Better to have no Bohemians/Poles than to have Wends. It would be a huge historical jump when I would play Wends and would defend Vítkov as Hussite. Sorry, Wends are awkward It degrades both nations/states into a period when they were just nomads while their best period were in high middle ages. So as I said, I prefer to have Poles and/or Bohemians or nothing. That is my choice.
I dont know much about Poland at that period, but I would be surprised if they both could be packed as “similar”. What I know is Poles were oriented to the north and east in diplomacy and warfare dealing. While Bohemians were involved in HRE affairs with a limited “shots” in Poland or Hungary. At the start of 14th century a fresh french cultural wind came into the kingdom with Luxemburgs. So could you please write more about it?
If Bohemians (Czechs) were absorbed by Germans like Sorbians, I would not have argued for their seperate civ and Wends would have been OK. However, Goths in late and high middle ages disappeared (I mean politically).
Goths, in this game, are a conglomerate of Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Crimean Goths, and strangely the Saxons.
The precedent is already there.
Also, the Goths may have disappeared politically, but not as a civilization or cultural group. In fact, all the thrones in Iberai proclaimed Visigoth descendancy.
The Goths did not go anywhere, They did not go extinct, they just transformed into new cultures. They also did not disappear, tehy survived till the end of the period, in Crimea.
Also having them represent Saxons, a seperate germanic tribe, already sets the precedent for wide reaching umbrellas, like the Slavs or Wends.
Well Saxons in the game are represented by Teutons, right? At least in campaings they are.
Good, then here is my question. Why do we have Vikings, Britons, Teutons, Franks, Goths instead of Germanic tribes? The answer probably is there must be a level of distinguishableness, either because of culture or gameplay fun.
Slavs is so wide now and they really do not represent western Slavs now. That is the same debate like if in-game Italiens represent the whole Italian peninsula plus Sicily. Simply not
Again, I prefer Bohemians or/and Poles OR nothing rather than Wends.
Vikings are a fantasy civ, they should have been Norse (or at least Danes).
Franks and Britons exist because of the 100 Years War and the Crusades, both of which are too important to the period, to ignore.
Teutons are there so there would be one civ in Central Europe, and because of the Holy Roman Empire, as you cannot leave Charlemagne and his legacy out of any Medieval game.
Saxons are different to Goths, and still are Goths in the game, so the precedent is there,
Nope. Sicily was not Italian, at all, in the Middle Ages.
Then you will likely get nothing, or just one of them, and the other side will complain.
Yes, I know. They represent the Norse. But they are Germanic as well. That was my point.
Yes, that fits into my answer about some level of distinguisableness.
In Barbarossa campaign Saxons are Teutons That means even devs do not have clear stance here.
I did not say that. I said it is the same debate whether Italiens in the game represent all Italian people of nowadays Italy. And my answer is No And thus Slavs do not represent all people from central and eastern europe.
Thats ok, I have Bohemians in Teutons/HRE then I am content.
This all debate is basically my experience with Bulgarians being represented in the game. I am in a “privilaged” position as Bulgarians are one of the few and Eastern European civs and the only slavic one that has a civ of its own.
When I was a kid and we were playing AoE2 we were asking “why no Bulgarians we had great history and Tsars”. An older guy was telling 'well you know Huns are basically the same aas the bulghars. They have similar originin, they used cavalry and Tarkan was actually rank n the Bulgarian army".
Than HD came with the slavs who had boyars , druzhina and orthodoxy all things that make sence for the Bulgaria states in the Middle Ages. Only the crest and the Wonder being more speciffic to Rus. It was certainly another level of representation while not complete.
And Finally with DE we got Bulgarians in all might and glory :D. What I mean is I do understand there are very different levels of representation of a civ can have. And it come s to a point that for many people nothing but the exact kingdom, or state they originate works.
Now about Wends it feel ackward as I only heard of the turm when I started reading topics like this one. Ofc this is basically my ignorance. On the otheer hands a turm like Ruthenians ( for east slavic civ) makes more sence to me. And Yugo slavs is a hard no if you ask me. It has way too many political conotations. And is also not related with the Middle Ages.
Hey! I remeber, however, that somewhere I read that Goths were selected because of Huskarls. Huskarls are not Gothic unit, they are an Anglo-saxon unit. So maybe in this case UU prevails over the overall civ character. And to be honest:)) I can hardly imagine I attack Teutonic Knights with my Frankish paladin in this scenario
They were common among all germanic tribes, as retinue to noblemen and chieftains (Huskarls = House Guards).
The Saxons did make them famous, however. The Goths were a Heavy Cavalry and Cavalry Archer horde, so their unit should have been a Heavy Cavalry unit.
It would be really nice, but then I should also add Serbs and Croats - but unfortunately you can’t. AoE 2 is a game about civilizations, not nations. Poles and Czechs are different nations, but the same civilization. Croats and Serbs alike.
Exactly. Burgundy was a state, but it had many nations - I think it’s good that it was added.
You understand it perfectly You explain very well how it works.
The Wends think that sounds cool. Suffice it to write in the history that it is a fusion of the peoples of the Western Slavs.
Yugoslavs - no, Serbo-Croatians - no. So what are your ideas? Serbo-Croatians do not seem to harm either one or the other nation - it even shows their common genesis.
The current Slavs are Rus (or Ruthenians) - you can see it with the naked eye. It is enough to rename this civ.
I am against renaming any civs, or else everyone will want to rename theirs.
Spanish to Castillians.
Indians to Rajputs.
Saracens to Arabs.
Celts to Scots.
Vikings to Danes.
Chinese to Han.
Britons to English.
Italians to Genoese.
Teutons to Austrians.
Turks to Ottomans.
Aztecs to Nahuatl.
Koreans to Goryeo.
Japanese to Nippon.
It will be a huge can of worms, because there are many, many people that want to make this a game about specific nations and kingdoms, just so they can cry until they get their specific nationality or pet state in it.
But the Slavs present in the game are Rus. Rus is the civilization from which today’s Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians come. This change is not destructive, it is in keeping with the story.
Here you write about nations, not civilizations. Rus is a civilization not a nation.
No, Rus are a specific slavic group, that are associated exclusively to Russia and Ukraine. Also, the Slavs campaign is literally about a well-known Wallachian ruling Romania, and defending it from the Ottomans.
No I do not have an answer I just say how I “feel” about that. Perhaps having just West/East/South Slavs would be fine without turms only historians and forum civ nerds like ourselves know.
It degrades both nations/states into a period when they were just nomads while their best period were in high middle ages. So as I said, I prefer to have Poles and/or Bohemians or nothing. That is my choice.
You explain very well how it works.