(Poll) Between Africa and America, which region do you want AoE II DE visit next?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
61

I already admitted that I was wrong and conceded your point. Did you miss that?

Sorry that I’m not omniscient and don’t know everything. Clearly you do if you’re judging me.

That’s not absurd. They were empires according to the definition of the word.

I’m not making stuff up. The arguments I’m making are factually valid for the most part, if a bit incomplete due to my lack of knowledge.

Yes. I just forgot about them.

How were they defined then?

My arguments aren’t made up. They’re very valid.

That’s not the impression I got from your posts.

Genuine lack of knowledge isn’t dishonest.

So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t want players to learn about the lesser-known parts of history through this game, and instead only know the largest players that are taught about in schools.

Let me break it down for you: More civs means more parts of the world that people learn about that they might otherwise not know about, which the game will teach them about. This game is educational as well as competitive; shouldn’t you want people to be more knowledgeable? Elitism only leads to ignorance. Sure, many civs weren’t global movers and shakers, but they provide an opportunity to learn more about a particular region. Don’t deprive people of that.

Well, you can’t, so there’s no point complaining about it. It’s better to complain about things that we CAN change, like 3k. Constantly complaining about new things is annoying and not endearing in the slightest. It ruins other people’s enjoyment. Don’t be that guy.

2 Likes
62

And why are arguing so much what is and what isn’t and empire and what deserves to be in game in a thread about future DLCs, if you clearly don’t care for any new civ, Why don’t you just state your opinion and leave?

63

I did quite a bit of research into the Rashtrakutas a while back for something else, what I got was:

  • Infantry were mostly equipped with just a dhoti and a metal helmet shaped like a shorter Kiritamukuta, this is likely due to the hot weather. But to compensate, they had massive Hoplite-style shields, similar to this:

    image
    image360×360 42.8 KB

  • Weapons I could mostly find either one-handed spears or big two-handed maces called gada

  • Discipline was very high, soldiers were likely very well trained

  • A lot of the tactics involved a hammer and anvil. With the infantry in the centre, and heavy cavalry on the flanks. A lot of emphasis was put on these heavy cavalry units, so they were likely essential to the main strategy.

  • Not a huge amount on elephants. But they were present.

A good way to do Kannadigas personally would to make them an infantry and cavalry civ. Two UUs, one a gada-wielding infantry unit from the castle, and a heavy cavalry unit from the stable that essentially replaces the knight line functionally.

All other typical South Asian elements would apply, like Elephant Archers instead of cavalry archers, Armoured Elephants instead of rams and no knight-line. Oh! And the Brahmin monk model. Technically the Rashtrakutas were predominantly Jains, but there is no Jainist monk model, and they had a large Hindu population as well.

64

I prefer an African DLC. Here are some potential civs.
Swahilis
Somalians
Sudanese/Nubians
Zimbabwean
Congolese
Songhai
Hausa
Ghana
Kanembu

1 Like
65

you were still claiming that the aoe2 civ barely represents the Carolingan Empire

I am judging anyone who posts unsubstantiated or wrong claims, like you were doing. I expect you to verify what you post before you do so.

stuff you made up:

Japanese had no contact with the outside world
the major european powers of the time were “regional powers”
there is no proof that the Goths originally represented Spanish and Portuguese
the Franks in-game represent only the medieval French
The Franks only had an empire during the game’s Dark or Feudal Age.
Half the civs from the original game aren’t empires.

quite frankly, the definition of emperor was weird and has changed a lot. Translation is also a huge issue. In many cases emperors were self declared, in some cases emperors were those who ruled over kings. A kind of objective definition I’ve seen is “rules over people of a different culture or language group” or “separate states, duchies, principalities etc”. I don’t think a completely consistent definition exists.

The “they didn’t occupy land far away, so they weren’t an empire” doesn’t work imo, firstly because “far away” is very subjective, and secondly it feels more like a colonial thing, ie “do they have colonies”.

ok

this is what I mean when I say you are dishonest: you are putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said.

There are still so many lesser known parts of history that can be told with the existing civs, hell we don’t even have campaigns for several OG civs. There is also nothing stopping the devs from having multiple campaigns for one civs.

