Persia existed at the beginning and at the end of the Middle Ages so it would be the perfect candidate for a split.
The same way Romans and Italians are totally different civs.
1 Like
then also swedes and Vikings?
1 Like
Theoretically yes but I think Persia needs this a lot more.
Age of Empires 4 Knights of cross and roses DLC was presented on march 10 and is today (March 18th) available for preorder, with a release on April 8.
Age of Empires 2 sneak peek released on March 11 and will be available mid April. I guess between April 15 and April 22.
That means we will maybe be able to preorder it between, let’s say, tomorrow March 19 and April 1st? 
2 Likes
Swedes not relevant enough in AOE2 timeline. If anything, as I have always argued for, the Vikings should be renamed into the Norse and represent the viking era Scandinavians (particularly Norwegians = Norse) with a new civ being the Danes which was a high to late medieval era regional powerhouse in the baltics.Anything justifying the presence of Sweden would take the shape in some form of bizarre Kalmar union civ.
Personally speaking, if the Persians are to split, I prefer to split the Eastern and Western Iranian peoples. The Persians would represent the Western Iranian peoples of the Iranian Plateau, including the Sassanids and Safavids, with superior heavy cavalry and gunpowder. On the other hand, the new civ could represent the Eastern Iranians of Central Asia, such as the Sogdians, with superior trading, non-Islamic monks, and horse archers.
1 Like
Honestly the Sassanids belong to Chonicles and then we can have an East-West split in AoE2.
There is noting stopping anyone from making Chronicles civs fight AoE2 civs so they can easily be used as a replacement for the Persians in all scenarios where they are representing the Sassanids.
The Bukhara scenario would need to be reworked with the Chronicles Sassanides as the playable civ.
The Scourge of God would also have the Sassanids instead of Persians too but they are just a less relevant enemy there.
1 Like
Pagan Shrine in Castle Age and when you up to Imperial Age then you will have the current monastery model for Lithuanians.
How sad to me to always read that most people would like to kick 300 to 700 AD out of the game 
8 Likes
There is something in the sneak peek patch note that makes me thinking of how it could work.
Maybe you noticed that chinese Rocketery will affect the new trebuchet-mounted ship in a way that its projectiles will be changed into rockets.
I never saw a tech changing the unit sprite, as in replacing the trebuchet by a rocket propeller rail, so for me, the ship is not going to be a trebuchet ship but more a … Ballista ship.
Any one here knows detailsa bout chinese ship design of that era ?
Imagine it’s a floating giant multi-storey construct, like a stronghold on water. “Lou Chuan” literally means “Tower Ship”.
This type of ship tends to be primarily used to defend critical waters such as lakes or rivers. The expansive deck can be equipped with catapults like ballistas and trebuchets, while archers can fire from the construct. Movement is basically slow, requiring large sails and a large number of oarsmen, and it might even remain stationary, like a fortress on the shore, moving only when necessary.
3 Likes
Playing as Vikings and Persians is cool, everyone knows of them and has a mental image of how they were.
Playing as the historically accurate™ states and dynasties is lame, nobody has any idea what they’re about and are too specific with no broader appeal.
That’s why I hate those split requests. India was never a unified subcontinent, that’s why it was split in the first place. I especially don’t want my favorite civ like Persians being split to Eastern/Western part or by some dynasty timeline and have its units and gameplay elements scattered into the successors. This game doesn’t have to be a documentary, having a more general terms is completely fine!
3 Likes
I would like to defend the Eastern-Western split. Introducing the Sogdians (Eastern Iranian peoples) won’t change the current Persians, basically not gonna take anything away from them. Their tech tree and gameplay should not be affected too much. The Sogdians would have their own characteristics and identity, such like defense, monks (non-Islamic) and horse archers, which are where the Persians are weak. It’d just change the meaning of Persians from representing the entire Iranian world to representing the Western Iranian peoples. In any case, the current Persians in the game basically have focused on the Western Iranian peoples on the Iranian Plateau (like the Sassanids and Safavids) rather than those Sogdian city-states in Central Asia. All of this is just similar to what we commonly call the “Chinese split”, which is actually just introducing the neighbors of Han Chinese.
I’m not a fan of splitting a civ by periods too. I think that would put a lot of civilizations in the same or similar situation.
Each Chinese dynasty in China obviously had its own characteristics. The Spanish Conquistadors were not part of the Reconquista. The Wagon and Turtle Ship all emphasize the very late period in the timeline, while the early military representatives of Koreans should be Hwarang warriors. The early medieval Japanese military consisted of a small number of elite samurai mounted archers, while the late medieval one consisted of large numbers of conscripted peasant infantry. The Franks were axe-throwing barbarians in the early Middle Ages and heavily armored knights during the Hundred Years’ War. The Magyars went from being an aggressive pure nomadic people with light horsemen to a settled kingdom with knights, castles and walls defending Europe against pagans. Etc…
That being said, I would support the introduction of the Gokturks, whether people consider them to be split from the Turks or the Tatars. The Gokturks would represent the pure nomadic peoples in the East in the pre-Islamic period, which are sufficiently different from the Turks/Tatars in terms of geographical location, military characteristics and religion. Clearly, their introduction won’t affect or change the Turks/Tatars too, except for the list of AI leaders and the civs in the campaigns.
The Gokturks, Sogdians, and even Tibetans (if the upcoming DLC doesn’t include them) can make for an interesting and meaningful DLC focused on completing the story of pre-Islamic Central Asia.
2 Likes
Were the Lithuanians Orthodox? Because the current EE monastery is an Orthodox church.
The CE monastery is also based on an Orthodox church (and a Georgian one at that), one of the things that bother me about Georgians being put in the Mediterranean set and getting a monastery replacement.
No, they were pagans first and then converted to Catholicism.
I know they were Pagans first, I was asking what they converted to.
Anyway, I really wonder why they didn’t add more church models instead of leaving multiple CE and EE civs with unfitting monasteries.
1 Like
In this regard, in England, the Vikings were known as ‘Northmen’, ‘Norse’ or ‘Norwegians’, later to be called Danes. Because the terms Norwegian and Danish referred to all Scandinavians, without distinction to modern nations. In addition to these terms, widespread throughout the West was the term Pagans. Using the place of origin to subdivide them will only happen a little later.
So maybe just calling them Vikings is OK? At the end of the day we have the Saracens, which would probably only be the Arabs? Since we have the Berbers.
1 Like
Kind of. After the colapse of the Abbasid Caliphatecentral authority, many (if not most) of the successor states in the fertile crescent were originated by ghulam warlords and previous turkic governors. At the same time, turkic war bands served as mercenaries everywhere, the warfare style was mostly turkic in nature, and most of the state armies core were turkic slave-warriors. There were some kurds warlords here and there as well, like our beloved Champion of Islam.
This phenomenon didn’t take place in the Maghreb and the Arabian Peninsula, tho.
I would still prefer to get them renamed to “Arabs”, since the bureocreacy, higher social and merchant classes, and the overall web of society was bond by the arab islamic super-identity, spreading like a cohesive net in an ocean of ethnic groups.
But yeah, the Saracen term seem to loosely integrate this strong turkic influence that began in the 8th century.
I wait for Chronicles treatment tbh. Current Persians primarily represents Safavids mainly.
I was thinking I wished they would upgrade Shimazu and Nobunaga with the new nature assets.
1 Like