New DLC Suggestion: Between the Worlds. Germanic Tribes

[RealMatrim2]

@TommoChocolate

I’m sorry,

That you do not have to do, because you are showing again your usual pissed off side…

@TommoChocolate

but this is just ridiculous.

Your are that and are starting to rekindle an argument, that is not one. I had a usual discussion with @TwerDefender last night.

@TommoChocolate

Those might be your reasons for disliking civs from the Indian Subcontinent,

I do not have any, because you obviously misunderstood me. What I meant was, that a number of Indian civs are not well known to Europeans and that is actually true. The sentence has nothing to do with, whether I like Indian civs or not.

@TommoChocolate

but you shouldn’t project your reasons onto other people –

I did not do it. However you always have this tendency in your frequent hostilities.

@TommoChocolate

especially when those reasons are so problematic.

These reasons are not problematic at all, you do confuse apples with pears.

@TommoChocolate

(even if you think you can)

So do you think, you can represent other peoples opinions, but accuse me of doing that… Therefore you are contradicting yourself.

[TommoChocolate]

@RealMatrim2

Your are that and are starting to rekindle an argument that is not one. I had a normal discussion with @TwerDefender last night

I wouldn’t have got involved, except that you were making a (false) statement about the opinions of all European players.

[RealMatrim2]

@TommoChocolate

except that you were making a (false) statement about the opinions of all European players.

I can not see a false statement, because I am European myself. And when I made one, I then corrected it again. An now please let the topic in peace…

[TommoChocolate]

@RealMatrim2

I can not see a false statement, because I am European myself.

So you think because you are European, you can speak for all Europeans?

[RealMatrim2]

@TommoChocolate

So you think because you are European, you can speak for all Europeans?

I never said that. Can you see it, how you provocate again.

[TommoChocolate]

@RealMatrim2

I never said that. Can you see it, how you provocate again.

Then what did you mean by this?:

@RealMatrim2

I think, it is because this, that you do not like these two civs from the Indian Subcontinent, because they are simply not known enough for us Europeans. We heard little or nothing about them in history, which is why there is no current reference to finding them interesting or having fun playing with these civs.

Perhaps it wasn’t intentional, but you really did make a statement about the opinions of Europeans in general here, when really these are just your own opinions.

[RealMatrim2]

@TommoChocolate

Then what did you mean by this?:

You can read it carefully, than you know it.

@TommoChocolate

Perhaps it wasn’t intentional,

I do not see anything wrong with it. It is just a statement, that applies to a bigger part of european people.

@TommoChocolate

when really these are just your own opinions.

Nobody but you seemed to mind yesterday night. Unfortunately you make a disput out of nothing.

[TwerDefender]

@RealMatrim2

I think, it is because this, that you do not like these two civs from the Indian Subcontinent, because they are simply not known enough for us Europeans

nah, for me it’s mostly that they have awful mechanics with magic shields and mode switching. i hadn’t heard about the goths or teutons either when I first played aoe2 as a child

@RealMatrim2

I can partly understand, that you do not find good the Burgundians. I am having a bit of trouble with the choosing name of this civ, because the campaign takes place in Flanders respectively Nederlands

again, for me it’s the mechanics: flemish revolution and charged attacks. just no.

@RealMatrim2

The Georgians are not so foreign to me

I spent a month in Georgia, it’s a beautiful country. I have no problem with Georgians existing, just how they are implemented. Monaspa are the worst designed unit (next to shrivamsha) and I find the mule carts super clunky and awkward. It’s also just an incredibly bland civ to play

I’d rather have an Atlantis civ that’s fun to play with interesting mechanics than a historical civ with bad design.

[RealMatrim2]

@TwerDefender

for me it’s mostly that they have awful mechanics with magic shields and mode switching.

Okay that is good to know. There can be various reasons, why one prefers certain civs and not others.

@TwerDefender

again,

You have not explained up to now…

@TwerDefender

for me it’s the mechanics: flemish revolution and charged attacks. just no.

It is an opinion, I told you another opinion for the same civ.

