They’re ethnic Armenians, but they don’t live in modern-day Armenia, which is the historical Armenia that practically everyone thinks of. It’s a copout to have an Armenians civ but not represent their main homeland very well.
1 Like
TRUE. I have already read quite a few references to the fact that the Armenian Cavalry was the most broken in Eastern Europe, that the Byzantines always preferred to recruit them as mercenaries and the Arabs exported horses from them.
I guess just for balance reasons and limitations of the original game rules (1 or 2 unique Maximo units), another unique cavalry unit was not added to them, since they already have the warrior monk.
However, the main reason, I believe, is because the Armenians came out alongside the Persian remake and Georgia, and both are Cavalry Civ. So that they are not all cavalry civs, they made Armenia a civ that has its best bonuses for infantry and foot archers; when it should be Cavalry and archers (including horse archers).
In any case and as you say, more than another Cilician civ, it would be better to change the bonuses from infantry to cavalry. It’s not difficult: the civ’s unique technology “Fereters” is so ambiguous in its meaning, that it simply gives a bonus to infantry “Just because” (*What does carrying relics have to do with infantry having more HP? *); could be changed to something cavalry like “Armenian mercenaries” or “Armenian husbandry”, with some bonus to cavalry, and change its bonus from early infantry to early cavalry, with paladin included, and matter settled.
They’re ethnic Armenians, but they don’t live in modern-day Armenia, which is the historical Armenia that practically everyone thinks of. It’s a copout to have an Armenians civ but not represent their main homeland very well.
Modern-day Armenia would be a missrepresentation of the medival Armenia. The devs should not implement modern day civs into AoE2, but historical civs, since it is a game about history. And if the game can teach players that Armenia in history was more than what it is today, than it has an educational benefit.
What would be wrong is to take some modern day peoples and create an AoE2 for them even if they were historically irrelevant. It s about history not about today.
3 Likes
I think it’s quite a widespread problem, specially on this forum: people reacts with their own national modern thoughts, hence the numerous asks of diverses civs
3 Likes
The problem I think is that even in medieval Armenian Cilicia, they were still generally considered to be good at cavalry and sieges, rather than being famous for naval warfare. Similarly, the Georgians were known for their fighting in the mountains, which was dominated by superior infantry. To a certain extent, the tech trees of the two civs have been swapped.
2 Likes
As @UpmostRook9474 said above me.
@Prokman7582 You could have just liked the post.
1 Like
You made the same comment correcting me twice. And no, Goths arent related to Germany’s Germans, Italians arent Romans nor Sicilians, Huns and Hungarians arent related
Burgundians and Sicilians suck and shouldnt have been added too so your excuse is silly. Sicilians are gimmickier Franks because they are very similar and represent Normans, they have bonuses for farming, tanky cav, castles, and an infantry UU
3 Likes
They symbolize both Armenia, the Bragatid and the Cilician…
I did like the Flemish Revolution, it reminds me of Ragnarok from AoM and the revolutions from AoE 3…
2 Likes
I hearted this comment because of this
But i was pretty torned about this
2 Likes
The same wikia says so…
The Armenians are a Mediterranean civilization introduced in Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition - The Mountain Royals, based on Bagratid Armenia and Cilician Armenia.
Why? I’m right, the devs want to put some later AoE mechanics in the successive expansions (at this rate AoE 2 is going to look like AoM in 5 years xd)…
There are new mechanics added they have only been used on one unit or civ bonus and they need to be utilized more before pretending adding new mechanics makes them more important than us thinking of new ways to use the ones we got
3 Likes
That’s true…we’ll see what they do…
Yeah, well, the Bagratid dynasty is very poorly represented in the civ.
Yes, but nothing is worse… I thought the Armenian campaign was going to be Ashot the Great’s (820-890), but I guess Thoros is fine I guess (simply because Reinald of Chatillon is the antagonist)…
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I’M GONNA RENAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME
1 Like
Maybe I’m missing something here. Was the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia not armenian?
1 Like
He wants an actually historicalky accurate civ for Armenia so he says that we should just have two Armenian civs
That’s not really answering my question.
Yes they were Armenians, Im just explaining why Op wants two civs for the same ethnic group
2 Likes