Please do not have 50% Euro civs in this game like in AoE2

Title says it all .
Okay , AoE4 vanilla may have half Euro civs but we will have expansions . For example , if we have 20 civs in-game after a few expansions then I don’t want 10 if them to be European . Currently in AoE2 we have little European duchies like Burgundians and Bohemians while all of India or Africa have like 2 civs .
Honestly the only game on the Age franchise in which Europe deserves more attention than rest of the world is AoE3

29 Likes

I am extremely excited about future development and content for AoE4. I expect some really amazing civs from all over the globe. There’s so much that can be done.

When done well, Age of Empires civilizations are beautiful, immersive, and deep. Details spring to life and add little nuggets of flavor everywhere, and people learn about history without even realizing it. They are as close as we get to works of art. I am psyched to see where the Devs take this game.

17 Likes

Only lately we’ve gotten that many European civs for AOE2:DE. I hope they’ll break the trend and add a plethora African, American, Asian and even if we’re lucky Oceanian civs to both AOE2/AOE4 to break the trend.

4 Likes

I think that having at least 50% European civilizations is a good idea.

This is not Eurocentrism, but simply realism. AoE4 attempts to be realistic, as indicated by its documentary style campaigns.

Contrary to China, Europe was never dominated by ‘one’ single entity or ethnic group. Europe has always consisted of a collection of separate nations who competed with one another and learned from one another. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin attempted to ‘unite’ Europe under a single banner or ideology, but none succeeded. Europe has never been united (and no; also Brussels’ Eurocrats will fail).

Does that mean that there aren’t any separate nations outside of Europe? Of course not! Thát would be an insane thing to claim!
However, historical realism dictates that it makes sense for the Spanish and the Italians to be represented as separate nations (as these were big players AS separate independent entities), while it does not make sense to include many other groups that, in fact, did exist, but were absorbed into different empires, such as the many groups in the Middle East and Central Asia.

So, yes; I think that it is completely fair to include the Spanish, Italians, Portuguese, Polish-Lithuanians(Commonwealth), Vikings, Byzantine Empire into the game no matter what.

And yes: Also the Turks, the Koreans, the Persians and the Japanese should be added to the game. And I would like to see a South Indian faction as well.

However, I hope that AoE4 will not make the mistake of adhering to progressivism and political correctness; and adding African tribes and South East Asian tribes to the game in order to be ‘inclusive and diverse’. Not only because it doesn’t make sense to match up these tribes to European nations, but also because it doesn’t make sense to put them up against the Japanese, the Chinese, the Indians and the Turks. In fact, the Ottoman Empire DEMOLISHED many parts of sub-sahara Africa. There was never a fair fight. Just like the Chinese never cared to impose their will on South East Asia. They didn’t even take them seriously enough to do so. “Chi” - “na” means “center of world”.

So, yes. Please add other civs than just Europeans, such as Japanese, Koreans, South Indians and Turks; but also do not forget to add the important European civs that are currently not in the game.

So, to conclude: at least 50% European civs.

47 Likes

Let me put it like this:

In order for a certain historical group to be included:
(1) it needs to have had a large impact
(2) AS a separate historical entity
(3) IN RELATION TO the others.

Therefore,
IF the Mongols wouldn’t have demolished China, Abbasids and the Rus, it would not have made sense for them to be included in the game. They would have simply been ‘some’ group.

2 Likes

AoE IV will not have as many civs as AoE II, but I still think there will be plenty of european civs. The base game lacks some basic civs like byzantines or vikings/nords, and if we get a New World expansion, along with aztecs, inca or maya we will surely get spanish/Crown of Castile, too. So, that would make for at least 3 more european civs.

Of course we will still have to get japanese, probably korea, maybe some other southeastern asian civ like the khmer, at least a couple african civs, and possibly turks, too (the Fall of Constantinople is one of the big events marking the end of the Middle Ages).

5 Likes

The HIT Amazon game New World™!!!1???1???

Hope you are joking lol. Nope, I’m talking about the discovery and conquest of the New World, aka the Americas.

I’m indeed joking

20 characters

2 Likes

Wasn’t aware aoe4 was suppose to be “chevalery simulator 2021” ^^. This game is suppose to be asymetric so african/american nation seem a way more better in term of design than other small european kingdom. HRE and France was basicly the same in term of everything during this time period, the current asymetry is mostly fictive (why HRE have prelate or men at arm with mace and not France?)

