Older scenario civ changes that would make sense

[MatM1996]

@Velk413

Some of these, especially not changing all of the English civs in the Vikings V&V scenerios to Saxons, was probably done for civ diversity i’d imagine. That being said some of the non-changes like Vikings in Otto or the player in York are baffling IMO.

Of course, exactly…sometimes we forget the civ variety…

@throwawayacerola

-The templars were mostly french. Either change them to Franks or add a crusader civ for them.

Yes, in fact in AoE 4 it’s like that (using the Principality of Antioch) and Jerusalem should be Frankish instead of Byzantine…

@throwawayacerola

-Austria isn’t gothic, obviously. They should be Teutons or some other civ that represents them (either Bavarians or a broader High German umbrella like Suebians).
-Cremona is an italian city though I suppose it was controlled by the german forces. I don’t know why the River Guard is Franks aside from civ diversity.
-Likewise, Verona and Venice should be Italians, though I can see Venetians being their own civ.
-Similary to the templars in Saladin, the hospitallers were mostly french. Either make them Franks or a new crusader civ.
-Damascus was not persian at the time though changing it to the more appropriate Saracens would reduce civ diversity. An alternative would be them being a new syrian civ.

Yes, I think the Barbarossa campaign will change a lot when they release a German DLC… I could even add the Saxons to the Barbarossa campaign in the editor and upload it as a mod (I’ve already been doing that with the AoE 3 campaigns)…

@throwawayacerola

-Tepanaca, Xochimilco and Texcoco were all nahua (Aztecs).

I’ll do it in AoE 3 when I port Moctezuma into that game…

@throwawayacerola

-Stilicho was a vandal. He should be Goths or a new Vandals civ.
-Aquileia should be Romans though I suppose Byzantines isn’t that bad. Same for Cremona being Italians.
-Narbo makes more sense as Franks. Alternatively they could be a south french civ like Aquitainians, though I don’t really like the idea.
-I suppose Valentia being Celts makes some sense considering the celtiberians but they should all be gone by now so this faction should either be Spanish or Romans.

Yes, Alaric should be all Roman, Gothic, or Frankish players…

@throwawayacerola

-Venetians shouldn’t be Portuguese. Either Italians or their own civ.
-Piccinino in scenario 3 should be Sicilians.

Yes, that’s very strange, but when I port Sforza to AoE 3 everything will be Italian…

@throwawayacerola

-Cordoba and Seville should be Spanish, Goths or Romans.

Probably Goths, since it’s the Visigothic kingdom…

@throwawayacerola

-Apparently the Guanches might have been berbers? Idk.
-The swahili factions should have their own civ. The bantu should probably be replaced with something more specific.

Yes, in my Almeida port in AoE 3 the Guanches will be Moroccan (better that than making them Hausa) and I was thinking of making the Swahili villages Ethiopian (but now I remembered the Somali civilization from the historical battles, so I’ll use that instead)…

@throwawayacerola

-She probably didn’t even exist so the whole campaign should be replaced but I digress.

Yes, the campaign should be set in Gelawdewos in the 16th century so you can use the Portuguese as allies…

@throwawayacerola

-Most factions seem to be quechua, thus should be Inca. The chanca, who represent most enemies in the first 4 scenarios are probably quechua as well but that’s nebulous.

Yes, that’s how it was before TLC (and it will be like that in my AoE 3 Pachacuti port)…

@throwawayacerola

-A lot of early factions are based on the remains of the Mongol Empire (Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate, Golden Horde) and thus a mixture of Mongols, Persians and Tatars is expected, though the exact arrangement is debatable.
-The volga bulgars were turkic and are better represented by a turkic civ.
-Hospitallers appear again as Teutons.

Yes, in my Tamerlane port in AoE 3 they will all be Tatars (from Chuvash Cape Historical Battle) and Ottomans (the Hospitallers will be the Maltese) (I’m waiting for the Persians and Central Asian civilizations to make it more historically accurate and with a wider variety of civilizations)…

@throwawayacerola

-I don’t know if galician factions being Poles makes sense at this point in time.
-Tokhtamysh calls himself “mongol, not tatar” but he is Tatars.

Yes, in my Jadwiga port in AoE 3 they will all be Poles, Germans and Tatars…

@DynasticPlanet5

So true. Mississippians, various Puebloan civilizations, the Caddo of Texas (which as a state name had its name derive from a Caddo greeting) there were tribes of Florida and all of these even interacted and fought Aztecs at times.

