Exactly my point change one name for some reason and everyone will want a change.
2 Likes
You know what keep me calm? That we only have 48 civs limit, so whatever those people suggest, it wonât happen 
. The next DLCs should be for new civs not new villages/duchies nor breaking existing civs. Next DLCs should focus on Africa/East-Asia nothing more, maybe add a DLC for Khazars, Gergians, Armenians, more than those 3 regions they shouldnât add anything, (of course Indians civ have the most stupid civ name in the game so this civ is priority tbf).
4 Likes
Giving the ability to add civilization via modding will get rid of most of these problems, then again DLC civis seems like a cash cow atm.
1 Like
Well if you want my personal opinion, we have now 39 civs (with DoTD) and this is already too much.
3 Likes
It leads to confusion among the players, especially those who donât come to the forum
1 Like
True even leadership names are running out now, kings conquerors rajas khans lords dukes.I can only think of counts barons chieftains for the next names.
1 Like
Almost 3/4 of voters ask for a name change of just Slavs to Rusâ. No need to panic, this doesnât mean we will get more sub-factions like the Burgundians.
2 Likes
Vietnamese is a modern term. It was invented in the 17th-18th centuries if I am not mistaken. Before they were called Viets. Their kingdom was Dai Viet.
3 Likes
I say keep the name âSlavsâ because first, if you changed it to âRusâ you would be leaving out Ukrainians, Belarusians, Slovaks, Serbians, Romanians (Wallachians), and many other Slavic groups from having representation in Age of Empires 2. All those groups were not âRusâ but they were all Slavs.
Second, if we were to change the name, then why does the Rus get their own special civ name but the Welsh, Irish, Scots, and Bretons still are only represented by âCeltsâ in the game?
And should we split Goths into âVisigothsâ and âOstrogothsâ Oh oh! âŠdo not forget the Crimean Goths as well! Oh wait, the Teutons also want to be split into âSaxonsâ and âBavariansâ and âHanoveriansâ and âSwabiansâ etc. etc. etcâŠ
No⊠keep the name âSlavsâ. It is proper.
As for Poles and Bohemians seemingly getting âspecial treatmentâ, firstly the Poles were distinct enough from other Slavic groups to be considered different (some scholars classify the Poles as âWest Slavsâ. The âSlavsâ in-game are more âEast Slavâ). Secondly, the Bohemians, though once being Slavic, were influenced by their German, Polish, and Hungarian neighbors enough to make them distinct from the other Slavs over timeâŠespecially given their geographical position being in Central Europe instead of Eastern Europe.
5 Likes
Ukrainians and Belarusians are Rus people though.
Kiev was the capital city of the Rus state and Belarusians are literally white Rus.
Rus should not be confounded with Russians.
Rus split between Russians and Ruthenians after the western part of Rus get conquered (mostly) by Lithuania.
Belarusians and Ukrainians identities emerged from Ruthenians identity.
Slavs get several civs because they are distinct enough to do so, as it was done for western Europe, done for Turkic people in DE and should be done for Indians.
If you think other civ name should be changed, youâre free to make your own polls, but I doubt the consensus would be so high.
2 Likes
First, it will correct your biggest mistake - ROMANIANS ARE NOT SLAVS !!!
Romanians are a separate group of nations divided into Wallachians, Moldovans and Transylvanians (and there are more Romanian nations). Calling Romanians a Slavic nation is like saying that Basques are related to Castilians or Catalans.
ROMANIANS ARE NOT SLAVS - REMEMBER THIS !!!
One civ for all Slavic nations was a huge abuse - the creators understood it and therefore added Bulgarians (who deserved a separate civ knowing the history of this nation the most), Poles and Czechs.
