I’d actually like a Samnite Wars Chronicles with Roman Republic, Etruscans and Gauls.
1 Like
Very late indeed, the Dutch appeared in 1581 (the Burgundians are the ones who represent them in AoE 2)…
Yes, if the Chronicles of Rome DLC lasts 118 years like Battle for Glory, it could… going from 264 BC (start of the First Punic War) to 146 BC (Roman conquest of Carthage and Greece/Macedonia). Then it would be a Romans vs. Carthaginians DLC (the Pyrrhic Wars could be released as a prequel to that great campaign, playing as Romans against Macedonians)…
Well, Burgundians…
Yes, that could be…
Yes, with campaigns by Mehmed II (Turks) and Matthias Corvinus (Magyars/Croats)…then the Croats would have Tomislav, the Serbs Stefan Dusan, and the Vlachs Dracula…the Albanians could have Skanderbeg, but I’d save him for a DLC with the Venetians and the Italian city-states…
You have Kongolese, Bantu, Swahili, Somali, Nubians and in the north-central region, Kanem…
Yes, it wouldn’t be surprising either… In The African Royals for Age of Empires 3, they discarded the Songhai and the Moroccans for different reasons (the former not lasting long, and the latter being too similar to Europeans) until they found the Hausa…
At most we could have Haudenousanee (1142-1580), Mississippians (800-1540) and Puebloans (700-1600)…
Yes, in Age of Empires 2 the Persians end with Ismail Safavid’s son, Tahmasp I (r. 1524-1576)…so in Age of Empires 3, the Persians would start with his grandson Abbas I (r. 158-1629) (who would be the first Persian emperor) and from then on until Ahmad I of Iran (r. 1909-1925), the last Qajar shah during World War I…
It could also be… the Second Samnite War started in 326 BC (when Alexander was fighting Porus on the Hydaspes) and if you make the Roman Chronicles a century-long campaign, you could end with the Battle of Zama in 202 BC…
1 Like
in those times we still had to fight the sea.. we were only starting to build our dykes. we had some heavily fortified cities that’s why the defensive bonus and the access to arbalest is so fitting 
besides that some were infamous for being raiders and hired by the HRE which ended up being similar to hearth troops
and the northern frisians are covered with the viking theme and the longboats
that makes the Saxons fitting for Pierre Gerlofs Donia
Frisians are a subtribe of the Saxons anyway.
actually the throwing axemen are the fransisca, they’re frankish dutch from early medieval times. the nobles that were found in archeological sites in the netherlands that were frankish had franciscas.
i think the frisians are covered because they’re saxons.
i completely disagree with this. burgundians covers the middle medieval times of the western and southern netherlands (holland, zeeland, west and oost vlaanderen). and the saxons cover eastern netherlands (frisia, land and stad (freecity of groningen), salland (Zwolle), gelder, brabant, luxurybourg). and the danes cover the hanseatic city of Kampen that was under the danish crown. for utrecht the romans and saxons fit depending on the timeframe.
and the other hre-freecities and teutonic order cities and lands belong with the teutons civ.
what i really want to see is more african and american civs still!!
In the campaigns they are represented by the Franks and the Teutons.
Yes, but you could also look for a similar, more medieval civilization…
Just had a thought.
The Songhai, kanemburu and hausa would be the most relevant for a DLC because they had massive empires in terms of area and are connected historically for a campaign.
BUT!
They do fit the current architecture perfectly. I also don’t think they would make a new architecture just for the Ethiopians and not use it in the new campaign. That’s why I think we won’t get the Sahel empires but (if we stay in Africa) the East or the South.
If we get the East, it could expand to South Arabia. Yemen, Oman, Somalia And Swahili (Zanzibar). Have connected history and very special architecture. Not sure if Ethiopians would also receive it, because this would leave Mailand with a unique architecture.
South and tropical Africa would be completely independent of exis civs.
We could have a wide area covering architecture (Zimbabwe, Kongo, Swahili) like with the South American architecture or a tropical focus (Kongo, Benin, ingbo, oyo).
Total guess it will be more civs expanded either - Saracens - Spanish - Celts. imo
Africa has a civ that is Malians in name only and one called Ethiopians and use both to represent pretty much everyone, so I wouldn’t say it’s in a better state.
2 Likes
The problem with Africa right now is that the Malian campaign is six Malian mirror matchups. It is not very exciting. And the Ethiopian campaign is six Ethiopian mirror matches.
