Because it was fully independent during the entire medieval period.Also its the main force stopping ottoman expansion to europe.
Sorry but I donāt see how thatās related to the Sforza campaign.
As far as civ bonuses and what not, sure. Issue is, I wouldnāt exactly say thereās a plethora of graphical resources for New World or African civs to choose from like there is for European & Asian civs. For example, in my Chimu civ design that was implemented via scenario, I had to use the Pachacuti hero sprite for the Chimu UU, which as you might imagine, would be more than a little awkward in the Pachacuti campaign. The only other options besides using Inca heroes are the Iroquois and Amazon warriorsā¦whichā¦yeah, no. Thatās why I personally find the coverage argument of adding new civs so compelling. If you want to design a new civ in-game for European or Asian civs, say Venetians, Saxons, Sogdians, etc, there are tons of resources you can draw from including a variety of UU and Hero sprites and architectural styles that could be fitting. Versus extremely limited resources for New World or African civs/campaigns.
Sure this is true for some civs, like Mississippians or Hisatsinom, but there are plenty of American civs that are well-attested enough to provide plenty of material, but havenāt been added yet (Chimu, Muisca, Tarascans, Zapotecs or Mixtecs, Carib/Taino).
3 Likes
Pachacuti is exactly the case for why there should be no mirror-civ campaigns. Now, for Inca, you donāt have a lot of options because the only other choice wouldāve been the Incaās fight against Spain, which wouldāve likely only been a replay of the same themes and tropes from Cauhtemoc.
In terms of the Venetian-Byzantine connection, I think it may have applied to the early years of Venice, but that connection faded as Venice reached its golden centuries from the 4th Crusade to the Renaissance, Venice had lost its Byzantine legacy minus the loot brought from Constantinople. It would have been strange to see High Renaissance Sforza battling catephracts. Byzantines arenāt as gunpowder focused, which was characteristic of Venetian renaissance warfare.
I think Ports were chosen because they are, like historical Venice, particularly naval-oriented. The Organ Gun belongs more to Italy as some Italian states conceptualized and deployed such weapons.
1 Like
Fair enough, but couldnāt that be just altered Italians/Byzantines like in the Pachacuti campaign?
I agree.
Yes, for some civs there is not much info accessible, but I think for the game there is enough online. And there are other African civs besides the Bantu; we donāt need to include all the Bantu at once. As I said, we can put a bantu civ together with others in an African dlc and maybe in the future add more.
If you mean the limit of 48 civs, then this is a big IF.
Not sure, aoe2 is not that demanding. Itās basically army composition, and economy and religion for the bonuses. Arts for the UI, units and building is the easiest.
As I said, we donāt need to place all the Bantu at once and not even now. I personally donāt see a problem if a dlc in Asia comes first.
Correct me if Iām wrong. Do you propose an umbrella bantu civ to guarantee a foothold for them first (and with the possibility of splitting later, like @SirWiedreich said)?
Well, I find it not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. Even if weāre close to the limit, Iād still prefer a specific bantu civ to an umbrella. A limited representation (in a specific Bantu civ) would be better than a bad representation (in an amalgamated civ that never really existed). And it would be easier for devs to add more of a Bantu civ naturally than āforcedā by requests similar to Indians who are sure to come up with an amalgamated civ.
As for campaigns, if lack of sources is an issue, I would come up with extending the limit a bit to ~1650 in the case of Africans and Americans. I know, no one would like that. But I donāt see a problem because their warfare with the exception of the bombard cannons (which are already in the game) was medieval enough for the game: swords, shields and bows, pitched wars and sieges.
Really sad that you or anyone else has to say something like that here
It kind of depends what the devsā plans are for the next DLC. If itās intended as an African DLC, as some suspect, it would make more sense to do several highly focused, fairly accurate civs. Half of my interest in them making umbrella civs is so that we donāt have to wait another 10 years for them to finally get around to certain areas (as is more likely to happen if they donāt make any umbrella civs IMO). Although another way around this, as someone else pointed out, would just be to do more Forgotten-style DLCs with various major civs from around the world, and I would be a fan of that. The other half of my interest in umbrella civs is so that we would have a broad pool of resources (graphics, heroes, and the like) that could be used to represent many cultures from the region, but this could be completely bypassed if the devs would just focus on adding more Editor content with each DLC (itās been rather sparse for a while).