I think people should learn about the major players first. Also i think considering the current devs treatment of history (3K, thirissidai) they should learn some history themselves first.

how has that been going?

you have called me annoying, and elitist in one post now. stop it with the personal attacks. Or to use your words:

because there are genuinely large empires that aren’t represented yet. eg Ghana, Songhai.

I already stated

but they have repeatedly dropped the ball. The only mainline DLC with “very positive” reviews is Dawn of the Dukes (battle for greece also has this), with recent ones being “Mixed” or “Mostly Negative”. I like this game. I like high quality additions to it. We just haven’t had any for a long time.

if there are 100 posts by the same 3 people with their absurd civ additions, and just one post saying “these are absurd” it looks like there is an overwhelming majority in favour of these additions. Someone needs to be the voice of reason

1 Like
66

That was before the edit.

Like you verified that there were no empires in Oceania?

So I can be wrong sometimes. Sue me.

You never said it, but you’re saying it through your actions by criticizing smaller additions like the Armenians and Georgians, who can help people learn about that region and its history.

And there are plenty that cannot, which would need a new civ.

You attacked me first. I have been exceptionally polite throughout this whole exchange.

1 Like
67

by any meaningful definition of the word, there weren’t

image
image673×167 9.28 KB

even wikipedia says so

by that logic the addition of 3K also makes sense. not all stories need to be told in this game.

where? I don’t think I did. I attacked your fallacious and wrong arguments, not you. You got annoyed by being shown that you are wrong and started insulting me.

very funny. Is this you being exceptionally polite?

these are personal attacks

1 Like
68

The term “empire” is pretty misleading then. I wish they wouldn’t do that.

3k doesn’t make sense because they aren’t distinct ethnic groups and are outside the time frame of the game. All other civs don’t have this problem.

…Oh, I guess that is what happened. I’m sorry. It’s not easy to accept being wrong, because it doesn’t happen very often.

Exceptionally polite by my standards. You should see me around my friends. I’m absolutely brutal towards them.

Regardless, you’re right. My behavior has been unacceptable up to this point. I’ve been pretty irrational.

1 Like
69

You argued with me saying sinhaleese were a chariot using people just because wiki said it so maybe you should lighten up a bit on im so a historian part.

1 Like
70

I don’t really remember that. Regardless, I guess we should all take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

71

11 fair enough 20characters20characters

72

Wikipedia is the only reason for the existence of Thrisadai and Medical Corps, the 2 big ahistorical element of Dravidians.

73

Would it be super erroneous to use a gada on horseback? That’s what I came up with yesterday, but I can change it.

74

Angevin empire | Medieval Europe, Kings & Legacy | Britannica The Britons’ empire.

1 Like
75

I have seen no records of it being done, and have only seen artwork of infantry wielding them.

Not saying it’s impossible/didn’t happen. Rajput horsemen used to swing hand-and-a-half swords around their heads like maniacs, so there is evidence in South Asia of horsemen using other weapons than lances or single hand weapons. Just that there’s no evidence it happened here.

76

Okay. I may keep it or I may not. Unlike the devs, I actually care about historical accuracy.

1 Like
77

Any two handed weapon is not ideal for mounted combat as it will throw you off balance when swinging.

But since this is a game where we have a mounted unit using a 2 handed sword using a gada is also ok.

78

What I absolutely DON’T want are the civilisations from the North America and a southern part of Africa. In my mind the civilization needs to have some connection to the outside world and a reasonable level of technological progress. I don’t what play as tribes fighting the other tribes residing in the area.

I would like to see the Swiss and Thais addedd to the game the most. The best campaign for the Swiss would be their war against Burgundy which led to the rise of Switzerland as we know it today. I could also see a possibility for another South American DLC, the timeline could be stretched in this region in regards to appearance of Spanish conquistadors in the campaigns.

1 Like
79

Why is everyone hung up on the history aspect when the reap reason african and American civs matter is because of gameplay variety

80

Meso civis add the least variation in the tech tree with its limited options.None elite eagle is just another eagle civi without cavalry or gunpowder.