Macedonians were Greeks and Carthagians were Phoenicians. It is pointless to have 2 civilizations to represent Greeks and Phoenicians. I suggest to rename Carthagians to Numidians and Macedonians to Thracians.
Palmyrans were a Roman province that had 13 years of independence. Renaming them to Nabataeans makes sense.
No is the same thing we have with Mongols and Tatars, and Saracens then berbers in aoe 2.
Macedonoans represent the succesor states of Alexander empire. Phoenicians also include early Phoenicians, while Carthage the ones at the time of Roman empire.
Also those civs play different each other, Mace focus on a slow but powerful late game while Greeks on boom and eco. Phoenicia on eco and Carthage on late game.power.
Mongols and Tatars are not same. Tatars are Turkic origin, while Saracens are Arabian, Berbers are Moroccan.
Macedonians are just Greeks, while Carthagians are just Phoenicians.
It is like having Ming and Tang in aoe2 or Carolingians and French.
The issue is that they are civs that have already come like this since Rise of Rome, but I’m not complaining, you’re right and the devs should see that…
This will surely start a polite conversation between Greeks and Macedonians.
And Romans
*Queue 50 posts conversation about how an entity called the Roman Empire by everyone during the Middle Ages wasn’t the Roman Empire
Modern Macedonians are Slavs, they have nothing to share with ancient Macedonians.
I was against Romans. I would be happy if they were “replaced”
Yes, Macedonians are not strictly Greek (although historical Macedonia is currently in Greece, it also reached further northwest, where modern Macedonia is)…
That’s true, modern Macedonians are Slavs…
They are not going to replace the Romans, but they can divide them into other civs prior to the Roman expansion (Estruscans, Gauls, Celts, Iberians, Lusitanians, Alamanis, Goths)…
They got replaced by Germanic peoples in the West and by Turks in the East…
But in all seriosness, as I said in Reddit. I opoesed them too, but given that we were way past the point to do something, I would just have embraced the new campaigns in AoE2 and the old campaigns in AoE1. Alas, it wasn’t meant to be.
Why would you ever even consider removing civilisations from a game that have been there for 25 years?
Yes, civs were never removed in the games, new ones were added and others were renamed…
It is just a rename, like in Dynasties of India of Indians. Civ bonuses remain the same, and they wouldn’t disappear from the game, since they were duplicates.
Well, then tell them to rename them…
Its funny how Doi is the basis for splitting renaming removing replacing ingame civi content.
How about no and let them stay as they are.
The renaming makes little sense.
The Numidians weren’t particularly famous for their elephants and navy, where they?
And if you change the bonuses of the civ you basically remove it to add a completely new one.
Thracians were also not really a super heavy infantry civilisation.
The bonuses just work best for the Macedonians.
Palmyrans are the worst civilisation in the game, but I’d still not replace them.
I don’t think old civilisations are in the way of adding new ones.
Indians were only added to the game 10 years ago and they were split up, not replaced.
The Hindustanis can’t even train Elephant Archers anymore.
Numidians had war elephant army and decent navy. Phoenicians can easily fit the role of Carthage. Then replace Macedonians with Armenians or whatever, we don’t need duplicate civs.
It doesn’t matter if the game is 25 years old, we all know it is very unsuccessful compared to aoe2, and it is time to change that, with for example replacing these 3 civs, just in name.
As a civ its probably bad, but since game is called Age of Empires it works despite being really short lived empire.
Yes, let’s say that Palmyra symbolizes the civs of the Middle East in Roman times…
Although the civilization is based on the kingdom of Palmyra in classical antiquity, only 4 AI player names actually represent leaders from there, while the rest of the AI names represent leaders from Pontus, Numidia and other lands to the east of the Roman Empire. This could be because these leaders share the trait of being important opponents and allies of Rome hailing from “exotic” desert kingdoms.
The Palmyrene Empire was a short-lived breakaway state from the Roman Empire resulting from the Crisis of the Third Century. Named after its capital city, Palmyra, it encompassed the Roman provinces of Syria Palaestina, Arabia Petraea, and Egypt, as well as large parts of Asia Minor.
The Palmyrene Empire was ruled by Queen Zenobia, officially as regent for her son Vaballathus, who inherited the throne in 267 at age ten. In 270, Zenobia rapidly conquered most of the Roman east, attempting to maintain relations with Rome as a legitimate power. In 271, she claimed the imperial title for both herself and her son, fighting a short war with the Roman emperor Aurelian, who conquered Palmyra and captured Zenobia. A year later the Palmyrenes rebelled, which led Aurelian to destroy Palmyra.
Despite its brief existence, the Palmyrene Empire is remembered for having been ruled by one of the most ambitious and powerful women in antiquity. It is also hailed in Syria, where it plays an important role as an icon in Syrian nationalism.
Archaeological finds date back to the Neolithic period, and documents first mention the city in the early second millennium BC. Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD.
The city grew wealthy from trade caravans; the Palmyrenes became renowned as merchants who established colonies along the Silk Road and operated throughout the Roman Empire. Palmyra’s wealth enabled the construction of monumental projects, such as the Great Colonnade, the Temple of Bel, and the distinctive tower tombs. Ethnically, the Palmyrenes combined elements of Amorites, Arameans, and Arabs. The city’s social structure was based structured on kinship and clans, and its inhabitants spoke Palmyrene Aramaic, a variety of Western Middle Aramaic, while using Koine Greek for commercial and diplomatic purposes. The Hellenistic period of West Asia influenced the culture of Palmyra, which produced distinctive art and architecture that combined different Mediterranean traditions. The city’s inhabitants worshiped local Semitic, Mesopotamian, and Arab deities.
By the third century, Palmyra had become a prosperous regional center. It reached the apex of its power in the 260s, when the Palmyrene King Odaenathus defeated the Sasanian emperor Shapur I. The king was succeeded by queen regent Zenobia, who rebelled against Rome and established the Palmyrene Empire. In 273, Roman emperor Aurelian destroyed the city, which was later restored by Diocletian at a reduced size. The Palmyrenes converted to Christianity during the fourth century and to Islam in the centuries following the conquest by the 7th-century Rashidun Caliphate, after which the Palmyrene and Greek languages were replaced by Arabic.
Before AD 273, Palmyra enjoyed autonomy and was attached to the Roman province of Syria, having its political organization influenced by the Greek city-state model during the first two centuries AD. The city became a Roman colonia during the third century, leading to the incorporation of Roman governing institutions, before becoming a monarchy in 260. Following its destruction in 273, Palmyra became a minor center under the Byzantines and later empires. Its destruction by the Timurids in 1400 reduced it to a small village. Under French Mandatory rule in 1932, the inhabitants were moved into the new village of Tadmur, and the ancient site became available for excavations. During the Syrian civil war in 2015, the Islamic State (IS) destroyed large parts of the ancient city, which was recaptured by the Syrian Army on 2 March 2017.
I always found Palmyra kind of lame.
I disagree respetfully about the others.
Ancient Greeks would say otherwise 
. Though you are right about the need to change up the original civs since they also represented Macedonians and Carthaginians before they were added into the rise of rome expansion. Same with the Goths who also represented the Spanish with their access of gunpowder units. Phoenicians should have a port trading bonus or something to reflect how much of a trading juggernaut they were.