Also, there are some civs that just make more sense as an umbrella civ than others (for example, a Mississippian civ would cover several cultures but it would be appropriate because we donāt really know enough about any one of them to make it super distinct). I suppose Bantu may be a poor choice for an umbrella civ since we have enough info to diversify civs within that broad characterization.
That may be a little too far, but frankly I wouldnāt mind going 50 years in each direction from where weāre at now.
1 Like
Even if we donāt have the limit of 48 civilizations, obviously we still wonāt be able to reach 100 civilizations.
I feel that 60 or so is already the most suitable total number of civilizations for the game.
Compared to AoE3, yes.
But the number of records determines the amount of material. How many campaigns it can launch and how many campaigns of other civs it can participates in, shows the true potential of a civilization and its value to the game.
It is not difficult to make a civilization, but it is more difficult to make a civilization rich in potential and value.
To be honest, I also prefer a specific Kongolese civilization.
This got me thinking, is there any way to compete with other potential civilizations if the remaining Bantu groups have lost the Kongolese, the most competitive content? If merging the remaining groups into one civilization cannot create enough competitiveness, let alone make them their own civilization.
This will result in a specific Kongolese in the game, but most likely no other Bantu civilization in the end. Once other Bantu groups are needed in campaigns, they must be represented by the Kongolese or other African civilizations close to their characteristics. Itās fine if people can accept this, but if itās not, a common Bantu civilization that includes various groups has its special value at least.
A principle is a principle because once it is broken, it is easy for someone to want to turn it into a slippery slope. If 1650 is feasible, then 1700 may not be far away.
The only exception I can accept so far is the Siege of Osaka in 1615. That was the real end of a century and a half of war that began in the 15th century, and so has its own special significance.
3 Likes
The threshold for this is pretty low though. Basically you need leader names, a campaign, wonder, and enough cultural/economic/military knowledge to design a handful of bonuses and a UU. Having tons of documentation beyond that doesnāt really add anything thatās needed from the perspective of civ design and doesnāt justify adding a civ that would otherwise be boring.
We donāt need lots more Burgundian or Sicilian type civs just ābecause we know a lot about them,ā especially if the comparative value they would add is low due to existing in a location thatās already the most saturated with civs.
Furthermore, I actually think that sometimes limited information or partial unknowns can be a good thing that allows for some historically inspired but imaginative designs. For example, knowing that there was some level of cultural exchange between South America and Polynesia during a rough time period is enough for at least a scenario; we donāt need diaries from every crew member to ensure that our recreation of the event is a perfect documentary. I appreciate it when campaigns prioritize fun over being blandly historical all the time (like capturing Spanish horses in the Montezuma campaign). Otherwise you end up with some of the campaigns of other games, which are āhistorical,ā but also boring AF.
2 Likes
Your understanding of what I am stating is not precise enough.
The Chinese people fought various wars from the Tang Dynasty to the Wanli period of the Ming Dynasty, whether they were a civil war, or against the Gokturks, Sogdians, Tibetans, Khitans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Dali Kingdom, Goryeo, Japanese pirates, Vietnamese, Mongols and so on, all can make campaigns, because there are enough records about 5W1H. This civilization can develop many campaigns, and it can also appear in the campaigns of other civilizations, which makes the slot occupied by it invaluable.
The Burgundians and the Sicilians certainly had enough records, and they were introduced not just because the records were many words, but because the records about them were so rich in material for the game. The former brings more content and changes to the most important war in the world, the Hundred Yearsā War, and provide a way to represent the history of the Medieval Low Countries. The latter, in addition to providing a better interpretation of the history of the Crusaders, also showed their connection to a considerable number of European civilizations.
The design that Aztec warriors capturing Spanish horses is possible precisely because through the Spanish records, we know some details of the Aztecsā confrontation with the Spanish.
