New Expansion DLC: Dawn of the Dukes

I can come up with African Empires that were 100 times bigger than duchies which were never independent in Medieval history. No one wants to buy stupid DLC-s like that, a Polish-Bohemian DLC is superior to that. Some people are too greedy and forgot the meaning of the game. It is called Age of Empires, not Age of Duchies: Insignificant Duchies Edition

According to the definition of tribe most of the Africans do not belong to them, unlike Northern European “duchies” like Finns or Estonians.

2 Likes

I don’t think you understood the point of the previous post: you need the contents of DLC’s to be easy to market and sell. Doesn’t matter what size of obscure tribes you can find if literally no one cares. Therefore this whole point can be dismissed.

btw: No one needs Bohemia civ, already represented in Teutons civ. It’s much more interesting to add actual new content to the game.

I agree, therefore we don’t need Baltic civs and Finno-Ugric civs, because (1) they were insignificant, (2) they are covered by Lithuanians and Magyars.

No one cares about a Baltic DLC or Finnish DLC.

2 Likes

Baltics obviously weren’t all that insignificant if a crusade was launched to convert their religion.

Three points,

  • the original game was called Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings.
  • Burgundians were a duchy as well but technically a very large kingdom.
  • Dukes is the name used by Slavic people for their kings
4 Likes

I think that many people usually don’t have concrete ideas of what they want, but more want a certain region covered.

TBH I had no idea the Sicilian Kingdom was a thing until Lords of the West came around. Cumans are extremely obscure too, though found some love too, especially the campaign.

On regards to Dukes of the West, with new civs confirmed and Eastern Europe as a theme, I think we’ll be getting Bohemians and Poles. I just really hope that they’ll come with a new architecture set too. I don’t want 6 civs using the Eastern European architecture set.

5 Likes

Africans, Indians etc. had kings and empires at the same time, hence they need to be added first before mere duchies. Burgundians are Franks.

Oversimplification. Adapted French language, but origins are distinct from the Franks.

Personally, I have repeatedly argued that the devs need to prioritize empires. The ones missing are:

Kanem/Bornu Empire
Tibetan Empire
Chola Empire
Pala Empire
Jurchen Empire
Ghorid Empire

If they choose to add other kingdoms up to that point, it’s not something I control but I do believe that they should be significant kingdoms with important history. Bohemia, Poland and Moldava/Wallachia qualify for East Europe (including Serbs) imho.

German people from Scandinavia so they are covered by existing civs doesn’t matter if Franks or Goths or Teutons.

This civilization is insignificant, they were small vassal states.

Perhaps they are insignificant but we have the Dracula campaign and Vlad the Impaler was Wallachian. Currently, that campaign switches between civs. It should just be a Wallachian/Romanian civ imho.

1 Like

Well, they clearly managed to be influential enough to make a name for themselves. While the tribe most certainly has a germanic origin as you say, they managed to develop into their own culture.

That is actually quite a good representation of the area. Most of what is present day Romania was controlled by the Magyars and Bulgarians (and later Turks), and populated by Magyars, Slavs, Saxons, etc. Vlachs were often moving from place to place and generally under the subjugation of one of the regional powers in the area.

No, the kingdoms of Wallachia and Moldava were inhabited by a nation, and ruled by Voivods who were, what we call in modern times, Romanians. Their language was established by then. Vlad the Impaler was not Magyar or Slav. He was Wallachian (Romanians).

1 Like

You missed the point. I didn’t say that Vlachs didn’t live in the area at all. They were just a minority and most of the times weren’t a very important factor.

I do not think that in Wallachia and Moldava Vlachs were a minority.

Wallachia was part of Bulgarian Empire, so they were a minority in the Empire they were a part of. When the Bulgarian Empire fell, the area was controlled and subjugated by various Turkic tribes from the steppes (e.g. Pechenegs) etc.

The turning point for Vlachs/proto-Romanians were the Ottoman invasions, as the Magyar, Saxon and Slav populations were depleted by the wars, the Vlachs re-settled the area and became majority, but this would happen well after the end of AoE2 timeframe.

Not always. They had periods of independence.

You are probably thinking of Transylvania. I’m talking about Wallachia and Moldova.

1 Like

Im kind of putting Transylvania and Wallachia together, because the story is the same, just different kingdoms/empires (magyars vs bulgarians). They were basically under the control of major powers, and the Vlachs became a factor only when the ‘original’ population depleted.

They were different kingdoms however. Wallachia and Moldava were kingdoms with largely Vlach majority.

The point is, Wallachia was most of the times not independent, and Vlachs did not really have much say in the course of events most of the times. I get it that they had some short periods of success here and there, but I don’t know if you can easily base a civ on that.