[Tamino]

I would definitely buy a DLC like that as many Germans would.

Swiss and Austria should also be represented by civs. There is so much room for interesting campaigns.

[MUTYLATOR5553]

@Tamino

I would definitely buy a DLC like that as many Germans would.

Not only Germans… Pole too.

[MatM1996]

@Nebular905647

This thing already happened to France when separate Burgundians appeared in the game and no one knows why. They were never a free nation.

Yes, but the Burgundians in the game symbolize the Burgundian State (1384-1482) to differentiate them from the French and to represent the Dutch and Belgians…they already appeared in Joan of Arc’s campaign and serve as predecessors of the Dutch of AoE 3…

@BibelLesenGibtLeben

The green one is the “Teutons”, which is overlapping. Needs to be split up.

Yes, I would divide them into Swiss, Bavarian and Austrian…

@CanineCrown7153

Maybe they should be called Germans in the English localization

@SamePorpoise303

The issue is that Teutons is an obvious compromise, calling them Germans with goths and Franks around is confusing and Teutons also somewhat encompass the Teutonic order. I guess Alemans could be another ok, maybe even better compromise, one could say it’s too dark age sounding but Teutons could be ancient and again Franks… But still it’s a compromise.

Yes, it’s quite a topic, they should rename them Alemanii, Alemans or simply Germanics (Teutons sounds like civ from AoE 1) and let the Goths represent the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths…

@RealMatrim2

The Sicilians are the civ in the game, where I do not understand, why they were added to the game, it does just make less sense historically, not even with the Normans as their partly ruling class. The only sense in it, was to continue to pointlessly feed Italy with a unnecessary civ, just because certain graphic designers of the developers wanted to coloring maps for a Mediterranean civ with oranges and olives in the campaigns overview map. It is really unfortunate, to have to say something like that and I think, there is some truth in it.

Good point…Italy has 3 civs (Italians in the north, Romans in the center and Sicilians in the south) and the Germans only 1 or 2 if we count the Goths…

@RealMatrim2

​Below you can see a beautiful graphic representation of German and Italian states in the Middle Ages from the Age of Chivalry mod for Age of Empires 2 HD. However it is indeed the case, that they had a lot in common during this time.

Well Age of Chivalry influenced many of the 2 DE expansions (TLotW, DotD mainly)…

@TwerDefender

at least Romans was a mistake. the civ adds nothing to the game, except for god awful mechanics

It’s just that they wanted to monetize the game or else they would have left the game in TLK and that’s it…

@RealMatrim2

Yes unfortunately is this true. Even the term Roman is simply misleading because we are not in the Antiquity in the game but in the Middle ages. Western Roman Empire would have been appropriate. It would be nice, if they change this in writing and also the associated civ icon, but I have little realistic hope.

True, true, but it is what it is… civs with state names are more for AoE 4…

@RealMatrim2

I think, it is because this, that you do not like these two civs from the Indian Subcontinent, because they are simply not known enough for us Europeans. We heard little or nothing about them in history, which is why there is no current reference to finding them interesting or having fun playing with these civs. However they do not have to be bad, they can be very good, if they are well made and historically fit into the game.

The Gurjaras are from the Pratihara Empire (730-1036) and the Bengalis from the Pala Empire (750-1161) and the Bengali Sultanate (1352-1576)…

@RealMatrim2

I can partly understand, that you do not find good the Burgundians. I am having a bit of trouble with the choosing name of this civ, because the campaign takes place in Flanders respectively Nederlands. The developers could therefore rename the Burgundians to Flemish or Dutch, but of course I am almost certain that they will not do this, but I wanted to mention it anyway.