Yes, at least they should include the Haudenosaunee (1142-1580), the Mississippians (800-1540), and the Puebloans (750-1600) (with teepees or brick houses similar to Malians and all) in the game…

@TheTowerDefender

Afaik we don’t know a single word from their language.

They could speak Muscogee (or even Iroquois/Haudenosaunee or Sioux/Lakota if you stretch it a bit)…

@TheTowerDefender

Which is my point. We know next to nothing about them, there is no way a campaign about them could be anything but pure fiction.

Tuskaloosa could work…although the developers would base his campaign on the records of Soto’s expedition…

[TheTowerDefender]

@MatM1996

@TheTowerDefender

Which is my point. We know next to nothing about them, there is no way a campaign about them could be anything but pure fiction.

Tuskaloosa could work

so a campaign about the Mississippians can’t even visit their biggest and best known city, because the main character lived centuries after it was abandonded?

[smiki5five]

I think making a single Mississippian civ isn’t a good idea (even though it’s the most recognizable name). Muskogeans with a Tuskaloosa campaign, Siouans with the Dhegiha migration featuring the breakup of Cahokia… No idea about Caddoans. They had famous chiefdoms/kingdoms like Quivira, but I lack knowledge about them.

[TommoChocolate]

@RatcicleFan

We don’t know much more about Huns than we do Mississippians, and the old devs still thought it appropriate to add them.

There’s enough known about Huns to make an AoE2 civ and campaign for them: enough information about their culture (especially warfare) to make a civ that resembles them within the game’s format, and a historical figure well-documented enough to be the campaign protagonist. That is basically all that’s needed.

I don’t know anything about Mississippians personally, but from what people are saying in this thread it sounds like we don’t know those things about Mississippians. We might not know much much more about the Huns, but maybe that “not much more” is exactly the things needed for the game?

[DynasticPlanet5]

I remember reading about in history books how a single Babylonian monk converted the Elamites and AAkkadians and built the empire from scratch in this way. Age of Empires told me it was canon

[Crossil]

@TommoChocolate

There’s enough known about Huns to make an AoE2 civ and campaign for them

Bruva, we don’t even know what language they spoke.

Or more precisely what their own language was, since it’s known they used Gothic as lingua franca for their empire.

@TommoChocolate

enough information about their culture (especially warfare) to make a civ that resembles them within the game’s format

They were given central european architecture.

Also, I think Tarkan is itself a generic term, unrelated to the Huns.

@TommoChocolate

I don’t know anything about Mississippians personally, but from what people are saying in this thread it sounds like we don’t know those things about Mississippians.

Well, out of the two things I mentioned we know two things about them more than about the Huns.

@TommoChocolate

We might not know much much more about the Huns, but maybe that “not much more” is exactly the things needed for the game?

We actually need to know less than what we know for Mississippians, based on what was needed for the Huns to be added.

[TommoChocolate]

@Crossil

Bruva

I’m not your “Bruva”, please don’t address me as such.

[WindwardHail620]

I would really love to see the Mississippians added to the game, I think they can be a great fit, even I know that their likelihood is very small.

The campaign I would like to see where the the city of Cahokia is the “protagonist”, instead of a cultural hero. With that you can tell a story of a wider timeframe and there is no need to name an individual ruler by name.
One side mission could be Cahokia’s failed colony in Wisconsin.
I did once wrote a write up how a campaign like that might look like.

De Soto story I also like to see, but I think the story would be more intrestring to be told from the Spanish perspective.

In early sources the Europeans called the leaders they encountered kings, only when disease kicked in and the population plummeted, the leaders were “demoted” in the texts as (paramount) chieftains and that stuck.

There are also a handful possible Historical Battles with the Mississippians.

• Ani-kutani (~1100) is a Cherokee story when they were still part of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.
  In this story the Cherokee tell how they rise up against the mound builders and there cruel priesthood, after their succes they promised each other they will have never have such hierarchical society.

  I imagine it work out similar as the Age of Empires I Yamato campaign Coup where you need sent tribute every X minutes to your overlord in order to keep the peace until you are strong enough to defeat them.

• The Mississippian kingdom of Joara defeated the explorer Juan Pardo (1567–1568), he build six forts in present day North Carolina. After he left, all six forts are destroyed and burned down by the Mississippians. On the largest fort they also build a mound. After that the Spanish never returned that far north.

• Around Crow Creek I think there could also be a defend/ defeat the wonder kind scenario.

[Crossil]

@TommoChocolate

I’m not your “Bruva”

Alright, mate, no need to get that worked up.

[MatM1996]

@TheTowerDefender

so a campaign about the Mississippians can’t even visit their biggest and best known city, because the main character lived centuries after it was abandonded?