Remember that Poles and Czechs are umbrellas for other Slavic nations such as: Slovaks, Moravians, Lusatians, Silesians, PoĆabians and Pomeranians (currently only Kashubians from Pomeranians have survived)
First, compare the area and the history of the medieval Celts with the history of the Slavs. The Celts (Iâm talking island Celts) covered the British Isles. They were worked out by the Anglo-Saxons north (Scotland) and west (Wales). Ireland resisted the invaders. In the case of the Bretans, they were the ones who worked on the Breton peninsula - just like their brothers from the British Isles.
The Celts do not need to split into consecutive civs as it is not necessary. At most Irish civs can be added. The current Civ Celts are based most strongly on the Scots. I think the Welsh and Bretonians are comparable to the Moravian and Kashubian people I mentioned earlier.
In addition, the Slavs is a huge term for three large subgroups of Slavs, which are divided into nations (nations are divided into folks - it would be long to mention).
The Celts are a very poor comparison to the Slavs. The Germans are a bit better, but still not the same - The Germans, unlike the Slavs, did not succumb to external influences, thanks to which they are closer to each other.
In my opinion, in this game the Goths have become too archaic, and so have the Huns. These civs were relevant in the Dark Age, but not in later times.
I think they would be more suited to a standalone Dark Age game, or to AoE 1 (or other Ancient AoE) as a DLC.
I fully agree with that. Teutons are very much modeled on the Teutonic Order and the Crusades.
The new German civs could represent what the current Teutons civs do not. In addition, the Bavarians and Saxons are an excellent choice.
Where from, such emotions in this post?
No, itâs notâŠ
I will present you below what the Slavic Tree of Nations looks like:
East Slavs
Ruthenians / Rus
- Russians
- Ukrainians (Russians call them ĐĐ°Đ»Đ°Ń Đ ŃŃŃ - Little Rusâ)
- Rusyns
- Belarusians (White Rusâ)
West Slavs
CzechâSlovak
- Czechs
- Slovaks
- Moravians
Lechitic
- Poles
- Silesians
- Pomeranians (Kashubians)
- Polabians
Sorbian
- Upper Sorbians
- Lower Sorbians
South Slavs
Eastern
- Bulgarians
- Macedonians
Western
Serbo-Croatian
- Serbians
- Croatians
- Bosnians
- Montenegrins
- Burgenland Croatians
Slovene
- Slovenians
So it is impossible to represent all the Slavs in one civ. The current Civ Slavs are based on Rus - thatâs why people want to change the name.
Bulgarians represent themselves because they are distinct from other Slavs.
Ever since the Czechs and Poles appeared, the Western Slavs are sufficiently represented.
Only the South Slavs are missing in this game - Civ Serbs and Civ Croats. Then there would be no need for any umbrella civ for the Slavs in this game.
The present civ Slavs are based exclusively on Rus, so they could not ever represent any other subgroup of the Slavs!
X DDDDD
4 Likes
I fully agree with you 
I agree that certain civs need to be renamed, but Mahazona is right: by renaming one, we will create a justification for changing all the others.
Also, many players donât seem to realize that civ names donât reflect specific political dynasties, but ethnolinguistic groups. As an example, see pre-DE versions: all but the Byzantines, Indians (everyone knows why) and Vikings (which would be an activity/occupation) reflect ethnolinguistic groups.
Iâm not going to comment on the umbrella civs splits because I think everyone already knows the problems they created.
So, it would only make sense to change Saracens (European term for Muslims in general) to Arabs, Britons to English/Angles and perhaps Slavs to Rus.
The Mamluks were not an ethnolinguistic group, but an elite of warriors who became a dynasty, like the Abbasids and the Fatimids; Moors has a similar meaning to Saracens, but it refers to Muslims from the region from Morocco (aka Berbers) so these names would not fit the logic of the game; Celts is fine the way it is (they represent Scots and Irish); Goths and Huns too, although it would really be better to be part of AoE1; Ottomans and Mughals are dynasties, so they donât fit in either. If we want more civs, we must look in terms of ethnolinguistic groups and not the political entities created by them.