Yes, but if you add Dutch, the Dutch empire dates from 1581 onwards and Flemish does not say anything prior to 1830…

@SamePorpoise303

A civ is simply some people having a story to tell, civs are never added in a vacuum or for the sake of representation (otherwise we won’t have Sicilians or Burgundians), simply some dev though the hautevilles had a cool story and they added the Sicilians.
I personally don’t consider Romans an Italians split but whatever, they’re an Italian split as much as they’re a Franks, Spanish, Berbers etc split. Rome was not Italy, specially in late antiquity when central power was disintegrating (since the times of Diocletian or Constantine Italy was just a province among others and Rome was not the capital anymore) and it’s more correct to talk about gallo-romans, romano Britons, italo-romans etc. In the late empire the Roman state was more of a confederation, not too different from the hre, while people of Roman ethnicity were often not found anymore in the army but in religious or aristocratic positions and they gradually extinguished during the dark ages. The Latin peasants mixed faster with Germans until Romans lost their identity to romance people.
Romans belong in game but the civ design is not totally historically accurate and calling them western Romans wouldn’t make much sense, that’s already obvious since eastern Romans are always represented by byzantines, as early as in Alaric.

Exactly, you have a story and you want to represent it in a civ or a civ that has a story to tell…so you have campaigns without their own civ (Dracula) and civs without their own campaign (the ones in East Asia)…

@TommoChocolate

Obviously I can’t speak for @TwerDefender (even if you think you can), but my enjoyment of playing as a civ has no relationship whatsoever to how much I know about them from school and my own culture – and I can’t see why it would. For example, when AoE2 was new, I had only vaguely heard of the Mongols and knew basically nothing about them, but they quickly became my favourite civ.

Yes, the same thing happened to me with the Hauds, Lakotas or the Hausa in AoE 3…

@TwerDefender

again, for me it’s the mechanics: flemish revolution and charged attacks. just no.

It’s because they are AoM and AoE 3 mechanics, that’s why it seems strange to you…what the FE guys are looking for is to bring AoE 2 players closer to later AoEs mechanics so that little by little they move on to those games or modernizing AoE 2 for new generations…

@TwerDefender

mule carts super clunky and awkward.

It’s because they took it out of AoM and it feels weird in a 2D game…

@TwerDefender

I’d rather have an Atlantis civ that’s fun to play with interesting mechanics than a historical civ with bad design.

*They grabbed and put Atlanteans in AoE 2 xd…

@Tamino

Swiss and Austria should also be represented by civs. There is so much room for interesting campaigns.

Yes, for Switzerland I would give William Tell (1307-1315) and for Austria Frederick III (1442-1493)…

[Mahazona]

@MatM1996

Yes, I would divide them into Swiss, Bavarian and Austrian

No love for saxon/y?

[MatM1996]

Also…in fact you could create a Saxon campaign for the first holy emperor Otto I (936-973)…And for the Bavarian campaign, the son-in-law of Frederick III, Albert IV of Bavaria (1467-1508)… and then you put all the new German civs into the Barbarossa campaign (1152-1190)…

[BibelLesenGibtLeben]

Dear Developers, please bring such a DLC. It is not too much of work, and also you will make a fortune, as Germany has one of the biggest player bases. Also, the current Teuton / Hussite / Burgund situation is anachronistic. Please!

[MatM1996]

The Hussites and Burgundians are not anachronistic, both campaigns occur at the beginning of the 15th century (between 1405 and 1430)… the only anachronistic ones would be the Teutons who appear in the Barbarossa campaign, but then you have the Teutonic Order in the Battle of Grunwald in Zizka 2…

[DynasticPlanet5]

Dont respond to the bait post

[BibelLesenGibtLeben]

the campaigns are fine, but the civs are not, as both were part of the teutonic empire, i.e. the Holy Roman Empire. So the theoretical Teutons civs is dismantled with the introduction of these two civs. Lets dismantle Teutons as a whole and replace them by Bohemians, Burgund, Alleman, Thuringa, Saxony, Anglo…

[MatM1996]

Yes, maybe they do, they are missing an Alpine dlc (Swiss, Austrians/Germans, Bavarians) and a dlc in northern Europe (Swedes, Danes, Saxons)…

[BibelLesenGibtLeben]

I would LOVE an alpine DLC, given also the fact that Austrains are quite successful in the pro scene.