I didn’t realise that until now
1 Like
They had Metal weapons and a more benign religion. The Mayans and Aztecs were religious fanatics with Stone Age tools, by comparison.
AoE is a Wargame, so how long a people held out an enemy, is important.
1 Like
The tarascans were legit more advanced than the aztecs. They were very new to working on metal, but they at least made wooden weapons covered in copper sheets and a couple of bronze bars (like thin maces) were found that could have been used weapons. Their bronze was very, very fragile compared to inca bronze, but at least tarascans tried to exploit the metal alloy.
2 Likes
Pronouncing civilization/peoples’ names are not really a factor in discouraging players in trying out new civs. In fact, the stranger the names and pronunciations the MORE likely players are likely to try out the civ.
But the main argument here is not whether or not these new potential civs can be easily pronounced or articulated…it is whether or not they fit into Age2’s setting style of medieval historical strategy videogame
Correct. The Meso-Americans never did use metal weapons, because they did not need them: obsidian stone-tipped weapons were just as capable of killing enemies as metal ones were, and in Central America there were LOTS of obsidian deposits from all the dormant and active volcanos scattered throughout the land.
Now some of you here might be surprised to learn that the Mayans and Aztecs actually DID have metallurgy, but it was not for weapons: it was for decorations. Eating utensils, clothing, wall ornaments, jewelry and all other trinkets were made out of gold and silver products for Azteca and Mayan nobility. In fact, that is why the Spanish led under Hernan Cortez believed that all the Meso-American cities were made out of gold: because there were so many silver and gold items owned and used by the populace. Of course, this was exaggeration on the Europeans’ part, because the Meso-American peoples did not use gold and silver beyond those stated items and that many of their buildings were just made of stone and wooden materials. The Aztecs were in particular surprised that the Spaniards were so infatuated with gold, because to them obsidian and plumed feathers were much more valuable to the average Azteca person than gold was (feathers were even used as currency by the Aztecs).
Except when the enemies had Metal armour, that shattered Obsidian tips on contact.
It is always better to have Metals. Not only can they become harder than the vast majority of stones you can sharpen into an edge, but they are more malleable by virtue of melting and solidifying with expectable results, which lets a culture explore more shapes and weights to their tools.
You got me there. Tarascans don’t fit in the sense they never fully enslaved (like aztecs or mayans) or conquered (like all the other civs) a different organized state.
Celts did not conquer or enslave another people, in the Middle Ages either. Yet they are base civ, the tutorial civ, even!
I agree with this statement, but I will add that only a few more can be added.
Definitely Georgians and Bohemians I can see happening. Perhaps even Poles. But no other European civ besides those three. Age2 already covers so much of Europe.
In regards to non-European peoples, I can see only a few more Asian and possibly one or two more African civs being added, but no more North American nor South American civs. Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas are enough; they were THE pinnacle points of human civilization in their own respective continents.
And I am not disrespecting any of the other Native American peoples by saying that they cannot be included into Age2: as a historian I appreciate that they lived, existed, and had their own respective cultures.
But we cannot make Age of Empires 2 into the United Nations. I’m sorry…but this just cannot happen. This is a videogame covering the medieval era of human history and as such should only include those civilizations that had actual medieval periods in their socio-cultural advancement (while also being comparable to the medieval eras of other cultures around the globe).
3 Likes
Didn’t Sandy say they were introduced because they wanted to add a Britons-vs-Someone campaign. But decided to turn it into the tutorial in the end.
I’m not sure if it was him, I don’t remember, but I thought the reason was something like that.
Why are Huns in, then?
Huns NEVER MADE IT TO THE MIDDLE AGES.
1 Like
The Scots during the Middle Ages did capture English women in their border raids…some English women were even violated. The same can be said of the English incursions into Scottish lands.
So, it is preposterous to claim that the Celts “never conquered nor enslaved” during the Middle Ages.
1 Like
To be honest, Goths and Huns should NOT be in Age2. But they are…and the biggest reason for that is because they provide the connection between Age1 and Age2.
