New civs

Why of all interessting nations in the medieval era did they choose the Burgundians and sicilians?

The Sicilians barely hold any land nor were of much signifigance in the medieval age. Burgundians were barely an independent state and was mostly a vassal split between France and the Holy Roman Empire.

Next to that I hate the fact that the developers are making civs based on AoE III mechanics/AoM and the otherway around AoE III getting more AoE II mechanics.

The Flamish revolution just doesnt fit the AoE II style and belongs in AoE III, stop trying to merge somehow the two games as they are perfect on their own as they are.

Come with new and interessting mechanica, not taken from other installments or we have already seen.

1 Like

Because Cysion and other devs are Belgian, they decided to add these courtyards.
“West Euro civs sell well” - someone says that
This is such a big nonsense. 99% of the community buy the civs because they are:

  1. New civs while ignoring the origin
  2. New mechanic, new stuff etc.
  3. New civs make multiplayer games, including pro games more diverse, 37 is more than 35.

I can’t answer for the burgundians, but the normans of sicily and south Italy were a big deal. As a Kingdom it existed until the 1800 and the Italian unification, and at the peak of their power, the drive off the muslims of the island, defeat the pope and the emperor of the HRE and even almost brought to knees the byzantine empire.

I would have personally chosen another culture too, but I can’t deny that the ones that they choose are “historically worthed”.


I could see an African/American and/or Indian expansion next.


Tureg and bedouin will be added next :yum:

Please get over the civi choices and game mechanism its out already.

Well, only the sicilians recaptured Jerusalem… thats a Big real. Also they were a really Unique kingdom in medieval europe

Burgs, i don’t know, they were kind of powerfull qnd wealthy un the late middle ages, but they could hace pick many kingdoms with that criteria


Tuaregs are Berbers.

Dont be surprised if they add them in future with the civi choices we are getting.

Tuaregs were just a group, without an empire or a kingdom and were dominated by Songhai Empire who used Tuaregs later in the army. I guess Songhai with a Tuareg Camel makes more sense.

1 Like

The Norman rule was from 1130 till 1194. After that it was switched between different monarchs and dynasties of other nations. The actual independence of the nation ended in 1409, you mentioned it existing till ~1800, but this was purely in name.

The part they mainly emphasized in AoE II was the Norman rule which was only 64 years and which wasn’t really of signifigance in the medieval age. Saying they removed the Muslims is internal and had barely any effect on the rest of the world let alone Europe.

And so? We have the Huns in the game that had a reign for the whole duration of Attila reign, and which their only just was to bring the WRE to the brink of collapse.

Well we have the huns and cumans in game these desert people would be similar.

And so? The Huns had a way more impressive foot print in history and affect on Europe. It was also not basically an island. It was a pretty much massive empire and was a force to be reckoned with.

All things sicily doesnt really have.

So the civ should be decided on how much they impressed you?

Yeah fantastic argument…


The thing that annoys me the most is even focusing entirely on Western Europe, we still had other (more) interesting candidates if we split the Celts, Spanish, Italians or Teutons such as Aragonese, Venetians or Austrians. Hell, Welsh play a big role in Edward’s campaign and they are treated as British.


The Normans, which is really what they should have been called in the first place, were arguably the most important group in shaping the early middle ages and certainly no one played such an instrumental role in the crusades as them.

I know this annoys a small vocal minority here but AoE II is at its core about Medieval Europe and I’m thankful that the developers keeps that focus and didn’t add some obscure African tribe. Go make your own game “Age of Indigenous Tribes” and we’ll see how well it sells.

1 Like

Wouldn’t the celts be a bit more accurate?

Though the Welsh people are Celtic, they used longbows even earlier than the English so the “Celts” civilization in the game, which is a hybrid of medieval Scotland and late classical Picts, does not really fit in.

Ironically the Welsh were actually more “Briton” (which refers to either pre-roman Celts in Great Britain, and Roman-Britons before the Anglo-Saxon migration) than the English. Though the “Britons” in the game feel more like English.

Actually we should blame the earliest devs for using overly-general or anachronistic names like “Britons” and “Celts”.


Really? You wanna split the Italians into Genoese, Milanese, Venetians which are very similar but not have Norman Sicily, wholly distinct from the northern Italians in culture, history and military. And splitting the Celts into what? Irish and Scottish? You cannot be serious that you’d include the Irish before the Normans.

This is just silly, Normans are more unique than anything you listed and arguably the most important in their historical impact.

Well, there are a lot of potential north Italy states that can be justified to be their own civs. For example venetians were always more closer to the byzantines and the balkans than to the rest of Italy.