. With the “old” Ruthernian traditions being carried by the Grand Princes of Halych-Volyhnia, while the “nortern” princes were becoming more and more centralized and autocratic, smth that was accelerated by the Mongol conquests, :slight_smile:

None of this has any bearing on the civ in the timeframe of most of AoE 2, though, since it was only towards the end of the 15th century that Muscovy emerged with a distinct martial tradition; while the southern lands of the Rus’ were incorporated into Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well as Kingdoms of Poland and Hungary.

If we take the Slav civ at face value, it pretty much demonstrates the way the military in the Kievan Rus functioned at its peak (Druzhina being the name of the Varangian retainers of the Rurikid princes), and the subsequent feudal fractioning where Boyars as the land (and serf)-owning nobles gained increased prominence. THey formed the core of Russian armies for a long time, and were instrumental in politics of several prinicipalities until they were eliminated as a class by Peter I’s reforms in Russia. Boyars ceased being a military force after Battle of Konotop in 1659, when the Boyar Cavalry levy was destroyed by the pro-Polish Ukrainian Cossacks faction of Ivan Vyhovsky.

In the lands ruled by Lithuania and Poland, the landed nobles were largely Polonized and accepted as szlachta by early 15th century, so the Boyars ceased to be a relevant military option; the 1550s is also the documented establishment of fortifications beyond the Dnipro river rapids, being a “formal” formation of the Zaporizhian Cossacks Host. which is where you can look for origins of a “Ukrainian” autonomous movement in any real shape.

All that is to say, the Slavs as they are an accurate representation of Eastern Slavs in the AoE2’s timeframe for the most part, so they shouldn’t be touched much, :slight_smile: if FE decide to start renaming civs, as @MUTYLATOR5553 hopes for, “Ruthenians” would be an accurate exonym that they were know by in Europe; If Eastern/Central Europe civs are addressed at al, though, I think more likely they’ll just carve one (or several) other civs from the umbrella, they way they (kind of) did with Bulgarians.

Edit: as for the “language” the Slavs use in-game… it’s words being spoken by modern Russian speakers (the female lines, at least, male pronunciation is pretty weird), but the synthax/conjugation is all over the place, and several of the words (such as “building”) are… kind of archaic-Russian? idk. The acknowledgment for movement is also a combination of “will do”, and some weird word I don’t get (It should be “Ya”, for “me”, but it just sounds like an “a”, which… isn’t a stand-alone word in Russian"

It really feels like they gave modern Russian- Speakers some archaic-sounding, non-grammatic Russian words to read…and the results are all over the place to say the least, :slight_smile:

4 Likes