The chief head of Age2’s development, Sandy Peterson, even said in a recent interview that the reason why Huns and Goths were added into Age2 is because they were too late in the historical record to be in the Ancient era time period that is covered by Age, but are too early to be of the medieval age, which Age2 covers. More specifically: Age1 and Age2 fail to cover the period that marked the transition from Ancient Era to the Middle Ages, which was called “Late Antiquity”.
HOWEVER, Mr. Peterson actually stated in the interview that Huns were added because the civ not only were supposed to represent the Huns of Late Antiquity but also: the Magyars. That is why the Huns civ get access to Paladins. But…when AOC was released, there were not specific “Magyars” civ until Forgotten Empires came out, which was run by Age2 gamers who were fans of the game, and not official game developers. So, in essence, Huns and Magyars civ both represent the Magyar-Hungarian peoples that exist to this day.
As for Goths, the civ in Age2 do get access to Hand Cannoneers and Bombard Cannons (which did not exist in Late Antiquity because gunpowder was not just introduced to Europe yet), to reflect that all the descendants of the Gothic peoples did become gunpowder civilizations: the Visigoths that conquered the Roman province of Hispania (Iberian Peninsula) were ancestors to the Spanish and Portuguese peoples, the Ostrogoths and Lombards residing in Italy became the first medieval Italians, the Goths that stayed behind in Germany and Scandinavia eventually would merge into the rising Nordic (Viking) and Germanic/Frankish medieval states…
Oh! And I also remembered: there WERE Medieval Goths that still existed! Crimean Goths - Wikipedia Yes, there was even a Gothic people that existed throughout almost the entire medieval period before being wiped out by the invading Tartars.
So Goths are quite safe to be in Age of Empires 2.
4 Likes
Why not Goths?
Not only did they START the Middle Ages, they survived until well into the middle of the period, and many of the big kingdoms of teh time were successor to them.
On a different interview, he said Huns were added because he personally hated the Habsburgs, an did not want The Conquerors to be known as a “Renaissance pack”.
Also, Magyars and Huns are not even related, which as a historian, you should know that Huns were turkic while Magyars were finno-ugric.
Anyway, the deal with celts, huns and goths is they are exceptions that came to be due to circumstances during development. Aoe2’s already passed that point, and I don’t think tarascans will be lucky enough to get the same treatment. Specially when there are other options for future civs.
1 Like
I’d love to see the Siamese, Chams, and Tanguts being added. They were important civs in their respective regions
For the other 6 spots left, I’d choose Tamils, Chimu, Anasazi, Mississipians, Swahili, and Kanembu
4 Likes
How the hell are Saxons getting so many votes?
Siamese are much moer imporatnat to AoE3, not AoE2. The Rattanakosin dynasty, started ruling from 1782. onward, and they were the ones taht made Siam an empire.
1 Like
The Sukhothai Kingdom came into existence in 1238, well within the timeframe of aoe2.
3 Likes
Most of the civilization choices here have the name recognission problem.
1 Like
Eh, I would argue that ‘defeating’ (maybe replace is a better word) the Khmer Empire is a good basis. Although, I would personally prefer the civ to be called Tais rather than Siamese. In any case, I doubt the Rattanakosin era in AoE 3 is more important than Ayutthaya/Sukhotai/other Tai states combined in AoE 2.
There’s a problem though. Historically, the Tais outboomed the Khmer by possessing superior rice farming techniques. However, the Khmer already have a really good farm bonus in game, perhaps because the devs combined the two people. I read this decision as the devs simply refusing to entertain the idea of adding the Siamese/Tais civ.
Edit: On the other hand, the Khmer farming system is more subsistence-based where each house rely on the produces on their farms instead of trading for other stuff with rice. Arguably, the current Khmer farm bonus is very accurate (food goes straight to feeding villagers, but have reduced rate). It’s just that in AoE II this resulted in a really good food bonus that would be hard to exceed with another civ (excluding the already used Slavs bonus).
1 Like