I think the next DLC should be middle eastern but eventually, I would like to see 3 West African civs (with 3 new campaigns) and to throw these civs into the Malian campaign to make it more interesting in terms of civ matchups. Six mirror matchups is so boring.
I say the same thing for the Yodit campaign. Fighting the Ethiopians as the Ethiopians gets boring.
The same can be said for the Sforza campaign where you only fight Italians (and the Venetians are represented by Portuguese for some reason). Sforza would greatly benefit from more Italian civs or if the Italians were given more unique units to add variety to the campaign.
1 Like
It’s marginally better, but better nonetheless.
I just don’t think they really fit in the game. It’d make more sense to have like fringe split civs such as Aragornese/Catalans with a Catalan Company campaign and Almogavars UU. Then whatever you could do with like Samoans who mostly just chilled on their islands.
At most, just have like a couple odd assets in the scenario editor like NA has with the Iroquis Warriors in the Vinlandsaga mission. If people want to slap something together
There should not be multiple granular Polynesian civs, but only a single umbrella civ covering all of them. Either way, the Samoans did have an empire, small as it was.
But would they be a good representation of all different groups or would they be another case like pre-DoI Indians?
I think Malay is a worse umbrella.
1 Like
Yeah that one is really bad as well
There are only two major Polynesian cultural groupings: Western Polynesia and Eastern Polynesia. Western had a largely unified culture despite large distance because of Samoa and later Tonga consolidating all islands under their control. Eastern Polynesia was more isolated and had more uniqueness among the different islands. I think it could work.
1 Like
Balkan DLC with Vlachs, Serbs, Croats and multiple Byzantine campaigns.
1 Like
Here is a fake in-game history section I wrote for the Polynesians, which goes into more detail:
Polynesia consists of many small, unconnected islands or island groupings spread throughout the Pacific, including Hawaii, Tonga, Samoa, Easter Island, and New Zealand. Although all Polynesians genetically originate from the Lapita culture of Southeast Asia, there are two main divisions of the region: western Polynesia and eastern Polynesia.
Western Polynesia, consisting of islands like Tonga and Samoa, had a relatively unified and complex culture due to being settled much earlier than the east. Empires, confederacies, and other various hegemonies within the region kept the various islands in close contact with each other despite their distance. As one culture evolved, so did the others around it.
One notable Western Polynesian power, the Tu’i Tonga Empire, began to expand outside its territory beginning in 950 AD, under the reign of Aho’eitu. As the Samoan Tu’i Manu’a Confederacy began to wane, this opened a window of opportunity for growth, occurring quickly over the next few centuries. Under the tenth Tu’i Tonga, Momo, who reigned around 1100, Tonga had reached its peak, influencing many other islands besides Samoa, including the Micronesian islands of Pohnpei and Kiribati and the Melanesian islands of Fiji and Vanuatu. The empire declined in the 1500s due to a combination of diluted bloodlines, assassinations, and general disorder, and Samoa, having been granted de facto independence at this point, once again became a dominant cultural power in the region.
Eastern Polynesia, by contrast, was much more isolated geographically and culturally, the consequence of which being a much greater divergence in characteristics. The moai statues of Easter Island, the hula dances of Hawaii, and the pā hillforts of New Zealand are all examples of distinct cultural elements that evolved as a result of their unique circumstances and geography.
Easter Island, indigenously known as Rapa Nui, is a particularly famous example of Eastern Polynesian culture, and was also among the last of the islands to be settled, being estimated to have occurred in the 12th century. Its origins, ultimate fate of its people, and purpose of the famed moai are all still shrouded in mystery, contributing to its enduring global allure. Some theories maintain that the island’s deforestation is what led to its decline, while others suggest war as the culprit. Scant evidence suggests contact with people from South America, though the extent and direction both remain unclear.
1 Like
My suggestion to add the Dutch was mostly a joke (I said that they should be able to build on water 
), they fit more in Age of Empires III. But it got a good discussion going, interesting points!
I would say that the Saxons have more potential. They are now based on Anglo-Saxon England, while the Saxons were also in north of the Netherlands and Germany. Specifically, the north of the Netherlands consisted of Frisians and Saxons, so not Burgundians.
I agree with you. Interesting that you mention Groningen, that is my city and region. Anyways, it would be cool to see more of the Saxons in the context of mainland Europe.
Would also be cool to see the Frisians as a civilization.
1 Like