We know through records that the conflict between the native Mexicans provided the Spanish with strong allies; that the Aztec army at the time was powerless against the charge of the Spanish cavalry; that there was a night when the Aztecs had a rare upper hand and drove the Spanish out; that the key to knowing the fall of the Aztec capital was the control of the lake by Spanish galleons.
So in the Aztec campaign, we can provide a loyal native ally called Tlaxcala for the Spanish; can design a small fun which the Aztecs obtain the secrets of the Spanish armyās strong power; can assign a scenario dedicated to La Noche Triste; can make the Spanish navy particularly active in the last scenario.
There is a historical campaign first, and then there is a little fun freely created in the campaign. Itās nothing to do with ādesign freely because itās not recordedā. The record does not need to be overly detailed, but the point is to be that the more the better. We donāt have to know every soldierās name, age, place of origin and hobbies, but when you donāt understand enough or clearly what wars they have fought in history, who the enemy were, the development of wars, and the key to winning or losing, thereās no way to provide enough useful design cues for a campaign, let alone a little fun to design in there. Otherwise, we could create tons of campaigns that didnāt exist, like the epic naval battles between the Dravidians, Japanese and Vikings in the Caribbean Sea, or the conquest of the America by the Mongols. Those sound interesting, right?
For example, if Haudenosaunee were a civilization, it most likely didnāt have enough medieval records to provide a campaign, but only a historical scenario to present the process that Great Peacemaker made the members of the Confederacy go from fighting each other to forming alliances and fighting a common enemy the Algonquians together.
It would be a pity for such a civilization to have as one slot as other civilizations such as the Chinese. So I would also expand the definition of this civilization from the Haudenosaunee themselves to represent the entire Native American peoples. This way, at least this civilization has a chance to represent Skaelings and to get a second historical scene, the other side of Vinlandsaga.
I know you are a passionate supporter of Native American civilization. I have no problem with that, but I hope you donāt lose sight of the importance of historical records.
4 Likes
Possibly, but Iām not convinced thereās any flaw in my understanding that isnāt equally present on both sides. I just donāt place as much importance upon excess documentation beyond a certain baseline as you do, with regards to whether or not a civ is considered viable. I also place a high degree of value on oral histories, archaeological discoveries, and cultural and linguistic clues that can be used to estimate the timeline and unfolding of many key historical events and major conflicts, including how and with whom they fought. Obviously written records are great and are the most accessible, but the lack of a library does not mean the absence of information.
I grant that you have a point here. But even if thereās only enough for a scenario, I donāt see this as problem, or as prohibitive for the civ to be added on that basis. Not even every civ thatās already in the game has itās own campaign so IMO its fine if a couple lesser known civs are featured mainly in a historical battle. Sure you can say that maybe the devs will finally get around to making a Chinese, Mayan, or other campaigns, it just doesnāt seem to be a priority as far as I can tell.
Bruh. If youāre not particularly interested or aware of North American cultures thatās fine, but donāt pretend that making them all into 1 civ is much less terrible of an idea than making most of Sub-Saharan Africa into one civ, or reverting the India civs back to a single lump civ and throwing SE Asia into the umbrella with them. Iāll agree that usage of more umbrella civs may be somewhat more appropriate in North America than elsewhere, but with all due respect, making 1 blanket civ to cover everything north of Central Mexico is just a bad idea on every level. Among so many other problems, there isnāt even anything close to a unifying architectural style, despite their architecture being overall more simplified than Euro/Asiatic styles.
This is a decent point, and Iāve nothing wrong with their campaign, but to be Frank (pun intended) they could have reasonably been represented with existing civs. Theyāre in the game now of course, and itās fine that way. I would just prefer not to prioritize adding civs like these to areas that are already the most saturated.
Most of these can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty for at least 6+ North and South American civs that have not yet been added. TBH the most problematic things in some instances is the exact dates, but I find that to be one of the least essential details, given that the level of tech and style of warfare remained consistent in some areas for centuries. Knowing whether something happened in 875 or 950 AD doesnāt really add anything to the gameplay either.
