For the Vlachs I very much agre but The Serbs for the Serbian Empire that only lasted 25 years? At that point you should also insert the Croatians in some way.
For the Saxons… what do they have to do with the Balkans?
EDIT. OK, but you have to name them Transylvanian Saxons not Saxons.
Then America or Africa DLC is also likely.
Well, there should be a civ representing the south slavs. Perhaps a name for their common ancestral group prior to forming Serb and Croat identities. I might be wrong, but Croats are essentially South Slavs remaining with Rome and Serbs more influenced by the Byzantines.
Saxons, highly relevant civ as they will play out in early middle ages with the Britain, campaigns of Charlemagne - and then highly influential as a German settler people in the east and balkans.
The Teutons are more Teutonic Knight oriented but I think they should get a proper mounted Teutonic Knight.
I also believe the Sicilians should be renamed to Normans and have a proper mounted Knight unique to them as the Normans were dominant in high middle ages - conquering England, south of Italy and Sicily, the Levant.
Vikings renamed to Norse and represent viking period Scandinavians. Danes added to represent a formidable high and late middle age Nordic power (Kalmar Union).
Then Gauls should also exist in game, relevant to civs like Goths, Romans, Huns, Franks.
Venetians is also a relevant civ with Italians remaining to represent the Lombards, Tuscans, Ligurians etc.
And they were not even actual Saxons
Apparently most stemmed from Lorraine, which are from the Frankish tribe originally. But many Saxons and these German settlers became associated with Saxon culture and language.
Saxons used to speak what would later evolve to become Low German. Transilvanian Saxons, on the other hand, speak High German, a variety close to Luxembourgish.
They are different peoples, their only link is basically a “misnomer”.
Regardless, German settlers were prominent in the east and the balkans, relevant to Magyars, Vlachs, Poles etc. Saxons are good representative for this as a civ along with relevant also in early middle ages and migration period. They are a good choice for a third Germanic civ along with Teutons and Franks. Suebians or Alamannians who formed Swabians and the Swiss could also be argued for.
Oh god…not the tiny euro states discussion again.
To get back on topic. There are more updates today (4 of them), but all were done over a very short space of time, and are by Forgotten Empires. Perhaps it’s a final wave of checks before giving it the tick of approval?
But these German settlers arrived much later, from the 1100s onwards. I think the current Teuton civ is fine. Ironically the Teutonic Order first tried to create their own state in Transilvania. And these Transilvanian Saxons had a border lifestyle, mainly controlling castles and fortified villages.
I would even say the Teuton civs does represent them better than most Germans.
So are Goths, friend. The Goths would be the de facto civ for most of the early German civs, I don’t think this is the place for that discussion though…
Could be, could not be. With how little the info given is, it’s hard to tell.
Oh yeah. We are working with very little with pretty much everything here.
Although last update was 5 hours ago. They did this quick rush of checks, then nothing. Which is a stark contrast from the almost on-the-hour updates last week.
On this I agree. Anyone who is European knows that touching the Croatian or Serbian identity without including everyone means trouble.
The problem is that complicated, very very complicated.
West Slavs = Poles, Czechs (Bohemians), Slovaks, Silesians, Kashubians, and Sorbs.
East Slavs = Kievan Rus’ (Slavs) | Modern era → Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians.
South Slavs? Much more complicated. They were a large group of different tribes. The idea of a common descendant was only born in the late 17th century, then leading to the birth of the great Yugoslvia (now dissolved). Furthermore, we already have a representative of the South Slavs: the Bulgarians (= Seven Slavic tribes).
Go figure.
Let us not open this discussion again. The Sicilians are fine as they are; the only problem is that they lack a hint of Egyptian-inspired architecture (Arab architecture essentially does not exist).
The Normans who arrived in Sicily were very few in number, and already under Frederick II they spoke Sicilian; indeed, they boasted that Sicilian was better than Latin.
Sicilian identity originated as a mixture of Normans, Arabs, various Byzantine and Latin groups, various other ethnic groups from northern Italy and the rest of Europe as a repopulation programme carried out by the various Sicilian kings.
Let’s not open that Pandora’s box. As an Italian I say, no, please no.
Hmm, that is odd… Why do a series of checks going into the week proper? I’d understand the pattern if we were going into the weekend, but the timing of those checks? Going into a Monday? Kind of weird to me…
Well with the other pups that were dropped before a reveal, there were plenty of updates afterwards between that and reveal and release. So it’s likely in a state that they are happy to show off, but perhaps not as bug free as they would like it.
Perhaps over the weekend someone found something? Or left a note on friday to pick up on something on monday?
Huh, very well could be, if all the “final builds” activity from before was anything to go off on.
Either or sounds plausible; the former if they have weekend shifts, the latter if they have weekends off. I don’t know how FE operates, so that is a bit of context I don’t have sadly.
Thai were represented in several RotR campaigns, especially Bayinnaung (funnily enough, I think Shan, Lanna and maybe Lao were represented, but not the Siamese who would be the ones most people think about when mentioning Thai). Those are indeed part of the DE by this point. It’s worth mentioning thant the Mon are another possibility, as well as several possible Malay split (especially Chams, Javanese and Sumatrans, who all appear in at least one campaign as Malays).
That being said, if there’s work done on V&V then it might be about the Tanguts and Jurchens, who are represented in both the Genghis Khan campaign and the Temujin scenario. Khitans are another possibility, as they also appear in Genghis’ campaign and I think nowhere else.
As for RoR, maybe they will bring back the Yamato campaign or add a new one to the Shang, Choson or Lac Viet without it being part of the dlc? Unless it’s just a balance change.
That’s obviously assuming the theme is indeed East and/or Southeast Asia.
Just to point this out, there is no update for RoR coming. At least, nothing outside balance changes.
As when I looked at the files for the RoR updates, it wasn’t locked for me, I could see every file name. But when I tried to do it for the main game (where new civs would be stored), it was encrypted.
Personally, I think the Mon fit much better in the AOE 1/RoR timeframe (I would love new civs to come to RoR). They spanned much of SEA during antiquity, whereas in the medieval age there were only a few kingdoms left.
Don’t forget though, Filthydelphia has absent scenarios missing from V&V, the ping on it could have to do with that instead.
Is that so? Well damn. Oh well…
Just to add to this, the only missing scenarios that matter are from parts of the map that are visible.
As they recycled the Historical Battles map, it lacks Africa and South-East Asia. Meaning all his campaigns from those areas would never have been in anyway. It’s only missing ones from Europe, the Middle East and East Asia that matter atm.
Gotta break the news at some point.
But it does prove we are getting new civs for this DLC. As new civs have to be stored in the main games files, due to people without the DLC needing them to face them online.
That’s interesting. A new campaign would most probably not go unnoticed.
Weren’t Dvaravati, Hariphunchai and Hanthawaddy relevant until relatively late in the Middle Ages? I think they could fit both games…
