New civs? What would you like to see next

imagen_2023-02-25_133534003

Yes, but it can also be said that over time the Teutonic Order began to exist as an “independent body” and the HRE’s control over them began to become “nominal”, as well as the Italian city states, which also were part of the HRE in name, but in practice they managed themselves.

Thus being the Teutonic Order, which began as an order of soldier-monks who fought in the crusades, and helped merchants and pilgrims to cross to holy places. they acquired so much power by paying for bodyguard services, that they eventually “bought up an entire country”, literally Estonia. This was in 1347 under the Treaty of Marienburg, for 19,000 silver marks. From there, in what we could call the “Teutonic Kingdom”, they began an invasion of the Prussian peoples, first under the excuse that they were going to depose the pagan leaders and evangelize the population. Perhaps they did evangelize at first, but a few decades later things turned ugly.

As the AoE2 campaign shows, even after a large part of the population had been evangelized, the Teutons were no longer a charitable order, they were simple mercenaries who sought a life based on looting, attacking Christian towns under the excuse that “Their conversion was not sincere” and then they went back to their strengths. The kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania, already Christian, got tired of them and destroyed them, taking what was left of their territory.

By the time of the Renaissance, although they were never completely exterminated, the scoundrels had so little love for Christianity that when the religious wars between Protestant and Catholic sides began, they went over to the Protestant side to "stop giving tithes to the church."

They’re a disgrace as a religious order, but they’re still part of history, and would make good enemies in some Age IV campaign if they take out the Lithuanians or Poles, if not at least as a Campaign Civ with unique cavalry and heavy infantry units. ultra strong.

They are part of the history of medieval Estonia and Latvia, so in theory they would also have their audience. Of course, perhaps it would be better for them to leave, as they said before, together with their main rivals, the Poles and Lithuanians.

Yes, maybe the Teutonic Order appears as an exclusive civ in some campaign (maybe the Crusades), but I don’t see it as a playable civ in multiplayer… although maybe the Teutonic Knight could be added to the HRE…

2 Likes

Other examples of new civs that should be added are the Chola Dynasty and Gurjara.

The super specific names of the Delhi Sultanate and Abbasid Dynasty made it sound like we’d get more Arab/Indian civs, and then they never delivered :skull::skull::skull::skull:

I would love to see the Japanese and the Danes in the game.

2 Likes
  1. Italian Civs
  2. Norse
  3. Spain
2 Likes

Hungarians, Scots/Irish, Khmer, Berbers and Aztecs.

1 Like

As I understand it, they had in mind to develop a South Indian (Cholas?) civ in the near future…And the worst thing is that neither the Abbasids nor the Delhi have campaigns or appear in them in the game… the Abbasids can use them for a campaign in the Crusades from the First Crusade until the conquest of Acre (1095-1291) and with the Delhi its struggles against the Mongols and Tartars until before the conquest of Delhi by Babur (1299-1526)

The Danes are technically in the game and the Japanese will surely arrive this year or next…

They will surely arrive…Venice, Norse, Castile…the Hungarians are technically in the game and the Berbers and Aztecs are surely saving them for a Spanish campaign…

I think they’d maybe go with Timurids since AoE4 is fine with more specific names.

Notice that Timurids would most certainly serve as the AoE4 counterpart (and division) of the Tatars.

As the version of the AoE2 tartars, yes, but about their name: I would prefer that the Timurids be named as Timurids or Uzbeks rather than Tatars for AoE4.

The problem with the term tathars is that the very definition of Tatar is really a Russian name to refer to "the barbarians from the east", a term they used to refer to the Mongol invaders of the Golden Horde, or to the Turkic tribes that also invaded them from the south. In fact the Russians called the eastern part of Russia, outside their domains as “Tartary”, that it was not even a real country.

So the Tatars from Aoe2 would be “the Uzbeks” or the “Timurids” in AoeIV.

In fact, the Uzbek people feel potentially identified with both Tamerlane and Babur, the Iranians don’t, they just see them as foreigners who dominated their country for a long time, until the Sasanians came to gain independence of Persia.

Uhm… i have a Idea, now i get a civ concept, but for Timurids.

That’s why I mentioned the Timurids being a division of AoE2’s Tatars just like the Delhi Sultanate is a division of AoE2’s Hindustanis and the Abbasids being a division of AoE2’s Saracens.

1 Like

AHHH! Sorry, I didn’t understand you, I understood it differently.

Yeah, I agree, same as the French being a division (or evolution) of the Franks, or the HRE of the Teutons.

Sure, it might as well be like the Rus campaign where you have the Mongols representing the Tatars at Kulikovo…

Are you explaining what I meant? Because that’s basically what I said.

I’m surprised we don’t get 4 new civs a year

5 Likes

Yes, because it’s good to point that out.

They require a lot of work…especially to design the landmarks…

1 Like

I don’t know why that is surprising. That would be an absurd pace to keep up. Can you even name a single game that does that? 4 new factions a year?

1 Like

AoE 2 HD on TAK and ROTR and AoE 2 DE last year…

1 Like