Poll about changing the Slavs civ name to Rus

I one time saw in another post here in the Forums another player advocating for Chinese civ to be split into 2 or 3 more civs, which was very VERY bizarre. But he was earnest about it, which I have to admit, I admire.

But I do not see a problem in “umbrella civs” being the case for AoE2. Looking back at the Age of Kings, it seems like it was the intention of the original developers to make the civs cover many different groups with as few civs as they possible can. Hence why Celts and Teutons instead of Irish, Scots, Saxons, Bavarians, etc. Why go through all the trouble of programing and designing and balancing 4 separate civs when you can just do two?

…and now we have 39 civs, which is thrice the original civ number. So I say, Be glad that the game has expanded so much!

Yeah, but the point is that AoE4 will hardly obscure AoE2. This game was supposed to be dead a long time ago. But, thanks to the fans, they didn’t turn off his devices and he began to recover from coma. Microsoft basically only paid for the rest of the treatment to get him out of the hospital, but the hard work went to the fans. Do you think they’ll abandon him now that he’s at his peak?

1 Like

Hmmmm… perhaps if AoE4 really takes off, AoE2 will slowly but surely dwindle over time in popularity and usage.

I already have seen some signs of AoE2 DE slowly getting less and less played by people…but that is the fate of nearly all videogames. Eventually Microsoft will move on to other projects and beloved AoE2 will fade away…

I will tell you this though: I will go to my grave still loving this game! It has already positively affected my childhood and has helped inspire me to be in the historian career that I am in now.

1 Like

If anything I think they will still keep milking AoE2.

However it wouldnt surprise me if AoE3 didnt have much content afte that

1 Like

And age 2 will still smoke age 4 in sales.

5 Likes

Well, Ukrainians are struggling a bit with their identity at the moment, so it is not so surprising that they are trying hard to appear as distant from russians as possible. That’s still weird to see that they want to deny themselves that Kiev was once the capital of a powerful medieval state.

But yeah, I can see renaming leading to this kind of debates.

We AoE forum fellows know the difference between Rus and Russians, but can other people/gamer tell ? Probably not.

There is always the history section where it can be explained, “the Rus civilization represents the Eastern Slavs that now inhabit Russia, Ukraine and Belarus…”

It’s a similar situation as we see between the Franks and the French or the Teutons and the Germans (Deutschen), despite the names being related it is not a 1:1 equivalent between the AOE2 medieval civ and the current day country.

Imagine this reader, you’re an Serbian/Croatian vaguely familiar with some basic medieval history and modern geopoliticals that has recently being introduced to this strange old classic RTS game called “Age of Empires 2”, you open the Civ selection menu up and seeing how you’re unfamiliar with what civs are good or not, you try to find the civ that is most similar to your own nationality, after scrolling through the menu and finding the cool looking ones based upon Slavic peoples called “Bulgarians, Poles and Bohemians” you stumble upon one just bluntly named “Slavs”.

“Well surely this is just blanket for all the other Slavic civs that have yet to be added into the game”, but then you look at the coat of arms which is the same one used for modern Ukraine, the names of the unique techs, one of them referencing the eastern orthodox church that mainly Southern and Eastern Slavic peoples followed (The Poles and Bohemians were Catholic for instance), the other one referencing a kind of retinue exclusively employed by the Rus states, you then look at the unique unit and it’s clearly referencing the feudal ranking common to Eastern Slavs, but not Western Slavs like the Poles and Bohemians.

Then you play an game with the Civ, and they’re clearly speaking Russian (A language that has very few differences with Ukranian and Belarusian) with a few archaic words. The bonuses reference the fertile lands of Ukraine, the wonder is an Medieval Russian Church and the tech tree of the Civ is clearly referencing the focus on heavily armoured Cavalry and Infantry that the Medieval Kievan Rus armies had, but not the gunpowder usage of the Serbians, or the naval prowess of the Croats (Both slavs). It’s a Civ that is clearly Kievan Rus in every concievable way except the history section and its naming, yet it’s still called “Slavs”.

Overwhelmed with curiosity you then open up the AOE2 wikia and read through all the Slavic civs articles, you find that out that the reason why “Slavs” are named as such was due to them being the only civ being based on an Slavic people back in Age of Empires 2 HD, but it’s being years since then and there are now civs based upon Bulgarians, Poles and Czechs which are all Slavic people, yet still this name remains that which promises Slavs overall, but only gives Eastern Slavs in reality.

