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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.