Look, youāre a smart guy and I generally respect your opinion, so Iād appreciate you not straw-manning my points by making obviously bad and hyperbolic comparisons. Itās disingenuous to compare my proposal of filling in a few gaps when we know the big picture with creating entirely non-sensical fantasy situations that we can be certain never happened. Anyway, itās obvious we have fairly different outlooks on future civ design: I prioritize coverage of highly neglected areas (āForgotten Empiresā, if you will) as long as there is enough basic information to create a well-designed, appropriate civ and Scenario or Campaign. You seem to favor maximum levels of written documentation and maximum levels of interaction with existing civs, even if it means adding civs to a region that is already very civ-dense (correct me if Iām mistaken of course, I donāt want to mischaracterize your position). To each his own.
2 Likes
You should if youāre worried about designing a civ that is fun to play with a fun campaign and that decently resembles its real life counterpart. That just makes things easier, which at the end of the day is more important than pleasing the minority that does not.
I donāt know if Iām the one misunderstanding his argument, but I feel like youāre deviating from the discussion. We already have tons of umbrellas in the game, and as much as it might upset us history nerds, theyāre usually more practical than not. In any case FE might need any representation for north american peoples and there is only one civ available, that is one the thatās going to be used, at most with some alterations like in the Pachacuti campaign. Extending the inspiration for the civ to make this representation not as awkward (like most civs in the game do) sounds like an extremely logical thing to do and any complaint borders whining.
Again, I might be misinterpreting things, but I think his point is about probability, not possibility. You can say whatever you want how much historical record there is about these cultures, but so long as there is one culture that has better historical record and is not yet in the game, they are most likely not the first option.
1 Like
Are you trying to use this argument to show that there is so much information about Medieval Native Americans that could compete with Old World civilizations? Regardless of the fact that some of that information is still mythological, there is also absolutely plenty of Old World oral histories, archaeological discoveries, and cultural clues.
I am by no means disdainful of culture and history of Native Americans, but there is a reason why written records are one of the main tasks of historical research.
You should be aware that I never stated that I thought the natives of North America were all the same. At the same time, itās a pity that you didnāt notice my efforts to improve the chances of any North American civilization emerging in a situation where the difficulties of reality make it almost impossible for North American civilization to be introduced.
The biggest difference between India you mentioned and North America is that the medieval subcontinent already has a lot of records and materials to let us know that they have the value of being their respective own civilizations. Of course, perhaps the Haudenosaunee could also have been introduced as their own civilization, excluding other groups. But how many civilizations with less content like this can people accept? Apparently, even one of the divided Indian civilizations has higher priority than a common North American civilization to the dev. Even so, the Indian civilization can only change from 1 to 4.
When the reality is that the probability of North American civilization being introduced is extremely low, merging so that a single slot can carry more content is the most efficient approach. In my opinion, at least as much as possible to merge (or in other words, expand the umbrella) gives this one North American civilization a better chance of competing with other potential Old World civilizations. When the power is not enough, you should do everything possible to focus on one point, not to scatter. So Iād try to make the Haudenosaunee include other groups as much as possible, and if theyāre really too different to be able to, then Iād make the civ as well as the game ignore that group entirely. At least doing so would provide 1 richer North American civilization, rather than 2 or 3 with less content. Even so, to be honest, thereās still plenty of better material out there in the Old World, making this single most likely North American candidate still very probably not to be picked by the devs.
This is a purely objective and rational judgment, and has nothing to do with my knowledge or feelings about them. If you donāt like my judgment, I totally respect it. Perhaps the best thing to do is for the game to ignore medieval North America. As long as it is not touched, there will be no controversy, no comparison, and no compromise.
Before the Burgundians were introduced, which civilization did you think represented the Low Countries? Franks? Celts? Teutons?
In my opinion, the dev value the content that civilization can bring to the game far more than how much area and where the civilization can cover on the world map.
Obviously, you know that historically those things didnāt happen. How do you know? Because you canāt find any reliable records to prove those things. No matter how interesting they could be made, they are not accepted.