By the way, @MUTYLATOR5553, the Teutons do not represent any religious order, except for their UU. Teutons is the term chosen by the original devs to represent the Germanic peoples in general. The Pope and Latin speakers used Regnum Teutonicorum (kingdom of the Germans) for Eastern Francia before it became the Holy Roman Empire, so Bavarians and Saxons are already represented by the Teutons too.
3 Likes
This would be a justification to propose other changes of name.
There could be debates. And so, what would be the problem ?
But once again, I doubt the consensus could be that high for other changes. You can try.
At some point, people would probably want to rename Indians if other Indians civs are introduced, but that would be logical and I would support it. But thatâs about it.
1 Like
The name civ has no influence on the gameplay. For this reason, it is better if they are correct.
Slavs civ is an unnecessary name since Poles and Czechs were added. Although the South Slavs are still not represented in the game, the name Slavs is absurd for civ based ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY on Ruthenia.
Slavs civ make no sense to remain a civ umbrella because they are not anymore.
Teutons, Spaniards, Italians, Saracens and Indians are examples of large umbrellas. As long as they are the only civs representing other nations, they shouldnât change their names!
Only after the Indian DLC will it make sense to rename Indians civ to Mughals civ and the same in other cases.
The time has just come for the Slavs of civ to be renamed Ruthenians civ - it simply represents only the Rusâ now.
RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS yes
2 Likes
Upset that I use emotions, but okay for you emotionally react to my comments? Put your hypocritic âholier than thouâ antics in some other forum.
I am not going to engage with you @MUTYLATOR5553 , who is behaving like a idiot in this forum. Too bad reallyâŠI would have loved to engage in a friendly debate over Eastern European/Balkan ethnicities and the histographies of the Rus people.
1 Like
Granted, the Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russian peoples are relatedâŠbut the term âRusâ refers more to âthe Russiansâ as to the other two groups, especially in todayâs word usage. Calling all three groups âSlavsâ is more appropriate and fair.
I have met and spoken with a fair amount of Ukrainian peoples in my lifeâŠnow I regret not asking them if they considered themselves âRusâ. Next time I meet a Ukrainian person, I shall ask them.
But one thing for certain: they DO NOT want to be called âRussiansâ.
Exactly.
Personally, I am tired of people here in the forums who think that we need to make this videogame into a âUnited Nationsâ, when the truth is, back then in the medieval era, ethnic differences were blurred, or not fully understood given the lack of advanced scientific technology to divide up humans into several distinct gene groups. Human races have been inter-coursing with each other as well making distinctions even more difficult.
And we should NOT allow our 21st century mindset to alter historical truths.
There are SEVERAL Central American countries todayânot just Mexico-- that can claim to be descendants of the Aztecs, and thatâs one civ.
All the different kinds of Germans today: Bavarians, Saxons, Hanoverians, Swabians, Austrians, etc. were all Teutons and thatâs one civ.
And likewise, the Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians today among others were all Slavs at one pointâsome would even say they still are Slavs.
This game already has done a damn good job in representing a heck lot of the whole known medieval world. Donât ruin the game now by constantly trying to âfix itâ when it is perfectly fine as it already is!
1 Like
Well, when I wrote that, I just wanted to say that the devs need to decide soon: either make just umbrella civs or make specific civs of everyone else. The two together is a Pandoraâs box.
But as the latter option (specific civs) seems to be the norm now, I donât see a problem with âfixingâ the game by breaking the Chinese, Saracens, etc that I mentioned. These civs did not exist in a united or homogeneous way during the Middle Ages, the most obvious example being India. By comparison, these civs would be equivalent to having Teutons, Goths, Franks, Burgundians, Britons, Vikings (and perhaps Sicilians) all under a single umbrella civ called the Germanics.
4 Likes
If you look at Age of Empires 4, the devs are already doing that.
Abbasid Caliphate, Rus Principalities, Delhi Sultanate, English, etcâŠ
Age of Empires 2 is an old game. It maybe best to just let it is as is, and make Age of Empires 4 be the new game that âcorrectsâ whatever AoE2 did not make right.