AoE2 has introduced many new civilizations over the years with new content, but some of the older campaigns still use the original civs to represent factions that could now be represented much more accurately by one of the newer civs.
Suggestions taken from other members of this forum. Feel free to add anymore suggestions and hopefully someone will this and take action.
If Three Kingdoms are to stay with us, change Murong Wei’s civ in Xie An to the Wei, he’s a Xianbei and Wei is already Xianbei in disguise. This’ll also increase the variety of opponents we face in the scenario.
Change some civs in Lake Poyang to Wu and Shu.
“Reaching South” in Le Loi could use some variety with either Wu or Shu. Other Le Loi scenarios perhaps too, but to a lesser extent
Regarding Northumbria, it depends if you think Saxons should represent all Anglo-Saxons, or specifically the Saxon kingdoms. Northumbria is usually considered an Anglian kingdom, i.e., it was established by Angles rather than Saxons, at least according to Bede. I’m not convinced that the distinction is relevant to AoE2, but it does arguably justify representing it by civs other than Saxons.
In York, I guess it’s represented by Celts because of the influence of Celtic Christianity in Northumbria – although by the time the scenario is set, Northumbria had been following Roman rather than Celtic Christianity for about 200 years.
In Ragnar, Teutons seems like an odd choice. The only justification I can see is it’s a Germanic civ with strong monks – but Saxons have strong monks as well.
Would Wu and Shu represent anything specific here or just for variety and because they were in the southern parts of China?
Mostly by the basis on being in the south tbh.
In Poyang:
(Chen Han did NOT control the Shu region, it did control Chu though, which is represented by Shu in the 3K campaigns)I’m all for this! Imperial Scorpions, here we come!
No. This is precisely the kinda nonsense that I DON’T want. Shoving 3K where they don’t belong is precisely the kind of stuff I want to avoid.
The Three Kingdoms are JUST the Three Kingdoms. Xianbei have no relation to Cao Cao’s state, and are primarily related to the Khitans. It’s more like Khitans were stripped of their actual content to be used as a dumping ground for the Tanguts that were removed from the game, rather than Wei being a stand-in for Khitans.
As far as Xie An goes, it’s more that the civ selection is nonsensical since Tanguts aren’t in the game.
And as far as Le Loi goes, I’d argue they should make some of the enemies be Vietnamese, like city of Hanoi in the third scenario in the same way that Nghe An is Vietnamese in fifth. But that’s it, as far as current scenario design goes. For more enemies, it would make more sense than new factions are added to the campaign. Otherwise, the Lao in fifth and Malay in first scenario are the only non-Chinese, non-Vietnamese enemies that make sense.
I actually considered this to be the case after writing the above comment. It’s kinda obvious when you look at their history section that specifies the four Saxon kingdoms without mentioning the Angle kingdoms at all.
Problem is, if the Saxons are specifically the Saxons, that should include the continental Saxon culture, including its post-pagan period. So, Henry the Lion and duchy of Saxony, with later states like Brandenburg, the Hansa, etc should also be represented by the Saxon civ, because that’s the actual continuation of Saxon culture.
But this also runs counter to the german name for the civ, where they are outright called Anglo-saxons. And of course, the civ being designed as Anglo-Saxons from ground up.
I will say, I actually don’t mind the idea, that Angles are English early on, and Saxons are a separate group that becomes incorporated into it. It’s wildly inaccurate but it’s at least plausible. But then they should’ve made that distinction more obvious by giving them that degree of separation with Saxons being more continental and Britons (the Angles civ) being more actually English.
But this doesn’t really justify Northumbria being Celts, as Northumbria was founded after the Brittonic period (uification of Bernicia and Deira under the Angles), it’s an Anglic state. And Northumbria as Teutons in Ragnar is just pure bs.
Not adding the Saxons to the Barbarossa campaign is such a missed opportunity.
I can see why updating the V&V scenarios is harder to do because they are full of triggers that completely change what the civilisations practically are.
And I hate that. No civ should represent such a narrow period.
Personally I’d rework the current KhiTanguts into Tanguts and the Wei into Khitans/Xianbei. The Wei castle actually fits Khitans better than the Tangut fortification they use now, Khitan fortifications were primarily wooden. Not to mention the Xianbei Wonder and Cav Archer replacement.
Here’s a mod that does basically that:
Interesting. I guess to a German person, “Saxons” probably makes them think of Saxony first, whereas an English person would probably think of Anglo-Saxons first.
I’m not sure how well the civ represents continental Saxons, at least in the later middle ages. I don’t think Anglo-Saxons would have used mounted crossbows (or even used crossbows much on foot, although the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does mention arbalests apparently), whereas continental Saxons perhaps would have done.
I wasn’t meaning Brittonic Celts, I was meaning the influence of Dál Riata in the 7th century (especially monks from Iona). I probably wouldn’t choose Celts to represent 9th-century Northumbria though.
Honestly, if you set up their AI not to use heavy cavalry or Teutonic Knights, then gameplay-wise they’re not a bad choice. (I have no idea what the scenario is like, though – I don’t like the V&V style.)
Yeah, well they do use TKs in Ragnar. That’s one of the problems.
You know what, I’m gonna add several sugggestions:
The Crusaders in Barbarossa 5 should also be changed to the Armenians. That particular fortress was actually Armenian at the time.
no, because this would enable playing with danes even if you haven’t bought the expansion
You have a good point.
They allowed playing Gurjaras in Prithviraj even without owning Dynasties of India back when his campaign was switched to Gurjaras. A little generosity doesn’t hurt.
This was already done twice.
“4. Vinlandsaga has Britons, but the portion of the British Isles depicted is in Scotland. They should probably be Celts.”
I wonder if the original American natives being “played” by woad raiders made them use Britons. It doesn’t matter, since those “British” are in Feuddl age and could be (currently) represented by any civ.
Here’s some general changes to factions appearing across campaigns?