The lack of records is the most fundamental flaw when records provide potential campaigns and campaigns can carry the designerās creativity. I donāt mean, of course, that a lack of records will necessarily make the campaign tarnished, but the details you donāt care about can be the keys to making a campaign or civilization more interesting.
The civilizations and campaigns of Dawn of the Dukes are well-received, but all those come from what youād call a very dense region. If the historical records omit Jan Žižkaās involvement in the Battle of Grunwald as a mercenary, it might not have been a big deal for the game and the civilization design, but it wouldnāt have been able to create such an epic coherent storytelling that the campaigns couldnāt be as good as it is now.
1 Like
Again, this can be done with a fairly modest base of historical knowledge. When Rise of the Rajas came out, I loved it because it had lots of cool new units, an awesome architecture set, and the civs were fun to play, fairly different from any previously existing civs, and covered an area that had previously been neglected. Not because the devs had compiled a boring 500 page book report rife with superfluous documentation to justify why these civs deserved to be featured and had a dozen footnotes justifying every choice of bonuses, UUs and tech trees. Even if we had far fewer records from these regions, it would still be interesting to feature these civs, and I would argue the same is true of (some) American civs.
In other posts in this thread, as well as the post you quote, Iāve argued for the usefulness of umbrella civs. Whether itās a good idea or not is largely a matter of scale, but putting nearly all of North America in 1 civ when it easily has 4-5 viable umbrella civs is as ridiculous as the examples Iāve referred to above.
I just fundamentally disagree that this is anywhere near the #1 criteria for whether a civ should be added. Yet I see my points about coverage of neglected areas and designing civs that are culturally novel and different from current civs going completely ignored, so I guess I shouldnāt expect much beyond a constant beating of the ārecordsā drum.
Iām going to be a little hyperbolic here, but do we need to create individual civs for all the Italian City-States just because they had lots of historical records and arguably could be differentiated from each other? Most people would say no, and thereās a reason for the fairly widespread preference to not focus much more on Europe, despite the existence of good candidates.
Thatās an odd way to put it, as if everything has to be a competition. My contention is that there is enough information for at least several viable new world civs.
Oh I noticed. Iād rather they just make 1 good civ than a ridiculous umbrella though. Perhaps Miźkmaq so we can at least have our āSkraelings.ā Or Haudenosaunee who were at least adjacent enough to make a far more credible stand-in for Skraelings than Aztecs, which is the best option currently.
Hard to say exactly, but my gut feeling is at least 3-4. American civs arenāt necessarily the highest priority in most polls given the current (justified) interest in further African civs, but they are popular and usually rank at least within the top 3-4 regions to focus on next. To be honest, I wonāt be surprised if Miākmaq or Haudenosaunee are never added, but I would consider it a major oversight to not add the Chimu and Tarascans at bare minimum, and Muisca, Taino, Zapotecs, Wari, and Haudenosaunee would also be good choices IMO.
I agree on a limited basis, i.e. Iād be okay with a Haudenosaunee umbrella that even included limited aspects of the Miākmaq or Algonquians, but even the Mississippians are too dissimilar to be included in an umbrella civ, much less any tribe further west. At least I respect the argument for the extended coverage that otherwise would not be present.
Arguably all of those except Celts would be passable. To be frank, pre-Burgundians, lack of specific representation of the Low Countries during the medieval period wasnāt exactly a huge oversight crying out for attention, given that it was mostly ruled by existing civs (HRE) and didnāt come to stand out on its own until fairly late in the Medieval period. Now take this argument and use for American civs, including the Skraelings.
Far more than that, they would have been logistically impossible given what we know, e.g. about the capabilities of the Japanese navy (and their isolationism).
No doubt. To some extent, the civilization density of Europe and Asia is justified due to their hosting a variety of advanced and diverse nations, my point is (and has been) that there are other considerations that can be important for civ inclusion.
Perhaps. At the end of the day, this discussion is kind of silly. Devs will do what they do, and while Iāve made my preferences clear, Iāll buy and enjoy whatever DLCs they make. All we can really do is wait and see.