Of course this is an fantastical telling, but it summarises why the Slavs name should be changed to “Rus, Ruthenians, Kievan Rus, Ukranians, East Slavs” whatever. Not because it’s historically inaccurate (it technically is accurate), but because it communicates outright incorrect information about the game and the civ, due to the existence of the Bulgarians, Bohemians and Polish Civs. It wouldn’t take much effort on the part of the devs, because the only change required would be an name change due to the previously mentioned reasons. Some people disagree and think it would result in having all civs being requiring to be renamed, but that isn’t the case and you know why?

Because Italians, Indians, Teutons, etc are the only representations of what their name specifically refers to, using Indians as an example there is no seperate “Mughals, Tamils, Rajputs, etc” civ that also exists alongside the pre-existing Indians. Indians are the only civ that represents Indians therefore it’s fine for them to be named as such historical representation memery asides, This is not the case with the Slavs and it results in unnecessary confusion that however slight does result in an very real issue with this game’s presentation and should be fixed because of that.

Also for those wondering about the Dracula Campaign Romanians/Wallachians are not Slavs, they speak a language that belongs to an fundamentally different group (Romance Language), they are distinct ethnically from Slavs (descendant from Native Dacians and Romans hence Romanian) and are about as closely related to them as Magyars/Hungarians are to them. Slavs were used in the Dracula Campaign because there wasn’t a great option to represent Romanians, they’re geographically closest to Romania, and they couldn’t use Magyars or Turks for the whole campaign due to Story reasons

1 Like

Honestly it doesnt seem like that big of a deal

2 Likes

It isn’t much like the Maya being gramatically incorrectly spelled as Mayans, but it is still an issue even if it is an minor one and this game should be continuously worked on and improved. No offence intended to the devs of course, but it’s still something that should be fixed

So its perfectly fine for Indians to represent all of south asia but not fine for slavs to represent all slavic countries? Seems kinda biased.

3 Likes

I think hes only complaining about there being multiple slavic civs as well as Slavs in that comment.

But not sure. If hes saying what you interpreted yes its really biased and honestly a bit stupid.

I think most people here do agree that one of the next DLC, if any, should add more Indian civ, especially southern. There is a majority about renaming Slavs to Rus AND adding southern Indian civ. No bias here.

Why should only slav get renamed? If one should get renamed so should everybody else.

Once again : if you think another civ shall be renamed, make a poll. I guess you won’t get 73% favorable opinion. And if you do, then that other civ would probably need renaming too.

thats correct

thats absolutely incorrect.Mongols are very few people in population.Huns were of Turkic origin.Huns lasted real long it begins with asian Huns (xiang-nu) It was a great nomadic confederation consisting mainly Turkic but also Mongolic and Tangut tribes.

Celts are not just scots they are compositon of different civs.

Not what I actually said but whatever, I am personally absolutely fine with new South Asian civs being introduced into the game (and would greatly prefer them to more European ones), but there is no reason to currently rename Indians outside of “Muh Medieval India was never united historically, there were multiple culturally distinct kingdoms, why is there literally only 1 civ representing them” reason. I agree it’s silly that there is only one Indian Civ in the game and I would like to see more, but blame the FE dev team for that, not me.

Because the other ones perfectly express what the Civ is about with no contradictions, but if “Rajputs” or some other South Asian Civ gets added in the game, yes Indians should be renamed.

I absolutely agree and I am one of those annoying people who want another South Asian Civ.

Your first sentence perfectly summarises what I’m complaining about, I am absolutely fine with there being no more European Civs. I just think it’s silly that there is an Civ called “Slavs”, despite there being multiple Slavic Civs distinct from it.

It’s like having a seperate “Germanic” Civ, when we already have Vikings, Teutons and Britons. It’s just silly and it grundles my fundle as an Russian

If other civs were added in India, the Indians would have to be renamed by the same logic, as the Rajahstani for example.

1 Like

Teutons mean germanic right?

Btw im not saying to add more indian faction like the addition of slavic factions.I just find it silly that only slavs should get renamed.

This should never be a reason to change anything in game

you try to find the civ that is most similar to your own nationality,

1 Like

Teutons are the “main” german faction but if all broadly germanic factions were grouped into one, it would combine the Teutons (west germanic), Franks (west germanic too, though quickly assimilated into a gallo-romance population and mostly representing the French), Goths (east germanic), Burgundians (east germanic) and Vikings (north germanic). So the situation is like if we had one single Germans civ since AOK representing every germanic people from the Invasion Period, but retaining the name despite having new germanic civs (Goths, Vikings, Burgundians…) added and effectively “splitting” the civ.

1 Like