For the next 5 civs I would like
Japan
Romans/Byzantines
Norsemen
Khmer
Berbers
2 Likes
I am looking forward to:
- Byzantines
- āSpanishā and āBerbersā
- āVikingsā and Japan
5 Likes
If Byzantines ged added, I hope itās as the Eastern Roman Empire
4 Likes
I just kind of doubt theyād call them the ERE when we already have the HRE.
I find it kinda sucky that people refuse to call them Romans when theyāre the actual successors of Rome ### ### #### with calling some German larpers Romans.
1 Like
Romans I think would be a more likely name than ERE.
But theyāll probably go with Byzantines anyway.
1 Like
I think naming a civ the Holy Roman Empire was a misstep, but given that name is already in AoE4, were there ever to be another civ in this game that was based on the eastern Roman Empire, for the sake of clarity, giving that civ the name āRomanā would be itself a misstep. So Iād recommend using the Byzantines, which while historically questionable, it at least clearly identifies who the civ is based on.
Wait why did that get censored?
The thing is the eastern Roman Empire is older than the holy roman empire. It was all because the pope wanted to gain power by being the one to apoint the emperor. So, this was quite the predicament in its time and they are two complitely diferent civs.
2 Likes
Yes, that sounds correct to me.
I donāt think there is a predicament, it just happens to be convenient for Byzantine lovers to pretend there is.
I surely hope people donāt imagine that we live in a world where people are incapable of seeing the difference between HOLY and EASTERN. We can have both HRE and ERE, there is no actual issue here. Using Byzantine on the other hand, IS a historical misstep for a historical game, and it would be a great shame to neglect the actual Romans of their name if a Germanic empire is already posing as them.
Iād like to believe people can read the difference between the two anyway. History is not simple, and making things up to water down or misrepresent history is not the right thing to do.
In my humble opinion, we should call them Romans or Roman Empire. If this causes confusion; good. Confusion creates curiosity, leading to questions that lead to answers and answers leads to learning.
1 Like
Agree.
We live in a world where currently both the United States of America and the United Mexican States coexist. Both have Civ in En Aoe III:DE and there is no problem.
So I guess for the same reasons, I donāt think there is a problem in calling the Byzantines from Aoe2 āEastern Roman Empireā in ##### ## āRomansā for short, for historical matter.
On the other hand, the flag of both kingdoms is different, and itās easy to tell them apart, so it wouldnāt be much of a problem to have another civ with the Roman name. Where if it is more difficult would be with civs like the Genoese, where their flag is practically the same as the English, the only thing that differentiates them is the coat of arms.
1 Like
Still holding out hope we see Japan
2 Likes
Itās better that itās called Byzantines for more simplified naming and also because, we need to avoid confusions with the name āHoly Roman Empireā.
1 Like
I want more indigenous civs. Civilization has a great amount of indigenous civs. This game hasā¦ none.
1 Like
How about any of the Spanish kingdoms, or Spain itself? Also, geographically close, the Moors
1 Like
Yes please more civs MORE MORE MORE please MORE CIVS!!!
Letās destroy the last bit of game balance PLEASE MORE CIVS WE NEED MOOOOORE!!!
1 Like
Ffs stop talking here mate. U complain about everything. In the siege post you said u not playing this game so stop fucking trolling. Just leave. No one cares.
4 Likes
I want more civs anyways!
Whatever new civilization they add, I am hoping for some kind of Outpost benefit. Like shooting multiple arrows, or not requiring to research emplacements (immediately getting them upon building). Outposts are rather demotivating and do not scratch that Tower itch from AoE2.
1 Like