You really do make such no brainer polls. Like the result is very obvious.
If you read those articles It says soon that those terms are make up by historians much later, they didnāt call themselves that, that was what I meant. Angevin Empires is just a larger england and the huns is an horde, they barely qualify as a civ much less an empire. Aztecs is an alliance of three cities with a lot of tributaries.
make up by historians much later, they didnāt call themselves that
Iāve had this discussion here before, yes the game is eurocentric and biased. Byzantines didnāt call themselves that too, neither saracens or vikings orā¦ And that hunnic empire pic is apparently from 1911 - so people back then certainly thought of the Huns as an empire. Why not?
There wasnt a Celtic Empire tho. No Celt never united vast traxts of land. Hell, I wouldnt call a state uniting all Medieval celts one of the ābig guysā
The OG civs vary a lot in importance
I donāt think this is surprising, personally. There have been frequent discussions on this forum about what would be good choices for new civs, what criteria should be used to choose them, what the priorities should be when deciding which civs to add, and so on. Obviously thereās a lot of disagreement about those things, but I think itās pretty universally agreed (by the forum users who take part in those discussions) that civs should be based on distinct cultural groups. Thus it should be no surprise that when the devs go against that ā essentially going against every opinion and priority that Iāve ever seen voiced in those discussions ā people get upset.
That said, I actually changed my answer to civ bonuses and unique techs, because the more I look at/think about these civ designs, the less I like them.
You really think that the decision to base these civs on the Three Kingdoms is only reflected in their names?
Ethnicity and nationality mean different things. Nationality in the legal sense is a modern concept, but nationality in the sense of national identity is not, and neither is ethnicity ā both were written about by Herodotus, for example, about 2500 years ago.
(But even if they were modern concepts, that wouldnāt prevent them being applied sensibly to historical people.)
1 Like
Agree. If they really have to split, make different dynasties
1 Like
Hopefully, owners donāt end up adding orcs, elves, undead and even humans (since the game currently still has the Chinese) in future updates 
Both words originally meant the same, į¼ĪøĪ½Ī¹ĪŗĻĻ - nation.
What you wrote is all fine yet itās still a concept best left for the new age. I for one canāt name a single ethnically homogeneous empire, especially during the middle ages. But I could name the empires for 85% of the civs. The gameās called age of empires, not rise of nations, afterall.
Now I have some unpopular opinions about the DLC. My main gripe with it is that the communication was absolutely abysmal and shouldāve been handled better instead of manipulating people into getting medieval civilizations and possible medieval campaigns. However, I think people deluded themselves about the Tibetans and the Bai/Dali Kingdom completely. I cannot blame the devs for those civilizations, we even got more info with Hei Guang cavalry and some hero screenshots about the Three Kingdoms than the Tibetans and the Dali Kingdom. Except for adding Argali, which is also an animal found in Mongolia, not only in Tibet, we got zero clue for the Tibetans. However, even though the developers didnāt manipulate the community for the Tibetans and the Dali Kingdom, they still did some petty manipulations regarding the DLC. Thatās why I donāt want to buy the DLC. I donāt have huge problems with the 3K inclusion, unlike others, and if they handled their communication better, I wouldāve already pre-ordered the DLC without any hesitation. However, if you mainly concentrate on medieval screenshots without giving them campaigns and if you showcase the Tanguts even more than the Khitans but fuse them into a weird, chimera civilization instead of including both of them, then, nah. Iāll pass.
However, Iāll praise something about the DLC, and thatād be another unpopular opinion that many purists will hate. I like the idea that we have kingdoms instead of civilizations. This opens up great possibilities for better historical representation. Iād prefer to see splits for the Vikings, Turks, Saracens, Berbers, or Italians, for instance. This is also a great way to reintroduce the older civilizations with new mechanics that many of the introduced civilizations in the DE have. You can split the Turks into the Seljuks and the Ottomans, you can split the Saracens into the Abbasids, the Ayyubids, the Mamluks, and the Fatimid, you can split the Vikings into the Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians, you can split the Berbers into the Umayyads, the Hafsids, and the Marinids or you can name them in a more classical AoE2 fashion with the Andalusians, Tunisians, and Moors, and you can split the Italians into the Venetians, Genoese, Tuscans, Milanese, and the Papacy. You can even create Neapolitans from the Sicilians. In fact, if they were bolder, theyād have split the Chinese into the Tang, the Song, and the Ming. Thatād have been even better for the Chinese representation. So, this is smth I appreciate about the DLC, but donāt know whether theyād implement considering the possible backlash the DLC will get. Still, Iām glad at least theyāre trying to bring kingdoms instead of only civilizations.