Well, that’s how it is…

[Vindy]

@TheTowerDefender

penguins

@RatcicleFan

penguins

I vote yes to a penguin only campaign. Major General Sir Nils Olav III, Baron of Bouvet Island would be proud.

[CouguarLoup7693]

@Crossil

What they didn’t change:

1. Any of the Saxon duchies in Barbarossa 1 and 2, or Henry the Lyon in 4.

2. Player in York scenario being changed to Danes, since we’re establishing Danelaw. Any of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to Saxons.

3. The red Norse player representing Uppsala and the Southern Jarls representing the Geats in Finehair were not changed to Varangians, despite them both being in Sweden.

4. Bjorn Ironside, despite being a Varangian AI name was not changed to Varangians in Ironside.

5. Vikings in Otto which are squarely situated in Denmark were not depicted as Danes

6. Northumbria in Ragnar wasn’t changed to Saxons, the Jomsviking faction was not changed to Danes (and the Jomsvikings don’t use the Jomsviking unit) nor was Ragnar changed to Danes or Varangians, despite having been a Danish and Swedish king, in addition to appearing as an AI player name for the Danes

1. I disagree with the 1 because in this time the old Saxons were out of history, keeping the continental Saxons as the Saxon civilization is good until the time of Charlemagne that they did.

2.Can be done but I think they didn’t because the scenario is not part of a paid DLC.

4. can stay as viking.

3 & 5 & 6 I agree and they are AI player we can face them even if you didn’t buy the DLC.

Also some scenario lack many new assets.

Bari 3 - Loose Ends

Varangian Guard AI player have pavillion, remove them and replace by viking tent.

Finehair

Adding some runic stone, spruce tree,
Replace the boar by elk in Scandinavia.
Adding some waterfall on Norway.
Adding some heather in Scotland.
Adding some seal.

Many of the AI players start on age 1 and have hut. I think it’s better to replace all the hut by house and let them start at feudal age.

Removing the hut and adding some longhouse and house and put the AI player at age 1 to start at age 2.

The krepost at the east can be replaced by a varangian castle.

Replace the priest near Uppsala temple by monk.
Replace the Uppsala temple by the danish wonder.
Replace the 3 neutral priests by a monk with viking skin.

Southern Jarls have tarkan, replace them by jarl.

Switch the southern jarl and Norse from Viking to varangian.

Karlsefni

The fauna of Baffin island is problematic because most of those animal don’t live on this island. On Baffin Island : replace the brown bear by polar bear. Replace grey wolf by artic wolf. Replace a part of the seal by artic hare.

On Baffin island, replace some of the rock by snowy rock.

On the north west of Greenland there is a small island with 3 seal. remove them and replace them by walrus. In the viking’s time this region was called Nordseta and here the viking hunted walrus for ivory.

In America replace some deer by elk. Also replace some of the tree by spruce tree.

Mstislav

There is some berserkers, replace some of them by elite varangian guard.

Ragnar

Most of the viking’s faction have yurt. It’s better to replace them with longhouse. Also having berserker renamed as Jomsvking is awful when a real Jomsviking unit exist. Northumbria must be switched from Teutons to Saxons.

Adding some heather in Scotland can be good.
Adding some elk in Scandinavia.
Adding some runic stone.

Temujin

Replace the two priest near the great khan yurt by monk.

Vinlandsaga

Remove the deer on Greenland and replace them with seal. replace some tree in Norway by the new Spruce Tree. There is 2 shipwreck in greenland, replace them by longboat shipwreck.

Vortigern

Adding some heather in Scotland can be good.

York

Mercia and East Anglia must be switched from Britton to Saxon because saxon are better suited to represent those pre 1066 english.
Northumbria must be switched from Celt to Saxon for the same reason.

Adding some heather in Scotland can be good.

[smiki5five]

@CouguarLoup7693

1. I disagree with the 1 because in this time the old Saxons were out of history

This is a game where Joan d’Arc can train Throwing Axemen. Henry with “Hearth Troops” (why aren’t they called Hearthweru…) would’ve been ok.

@CouguarLoup7693

I think they didn’t because the scenario is not part of a paid DLC.

They allowed playing as Gurjaras in Prithviraj for people who didn’t own Dynasties of India. Given that Danes are playable only in three scenarios, it’d’ve been fitting to give them York as consolation.

[MatM1996]

Yes, exactly…it doesn’t cost them anything…

[UnAutreVoyage]

An idea: in Ironside, they should change Kutama from Ethiopians to Berbers.