5 Likes

This is completely wrong. The word “China” is of Persian origin and is not a combination of two Chinese words “chi” and “na” (it may originate from some ancient Chinese name but has evolved so far that one cannot identify a Chinese word from it).
“Zhong guo” means “the central state”.

7 Likes

This game is suppose to be asymetric so african/american nation seem a way more better in term of design than other small european kingdom. HRE and France was basicly the same in term of everything during this time period, the current asymetry is mostly fictive (why HRE have prelate or men at arm with mace and not France?)

HRE was not the same as France. HRE was basically a Central European Empire ruled by German aristocrats who often pointed to the Pope in Italy in order to tell the people what to think and how to behave. It was the first Germanic Empire, so to speak. Hitler later proudly referred to the HRE on multiple occasions, wanting to re-create it, etc.

Meanwhile, there was the Spanish Empire, which I have no doubt will at some point be included in the game. In between the Spanish Empire and the HRE, there was France and below the HRE, there were the Italians, including several independent city-states. These city-states is where the Renaissance later emerged from, leading to people wanting free thought and national freedom; rebelling against the Pope, wanting to be ‘other’ type of Christians, etc. which led to the Treaties of Westphalia (a more decentralised HRE, including a free Netherlands and Switserland).

During all of this, France followed its own path and was very much a separate entity. The French have always been extremely proud in their typical French way and expressed this geopolitically. They organized themselves as an independent political entity and followed their own path during a very long period, making war against the English, chasing the Ottomans out of North Africa, etc. Therefore it makes sense for the French to be included as a separate civ in AoE4, while it really doesn’t make sense for the Burgundians to be included.

so african/american nation…

It would be a bad idea to include an African nation under the umbrella of “asymmetry” (and probably Californian-type blue-state political correctness) and then to ‘balance’ this nation against the Chinese, the Mongols, the English, etc. It would be historically inaccurate, because there really wasn’t any ‘balance’ in this area, just like there wasn’t any ‘balance’ between the Armenians and the Turks. Adding the Armenians to the game and then having them go up against the Turks in a ‘balanced’ manner would demolish historical accuracy in favor of ‘social justice’.

4 Likes

This is completely wrong. The word “China” is of Persian origin and is not a combination of two Chinese words “chi” and “na” (it may originate from some ancient Chinese name but has evolved so far that one cannot identify a Chinese word from it).
“Zhong guo” means “the central state”.

Fair enough… Middle Kingdom. They viewed themselves as the center of civilization and never bothered to seek much outside of their own region, whereas the French, the English and the Spanish were pressured to do so, because of competition with one another.

1 Like

Hi.

It is yet to come.

I think that in 1 enlargement there will be 4 nations.

  • Aztecs or Mayans
  • Japanese
  • An African nation, for example, I would like the Egyptian Empire
  • Nordic nation, for example barbarians from the north (Vikings)

Pretty sure the guys who built the great pyramids and angkor wat were not that tribal.

8 Likes

Pretty sure the guys who built the great pyramids and angkor wat were not that tribal.

I am talking about the time period of AoE4 and not the timeperiod of AoE1.

By the way: There is nothing wrong with being tribal. Many powerful and intellectually advanced nations were very tribal and still are. A nation is always tribal in a sense, otherwise they wouldn’t be a nation in the first place.

6 Likes

Angkor was built in the 12th century.
Without rome and greeks all of europe was tribal too.

4 Likes

HRE was basicly the same as France specificly in this time period. They have the exact same technology, same weapon, same origine (carolingien empire), same religious (templar/Hospi was common in France , Jacques de Molay can testify). The biggest difference is that France was (and still is) more centralised. Moreover, france and HRE was nothing before ~1100-1200, aoe4 begin in ~700.

To me both should have been one faction, and you could have been chose between one of them age 3 (mostly like how dynsasty work for china). One spot for an other civ plus good asymetry potentiel !

1 Like

That logic can also be applied to other regions . For example , from South India we can have Telugu(Kakatiya) , Tamils(Cholas and Pandyas) and Kannadigas(Hoysala) . Historical Accuracy would also dictate these to be separate nations.

6 Likes

If English can get to face China then acting as if the Shona fighting the English would be any diferent is stupid. And dont get me started on Asia because honestly if we go by power the game would mostly just be Asian civs

As long as its a regional power with a powerful state and a decely long history its fair game.

3 Likes