Not quite true. There is speculation that some of the Magyar peoples are descended from some of the Black Huns that stayed in the Pannonian Basis (aka Carpathian Basin) as remnants of Attila the Hun’s old Hunnic Empire, which disintegrated upon his death. Yes, the Magyar people are Finno-Uralic, but the complicated thing about geneology is that humans always tend to interbreed all the time. Even teh ancient Romans were not pure “Italic peoples” but had elements of Celtic, Etruscan and Greek blood…all peoples that had their origins outside of Italy. While it is not proven, there is nevertheless some reason to believe that the Huns survived in one way or another by interbreeding with the migrating Avars, Magyars, and other peoples settling in that region of Central Europe.
I literally argued this claim in my previous statement. I began by saying that Goths and Huns should NOT be in Age2 purely on a basis of not being truly in the “medieval era”. However, I then went against my statement to say that the Huns and the Goths might very well have a purpose in Age2.
The Huns—represent (vaguely) the proto-Magyars and other horse-peoples that would occupy the Carpathian Basin. The Goths—ancestors of the early Spanish, Portuguese, and Italians and other Germanic peoples scattered about Europe.
I can see Siamese happening. And why? → Because, based on my research, the Siamese are cultural and ethnically different enough from their neighboring Burmese, Khmer, and Vietnamese neighbors.
But…can it be possible to give them a unique enough civ roster in Age of Empires 2?
Even if a proposed civ is “reasonable” to be placed into Age2, can it distinguish itself enough from all the already 39 civs?
Even The Viper stated that the Lithuanians were not unique enough in his eyes. (Personally, I think that Lithuanians have a place in Age2. But others like the The Viper can think differently)
I disagree.
Thai cover many kingdoms like Ayutthaya or even the Laotians.
They can be made unique compared to other SEA civs. They would be a Defensive, Gunpowder, Elephant civilization.
Because it hardly fit the timeframe and needed so much cheesy stuff so make them fit the game at all. Meso civ balancing and units are a better joke.
And I don’t care for representing all regions of the world. If it doesn’t fit the game it should not be included. I would rather lose my favourite Teutons than include more half baked civs.
They are balanced the same way as every other civ via the generic tech tree with a few regional variations (Camels, Battle Elephants, Steppe Lancers,…)
Tech wise, the game has always been an awkward mess, especially when it comes to Naval battles. Fire ships should be an exclusive Byzantine unit, why do Goths get Gunpowder at all, why are Chinese not completely broken tech-wise (because they historically would) etc.
You have Celts have an antiquity UU besides Paladins which were an exclusive Frank thing etc.
The civs which are suggested here very well fit within the time frame. Cahokia had it’s peak around 1200 and were on the same tech level as the Meso civs we already have. They wouldn’t be more cheesy at all and to be honest, Polynesian warriors would definitely have some kind of coolness factor like the Aztecs and Maya. My excitment for Saxons on the other hand would be near zero, not going to lie.
I personally consider small Duchies in a game of Empires which are kinda represented by other civs in the game way more unfitting than a completely new uncovered culture which was a regional superpower which might not have known metal melting and cavalry.
They are not balanced the same as they are missing cavalry. All other civs have scouts and either camels or knights or both and additional regional units. there is a reason they are missing this main feature and still had the highest winrates for decades and that’s they were over buffed in other ways.
Cavalry is a main part of medieval warfare and a civ missing it completely just feels wrong in my opinion.
And yeah you may want those civs for representative purpose, I don’t. I appreciate them as much as every other in the world, but I don’t want to add any more civs just because we need fair distribution of civs on the globe. This is a fun game, not a political correctness history lesson. If they are a fitting game play addition that’s fine, else just leave them out. And actually most civ proposals I saw on Reddit or in this forum were badly designed.
And 9 other Knights would be fun to you?
But Eagle civs would not, even though there are only 3 of them?
No one is asking for “political correctness”, taht is just a stick you are using to bash someone else’s argument, because you have run out of arguments yourself.
I am completely the reverse of what is politically correct, and at this point it is you that is using PC tactics, like misrepresentation of arguments.
Exactly, I don’t want another copy cat civ. That’s why I said, I’d rather lose my beloved Teutons than add any gameplay wise meaningless civs. If you would have read my earlier posts you would knew that. No Europeans as they can’t offer a new thing (paladins are overspreads, light cav+ CA is done million times) and no Americans because they don’t fit. (And just reskin eagles and give them to a north American tribe isn’t really a game changer).
If they controled a ton of people, land, riches, etc and/or were long lasting/extremely influential any civ is fair game. The reason we dont want more Euro civs rn is because we already have too many of those and its almost possible to find a worth adding new one that isnt at least tangentially represented whilte theres a ton of civs of the rest of the world worth adding.
yes, in a pool like that, we definetely need them.
you can make everything fit into the game with some creativity.
it is so wrong that teutons represend the HRE tbh
No, no we do not, and I included the most often requested civs, of which not even teh most eurocentric enthusiasts have requested Austrians, because Austria did nothing in the Middle Ages.
No, it is not, since it was called Regnum Teutonicorum.
" The terms Kingdom of Germany or German Kingdom (Latin: regnum Teutonicorum “Kingdom of the Germans”, regnum Teutonicum “German Kingdom”,[1]regnum Alamanie[2]) denote the mostly Germanic-speaking Eastern Frankish kingdom, which was formed by the Treaty of Verdun in 843, especially after the kingship passed from Frankish kings to the Saxon Ottonian dynasty in 919. The king was elected, initially by the rulers of the stem duchies, who generally chose one of their own. After 962, when Otto I was crowned emperor, East Francia formed the bulk of the Holy Roman Empire, which also included the Kingdom of Italy and, after 1032, the Kingdom of Burgundy."
A religious Order is not a civilization. Teutons are not the Teutonic Order, only their UU is.
Unless, of course, you are publicly admitting you do not know the difference between a Religious Order and an actual Culture.
Also, I have known the Regnum Teutonicorum for 2 decades, at least, as I actually do read History books. Maybe you have not, but it is always a good time to pick up a few.
@JonOli12 , @Hasman182 The Teutons were originally a Germanic tribe that existed during Roman times in the Late Antiquity period.
While scholars today generally classify the original Teutons as “a Germanic tribe” some have put forth the claim that they could have been a Celtic tribe. Regardless whichever is correct…the name “Teutonburg forest” which is a forest in Germany got its name from that tribe, and later on, the medieval Germans would refer to themselves as “Teutonic” in the Latin Language.
By the time the knightly order of the Teutonic Knights were founded, the term “Teutonic” was synonymous with “Germanic”. And that is because the Teutonic Knights were the 3rd major crusader order of knights to be formed, after the Knights of St. John (Hospitalliers) and the Knights Templar, but the Teutonic Knights were filled up mainly by German knights while the Hospitalliers and Templars were mostly Frankish and English. So being called “Teutonic Knights” literally meant that they were the “Crusading Order of German Knights” so to speak.
