Franks and Burgundians weren’t introduced at the same time.
Trust me, we’d notice.
How about Bengalis vs Dravidians? Also, in that case don’t release them together.
Add a new regional unit replacing Eagle for Andeans and you won’t notice.
american civs with gunpowder and horses don’t belong in aoe2. they both reached the americas at the very end of the time frame. maybe some horses in imperial age could be justified
Montezuma is the second most modern campaign (most modern is Bayinnaung), and the Tlaxcaltec only got horses near the end of tha. Similarly the Mapuche got access to horses in the middle of the 16th century
2 Likes
Ages arent based on time period but the perceived apex of a civilization
what do you mean by this? I don’t think this makes sense
Huns a civ that dies out in 500 gets to have both a castle and Imperial Age. Same for Romans. Ergo the ages arent based on a set time period or year
laughs in songhai
20 chars
1 Like
Britons have their peak in the 19th century?
Romans shouldn’t be in the game
Also the romans should start in the imperial age and then decay into the dark age, but they don’t
As a Colombian, I want Muiscas in the game. No excuse they don’t fit now since the addition of the 3K.
3 Likes
I think I at least want the Swiss added to the game before we are too full on civs. At least, I think this is a civ that can have a lot done for it like a sacking of Rome campaign mission. Tbh, I wouldn’t even mind a DLC like the Forgotten where it’s just civs from different areas. It’s not a rule that we can only have civs from one area.
1 Like
my understanding is that the Swiss are represented by the Burgundians, Franks and Teutons (they were part of the Frankish empire and the HRE).
The old swiss confederacy only became de facto independent in 1499, but was officially still part of the HRE until the end of the 30 years war in 1648.
I don’t think we should start adding HRE-kingdoms and states as civs (Bohemians are already a bit of a stretch, but at least they are somewhat linguistically different from the rest of the HRE)
I just really want the Swiss guard as a unique unit and teutons, franks, and burgundians don’t do the Swiss much representation. Also later Swiss are still within the time frame by a reasonable amount. I think the cut off is the late 1600s(conquistador is from early 1600s and is one of the OG units). The Swiss I want are from 1500s so I think we are good in this department. Also I think the Swiss had a lot of historical impact unlike many other HRE territories. Besides couldn’t it be argued that Italians and Burgundians are also under HRE?
1 Like
not really? aoe2 timeframe is about 400-1500 (at least in europe, later in other parts of the world, Joan and Dracula are the latest campaigns in europe, both in the 1400s). the swiss were only around for about 200 years of that
nah, in europe the late 1600s is definitely not the middle ages anymore. conquistadors are anachronistic in the game, just like woad raiders are. But I can tolerate a single unit more than an entire civ
debatable
I mean, the Burgundians are represnting the Swiss already…so that’s kind of my point
The Italians left the HRE way earlier. The Papacy their role in the renaissance justify a unique civ imo.
I think the biggest impact out of the HRE factions would be the Habsburgs/Austrians, as they were the dominant power in continental europe for at least a century. Or alternatively the Hanse
We already have Incas, a civilization who technically only lasted 95 years. Even then I’m more concerned about whether new civs fit into timeframe of the game, actually have historical relevance, and are designed historically accurate. I would say the would be pretty similar to Cilician Armenia already in the game and accepted as a decent DLC in terms of timeframe. The biggest problem in my opinion is when a civ is designed around one person like the 3k civs which were all roughly around for as long as their heroes in game were. In short Swiss are very justifiable as an in game civilization.
Burgundians don’ have Swiss guard, don’t have a historical battle for the sacking of Rome, don’t have any unique bonus showing mountain based civ. So I don’t think they represent Swiss very well if they do.
Anything is debatable
We could add Austrians too, maybe a HRE DLC would be cool. Again Burgundians do a terrible job representing Swiss so don’t really agree with that.
We already have civs that had huge importance mainly in 1500s and lasted longer like Spanish and Portuguese so Swiss are justifiable as a civ.
1 Like
a civ so minor it really shouldn’t be in the game either. it’s age of EMPIRES not age of minor kingdoms
agreed.
but both of these civs created huge empires in the 16th century. The Swiss didn’t.
I am mostly concerned about having major empires in the game, the Swiss were never an empire, they weren’t even a kingdom. It would be absurd to arrive in a situation where we have the Chinese or the Mongols fight against the Duchy of Upper Middle Villagestan. With civ additions like the Armenians, Georgians, Burgundians and 3K we are getting closer and closer to that.
I think a civ should ever be a major player either through military power (Mongols, Huns) or cultural influence (Italians)
It should represent Bagratid Armenia, but the devs dropped the ball. That one was much more important.
Half the civs from the original game wouldn’t exist under that criteria.
1 Like
yeah, would have been better, but still just a local kingdom.
not really. the britons, franks and teutons formed literal empires. Vikings were a huge influence and power in europe. Goths were originally there to represent the Spanish and Italians + they formed some of the first big kingdoms/empires after the fall of rome.
Byzantines, Persians, Saracens, Turks I don’t think are up for debate either.
Chinese and Mongols…
Japanese I can see being argued as being a local kingdom more than an empire
The only ones where I agree with that are the Celts, but mostly because I don’t really understand who or what they are meant to represent
The Franks only had an empire during the game’s Dark or Feudal Age. They did not have any empire during the High Middle Ages. The medieval English did not have an empire; they only controlled parts of France and Ireland for a short time.
Kingdoms, yes. But you don’t want kingdoms, only empires. They did not have an empire.
It’s a minor kingdom. It didn’t have any contact with the outside world until the very end of the timeline.
In other words, the rules that you think are so important were broken from the very start. Minor kingdoms have always been in the game, not just empires, meaning there are no limits as long as a civ was an important regional power.
2 Likes
surely that’s enough. that’s longer than the mongols had theirs
yeah, fair enough. but the British empire was starting to form at the end of the timeline of the game
well the spanish and portoguese had an empire by the end of the game, so they definitely count.
The claim of “no contact with the outside world” is factually wrong:
The mongol invasion of Japan happened right in the middle of the aoe2 timeline + Japan was in frequent contact with China and Korea at the time. The isolationist period only started in the Edo period
I can agree though that there were probably other powers which were more relevant to history at the time. I think they were added because they are usually called an empire + samurai are cool. They are also the only royal family that is still in power today (at least ceremonially), so they “stood the test of time” as CIV V would say.
no. there is no debate on whether most of these civs were or became empires in the time frame of the game. For Britons I can see the argument, as they only officially became an empire waaay later
Even if they might not have been empires they certainly were not minor kingdoms. Regardless of their titles Britain and France were still the dominant powers in western europe at the time. And they were key players in the most important conflict of the time: the crusades, the consequences of that are still being felt today.
1 Like
Perhaps, but the Franks in-game represent the medieval French, except for the Throwing Axemen. They didn’t have an empire by that point.
You’d think so, but the timeline of Europe roughly ends about 1500 due to the major technological changes after that point.
I’m not sure there’s any proof that the Goths originally represented the Spanish and Portuguese as well. Their gunpowder access could just be for balance reasons.
Okay, so it wasn’t like there was no contact, but they were still pretty self-contained. They didn’t conquer other people groups.
Yes. In Western Europe. Outside of the Middle East, they weren’t super relevant. Which is my point: it’s perfectly fine to have civs that are smaller and less powerful than others as long as they were major regional powers.
1 Like