1 Like
Venice, Sicily were never part of medieval KINGDOM OF ITALY.
Most people think āItalianā refers to the whole peninsula
5 Likes
The community doesnāt crave Europe, thatās a matter of subjective preference.
How to make a limited slot with as much content as possible to generate more value is a matter of objective question.
After all, it is because of the fact that the number of civilizations cannot be infinite.
Limits are cruel. There are so many candidates, why not compare each other?
Obviously, we can all claim that our favorite potential civilizations have enough information to provide content to qualify for a slot. Then it becomes normal to look at these potential civilizations through various criteria to decide who has a better chance of getting limited slots.
When India also has only 4 civilizations, think again, the pressure of limit.
My judgment is up to 1 and very likely 0 for North America. The community could accept that a civilization with less content than other civilizations get introduced to give the game a symbol of medieval North America. That is probably enough for people. As for Latin America, I donāt see the necessity or urgency except for the Muisca, but at least the natives of Latin America are more competitive than the natives of North America because of the detailed Spanish records. These records make potential campaigns predictable and imaginable, so please donāt feel like theyāre irrelevant anymore.
Thatās why I used Haudenosaunee as an example from the beginning. They are the basis for what could possibly be the only North American civilization to be introduced, because I think they are able to provide the most content among the North American groups to the game. How big this umbrella can get is another matter.
Now in the Vinlandsaga scenario, SkrƦlings are made up of Iroquois Warriors. I know actually they were supposed to be close to the Inuit peoples, but the game is so defined, so it is almost the best way now to have that only North American civilization provide another scenario about the other side of the Vinlandsaga. Perhaps, giving the scene editor an Inuit dog sled as a non-trainable unit would make the scene better. Thatās all.
Hey, more humor please. Here is no need for such a calculation here.
Btw, the Japanese isolationism was not in the Middle Ages.
I have my preferences too, but I always think that we have to look at these things more objectively.
I find that your diction provides a sufficient level of humor.
In a certain sense it was. Even before they officially adopted an isolationist policy during the Edo period, they were mainly focused inward with civil wars and the occasional Korean invasion, generally not focusing on exploration or initiating trade.
1 Like
But the person gave you a very objective point of view, and nowhere was it accusatory of Eurocentrism towards you. Why the victimisation?
Itās a little sad that valid critiques of Eurocentrism - which from this post onwards most of the times did not happen - are lumped together with weird comments such as:
In fact, with the last two quotes, itās very funny as @UpmostRook9474 is the first to bring up Eurocentrism. Itās doubly weird as your initial post was also very reasonable, so I really donāt get the comment about it.
It would be very helpful to the discussion if certain polemics are avoided, considering this prompted several posts of ātoxic communityā or the like unnecessary to what otherwise has been a very civil discussion about potential civs from Africa.
To add my two cents, and something I think someone mentioned earlier is that instead of Bantu civ, a less umberlla-y civ from the region could be enough, I also support this idea. As someone from the Baltics but not Lithuania, I know my own country (and culture, and history) have very little chance of ever being represented in such games, be it AoE2 or Civilization. So I was very pleasantly surprised - if slightly confused as to why (and even more so with Dawn of the Dukes adding Poles) - to see Lithuanians, as itās close enough to feel represented.
However, questioning whether a civ is valid enough due to the unfortunate lack and loss of records from African medieval times, I think as some others put it as well, there is enough to craft a civ around it. The AoE2 devs have quite often gotten creative with the game mechanics in order to make a fully playable civ. Not everything has to be historically accurate, and quite a lot can also be about legends with little historical evidence. Civ design and civ history arenāt always hand in hand anyway, otherwise Mamelukes wouldnāt throw scimitars and Thirisadai would not be a unit. Some have already complained (and justifiably so) by the latter, however arenāt some entire civs currently in the game also made up out of legends and no records? (I think it was Goths or Huns or something, but canāt exactly remember which.)
Pretty sure there are enough written records for both huns and goths by romans.
Yeah moreso asking about the current civs in general, as I couldāve sworn there was some/one civ that relies heavily on myths and not actual records and stuff.