True, but the Taborites should still get some recognition.
European emperors were crowned by the papacy, kings were not usually crowned. The Holy Roman Emperors didnt even bother to get crowned anymore before the 30 years war. Yes the papacy exerted power over other nations, but that doesnt mean they encompase the middle ages.
First of all Europe isnt the only continent this time. Second of all the papacy didnt magically loose their power at the start of the 30 years war. Protestantism was already long on its way since the beginning of the 16th century and the papacy still holded partial power of catholic nations after the 30 years war.
Its far more logically to take multiple society based changes and military and political changes, then just one nation.
1 Like
No, but the Middle Ages are an European phenomenon.
For the rest of the world, it was either the Second/Late Iron Age, or Post-Antiquity.
How about removing them from many civs for historical accuracy? heh
1 Like
Cannot be done, since it is a Trash unit, and is actually important for most civs that have it.
I would actually give Wends the Hussar, just not make it a focus of them.
The only unit that can be removed from a lot of civs without causing issues, is the Cavalry Archer.
In Western Europe, only Franks, Goths and Britons should really have them.
Portuguese, Spanish, Italians, Teutons, Vikings, Sicilians, Celts and Burgundians could lose them, without it affecting them at all.
Also, Historical Accuracy makes for really bad gameplay, it has no place in a balanced game.
If you went the Accuracy route, then only Magyars would have them, because only Magyars had them in the actual Middle Ages.
Thats not a contradiction 
good 
I meant why to have another cavalry civ while there are already plenty of such civs. What else makes the civ unique. Like if I am a casual player who likes cavalry, why to pick Poles instead of Huns, Franks, Cumans, etcâŠ
I wrote âin the gameâ. Otherwise I neednt to do any research because I am not an advocate of Poland here 
thx for the proposal.
2 Likes
@iIiAGSPiIi @DarthPyro4335
And you can see what a separate civilization means - just quarrels and dissatisfaction. The Czechs will be in the game - Poles will be ignored, Poles will be in the game - Czechs will be ignored. This is not Europa Universalis, to demand as many nations as possible in the game. It is about civilization.
Look at the Italians. If the Venetians or the Papal States were captured, all Italians would be furious. Thatâs why you have to make umbrellas - but not as mean as the Slavs present in the game (make Ruthenians and call them Slavs - thatâs wrong).
Can you all see it? We can compromise - and we have a nice representation - Western Slavs here.
Instead of arguing, letâs unite.
1 Like
But with that name weâre not talking about the dark ages tribe of the wends. It is an exonim. âWendsâ was the way some germans called the slavs living near their borders. Itâs like saracens, berbers, tatars. Names that some people used to call some other people collectively.
Cmon, no one ever asked for that. At much someone would call for renaming saracens and indians, but even if they did, just donât listen to them? A post about civ renaming every 2 weeks or so is not something to worry about. If poles/wends, bohemians and serbs are included in the game, then slavs stops making sense as the name of the civ. The risks of such renaming are minimal compared to the coherence achieved.
Because as much, weâre getting 13 new civs for a total of 50. That being an optimist approach. And with that number in mind we must make concessions and agreements for what civs we want to see in the game. If we make western slavs as two separate civs, then there is some other civ that doesnât get into the game. Iâd rather have Wends and (letâs say) Thais as civs number 49 and 50, than have Poles and Bohemians as civs 49 and 50 but no Thais.
2 Likes
Btw, this is a really good civ design.
Things like this give me hope that we can get to the 50 total civs without any crazy stuff.
2 Likes
As I have written twice before, if there would be no Bohemians I am OK. If there would be Poles I am OK as well. I am against any half-solutions and compromises.
1 Like
Who cares about civs number after the last DLC? Honestly, nobody, all limits have fallen. The only limit are fun/playability and $
1 Like
We donât know what the AGE hard-coded limitations are. Iâm sure there are some, somewhere.
Depending on the financial success of Age 4, Microsoft could stop treating AoK as itâs prestige PC product and limit the funding Forgotten Empires get to merely balance updates. I really do feel everything is contingent on what percentage of current playerbase (including the pro scene) migrate to AoE 4.
âŠUnless the next expansion (probably later next year?) sells as many copies as the entire player base. But thatâd have to be something special, so most likely itâd be either North American, or South Asian-themed- dealing with regions AoK hasnât really explored much before, rather that 'filling in the blanks" the way Eastern European or extra African DLC would be.
So practically every civilization in this game is bad for you.
Celts, Chinese, Franks, Japanese, Teutons, Indians are examples of a civilization of compromise.
1 Like
The HRE would be one of the easier ones really, make them a sort of vassal type nation, give them landsknecht infantry, which was a common unit throughout the empire. Give castles mabe some uniqueness to show the decentralization of the empire. And then give the units different language voice lines. Like halbedier Italian, crossbow Dutch, or something like that.
You dont have to worry about representing people, because its an empire in which these people lived and thus having them in-game. Slavs is something different, because it is first of all not really a people on its own like the other peoples in-game and its not a nation. Seeing AoE IV is coming id rather see them approach the civs as nations, because that gives the oppurtunity to give way more people a place in-game, but thats another story.
Speaking in AoE II, I would say remove some civs (quantity is not quality) and split up existing umbrella civs that really need it. Give existing bonusses of removed civs to new civs if they fit. In my opinion India needs to be split of before the Slavs and the Slavs at most should have 2, not more. Polish do not make much sense anymore as they were militarily pretty similar to the Lithuanians, and later in a personal union, again a point to bring up to nations, I.E. you could have had a commonwealth, but again thats not the point here.
Nobody has said that⊠except youâŠ
The Slavs are a branch of three groups of Slavic peoples:
- Eastern Slavs - Rus (Belarusians, Russians, Rusyns and Ukrainians)
- West Slavs - Wends (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Sorbs and ethnic groups Kashubians, Moravians and Silesians and the extinct Polabians and Pomeranians)
- South Slavs - Serbo-Croatians (Bosniaks, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes)
*Bulgarians are also South Slavs, but during the Middle Ages they had a lot of Turkish influence - the obnoxious Bulgarians perfectly show this fusion of Turkish and Slavic peoples. But it is not a representative civilization for the South Slavs. The Bulgarians civilization music theme is undoubtedly very Turkish.
Each of these groups is distinct and has a different culture.
Therefore, I believe that it will be most fair to add two new Slavic civilizations (Wends and Serbo-Croat) and change the name of the current Slavic civilization to Rus.
These two new civilizations would appear alongside two other new civilizations: Georgians and Armenians. Four new East European civilizations. Cool? I think very cool.
Can you read?
I am against any half-solutions and compromises.
So practically every civilization in this game is bad for you.
Celts, Chinese, Franks, Japanese, Teutons, Indians are examples of a civilization of compromise.
Read it again with understanding.
I read âYou excel in ripping out of contextâ. Think about it.
Now I am you: so basically you are against any new civs, right?
Listen. In EU4 you have something like cultural groups. They are divided into cultures. There may be one, but there may also be 10 countries with the same culture. So you have a lot of countries in EU4.
Now letâs go back to AoE. Here it is impossible to represent every state, state and nations. You have to limit yourself to cultural groups. And thatâs what the Western Slavs, South Slavs, etc. are like. There arenât any Orleans in this game, no Provencal, just Franks. Do you understand whatâs going on?
If not, itâs too hard for youâŠ