Yes, if at least the two medieval civs had come with campaigns, people would have complained less, since youād have two historical periods in one DLC: the Three Kingdoms, obviously, and the Jin-Song Warsā¦
Yeah, their marketing team is terribleā¦ even worse when they stopped using puzzles, that makes people less hypedā¦
And in AoE 4ā¦the last DLC of AoE 4 has FE written everywhereā¦all FE was carried over from AoE 3 (and partly from AoE 2) to Retold and AoE 4ā¦
At least we have the Romans in AoEO (although the Roman campaign covers the entire Republican period from 509 to 390 BC) (although they recently released a quest pack about the conquest of Britain during the time of Boadicea in 61 AD)ā¦
Yes, theyāre going to launch it and then theyāll give it a balance patchā¦
Of course, AoE 2 goes from 400 to 1600ā¦ add medieval DLCs like TMR and VaV and donāt start experimenting in Antiquity (at the end of the day, add it as DLC for Return of Rome or Chronicles)ā¦
Sure, and the Wars of Liberty mod ends in WW1ā¦but no way, they should make a new AoE game in the 20th century and beyondā¦
Of course, just like they did with Battle for Greeceā¦
It would be AoE 3 but medieval xdā¦
Sure, itās an āage of empiresā in generalā¦
Of course, that doesnāt change anythingā¦ now Chronicles instead of ending in 500 AD, ends in 300 or 400 ADā¦
Age of Narcos xdā¦
It would have been nice to see that in a DLC with Brazil and Argentina called āBrazil War,ā taking advantage of the fact that weāre in the bicentennial of thatā¦
Yes, to a certain extent, but then they introduced the Mayans, Huns, Cumans, and so on, none of which became super empiresā¦ In AoE 3 itās worse, since you have the United States and Malta, which were never empires (and Mexico, although that one was at least an empire for like 4 years)ā¦
Yes, I have no problem with them bringing heroes or having three Chinese civs, but more of an issue is the chronology thatās going way back in timeā¦
Sure, I feel like Return of Rome had already fixed the AoE 1DE issues and I could live with it as long as they added new civsā¦ Chronicles is straight up AoE 2DE but in 500 BCā¦
Sure, sureā¦
Ming would be the Chinese in AoE 3 (although in general they would be more Qinq because of the Mongolian Army)ā¦
In AoE 1 they would be much larger, covering all of Europe except Italyā¦in AoE 2 they were only Wales, Scotland and Irelandā¦
Thatās trueā¦
They represent Wales, Scotland and Ireland (three kingdoms)ā¦
They represent the Ostrogothic and Visigothic kingdoms (two kingdoms)ā¦
They represent the classic and postclassic Maya in general (250-1540)ā¦
Yeah, I thought weād see the Angevins as the first English variant, considering the last 3 missions of the English campaign in AoE 4ā¦
Yes, they covered quite a bit actuallyā¦
Yes, I would eventually have to rename them to Gaels if they receive any rework in a Viking or Barbarian Civs DLCā¦
Of course, ethnicity comes from genes and race, while nation comes from culture and societyā¦for example, China, Syria, Ethiopia, and South Africa all have many ethnic groups, and yet today each one is a single nationā¦
Well, itās a general term, encompassing empires as well as kingdoms and peoples who fought against empiresā¦
Sure, I think they are putting more civ variants in AoE 2 to separate big civs from the base game to make campaigns better represented historically speakingā¦ we still donāt know what the end of year DLC is going to be (maybe the Macedonian chronicles DLC) and then next year the same (a normal DLC for AoE 2 and another for chronicles and thus getting closer little by little until reaching 400 AD, while AoE 2 can fill the gaps left in the 6th and 7th centuries; others talk about a DLC including more gunpowder units covering the 17th century)ā¦ 
That map is like the Spanish empire ones: a lot of land claimed on paper no actual control or claim on the land, and most of them tributaries or unknown status barbarian tribe. Itās not like the Romans had an accurate knowledge of what was going on Germany at any point, much less when they were trying to survive. They donāt even have a actual capital name nor and administrative system of a basic kingdom or a language we know about.
2 Likes
Kind of Offtopic but It will never stop being funny that Boudica somehow become āthe faceā of the Celts where her rebelion was stopped and her tribe destroyed the moment she fought against actual roman soldiers instead of farmers
Of course, but that was because it was a nomadic empire like those in Central Asia and they didnāt have a fixed capital, since they moved from one place to another to sack citiesā¦ it seems that their capital was Aquincum (present-day Budapest in Hungary)ā¦ and according to Priscus, the language was a mixture of the various peoples they were conquering (Gothic and Roman Latin, although since they came from Central Asia or Xiongnu, it is said that they spoke Turkish or Mongolian, as they do currently in the game)ā¦
Thatās the fault of British Romanticism in the late 19th century, which once again exalted Boudicca against the European continentā¦
1 Like
Iāll take your word for it, but they donāt mean the same thing in modern English.
I agree (although I suppose arguably Japan?) ā but thatās part of why I think the original civs didnāt represent single empires. As an example, suppose Iām (or you are) making a scenario featuring, say, Abbasid-ruled Persia. Iād either use Persians to represent them, or a combination of Persians and Saracens ā not just Saracens. (I donāt remember if there are any examples of this type in the original AoK campaigns, though. They had some pretty weird civ choices sometimes, e.g. Goths for Poland, because they had so few civs to work with.)
In Saladin mainlyā¦in Barbarossa only in the final missions traveling to the Middle Eastā¦