These flags look great @Seicing ! But didn’t you like the greenish sides on Aztec flag? I dig it
Look at all the world maps in the ‘Rise and Fall’ civ time analysis. ‘Abbasid Caliphate’ doesn’t cover anything at any of the analyzed times.
Persia never disappears and very strong states in the beginning, middle and especially late period of AoE4.
The criteria-set conclusion of the investigation is clear:
Persia is one of the most worthy DLC civs for AoE4, massively unique, a whole civilization in the true sense, existing the entire period with most strategic position and so many interactions with other civs, ending the game as a major world power … Persia is the #3 or #4 DLC civ candidate for AoE4 worldwide.
This one is much better really! Appreciate it
Well, you didn’t post any map between 750 to 950, but they still get a tiny bit of land in the 1200 one
But to be fair, we don’t have the abbasid caliphate in game, we get the abbasid dynasty… even if they not always ruled over the land, they had a symbolic position in the islamic world. Until 1517 when they gave the caliphe title to the ottoman sultan.
They are like a generic whole arab civ, a pity, I 100% wouldn’t like a Frankia civ that mixed France and HRE
Well this ain’t “fair”, on the contrary. ‘Dynasty’ is conceptually and historically wrong. It was a Caliphate, a completely different concept / idea of a government from a ‘dynasty’. Any person from any ethnicity or nationality can be Caliph of Islam, the opposite of dynasty.
Some people try to delete the past because in their mistaken and biased mind, they judge a word (‘Caliphate’) to be politically inconvenient nowadays. And then they tell us it’s ‘not allowed’ to bring politics into AoE… yet they’re doing it by deleting the Caliphate, not us.
I agree with you, a generic ‘Arab civ’ is lamentable. It’s like ‘Francia’ combining HRE and France indeed. Few fans would approve it?
The Abbasids speak Arabic (I’ve heard some people complain about the dialect of Arabic they speak, it appears not to change with the age-ups unlike other languages); it’s the Sultanate of Delhi that speaks Persian, the language of its elites instead of an Indian language most people expect an Indian civ to speak
I feel like Korea and Japan would be good all-rounders to fill out the East Asian side of AOEIV. Though, since they get decent coverage from historical RTS’ already, I wouldn’t mind if the next East Asian civ is Tibet, Siam or Khmer. I love history and flavor and wouldn’t mind having all of them but I doubt the devs are going to release any more than two civs a year, if they update this game at all.
For Africa, Axum/Abyssinia/Ethiopia and one civ from West Africa (Ghana, Mali, Songhai) is usually what we’ve been getting from historical RTS. If there’s a way to include the surrounding peoples (like Nubians or Somalis) in as Auxiliaries, that’d be pretty cool too. Definitely would have some interesting architecture
I wrote a comment in the Native American civs thread talking about how Inca is the only feasible New World Civ that could stand on its own in a multiplayer match without requiring too much unrealism or alternate history.
For the Middle East, Turks and Persians definitely stand out as major players historically. Only issue with Persia is their broken-up history of independence - would you play as the Sassanids, Khwarezm or Safavids? AOEIV has this weird thing where some civs go by their generic name and others are named after a specific state. Turks might be cool if there’s a switch from nomadic to sedentary. Of course, they also shift between the Gokturks/Seljuks to the Ottomans, which also have very distinct identities, so there’s an issue there too.
As for Europe, Europe’s pretty rich with potential civs due to our familiarity with the history, languages and militaries of the region. I’d base my picks on how different their gameplay would be from what we already have with England, France, HRE and Rus’. Maybe there could be religious mechanic for the Norse and Lithuanians where you can choose to either stay Pagan or adopt Christianity. Byzantines definitely should be included
@SickJuicy58 First-rate bird’s eye view of prospective AoE4 civs on your last post. With the advantage of breaking down into continents, quite helpful in such AoE-civ analysis. I’m going to discuss each paragraph.
Where you from @SickJuicy58 ?
Almost on the same page here. Japan and Korea are old Asian staples. Nonetheless, Khmer & crucially, fresh + fascinating Majapahit (see @Kameho3743 's concept) or, yes, Tibet would be more exciting imo.
African civs are extremely unique, especially Mali, perhaps the #1 in ‘uniqueness’ of all Old World civ candidates, unbelievable architecture, do you remember Mali buildings in AoE2 (see below)? Nubian mercenaries would be cool.
Agree 100%. Inca is honestly the only true competitive megaempire in the Americas in the timeframe. That doesn’t exclude Aztecs though.
‘Turks’ is a vast Central Asian-Middle Earth-European civ with several empires spanning the entire AoE4 (not ‘Middle East’), perhaps the most important medieval civ in the world. And the Turks’ transition from nomadic to sedentary is the next AoE gameplay revolution. Clearly the #1 candidate civ in most criteria.
Specific polities are not important; “French” is not really a state name, “Chinese” is not a dynasty, they’re civilizations (including non-Chinese states). That’s why we totally need ‘Persians’, one of the most important / unique / interesting / content-rich civilizations.
By the way a real ‘Middle East’ civ would be the Crusaders, Kingdom of Jerusalem or Crusader States:
Hungary, Norse, Bulgaria, Poland-Lithuania are legit candidates, can add later, but only the Roman Empire / Byzantine Empire is priority here. There’s too much Europe in AoE4 already (HALF of vanilla civs, and they’re the least interesting civs), check the ‘Rise and Fall’ OP above to see just how absurd that is.
Cool flag but it’s not real, not historical. All others are, this one doesn’t belong.
The conclusion of the analysis is a civ ranking, then what’s the explicit justification for each civ ranking, given the criteria?
Of the civilizations you listed, the Malians and Aztecs are the ones I am hoping for the most right now. Though the Maya could be a good representative for Mesoamerica as well. They never had a singular unified empire, but their civilization was around for a much longer time than the Aztecs, and while many of their cities in the southern half of their realm did get depopulated around 900 AD, there were still thriving Maya cities in the northern part of the Yucatan peninsula after that date.
I’m very stoked for the empire of Mali. I can’t get enough of their architecture, their desert knights and Sahara cool. Which civ could be paired with Timbuktu? Inca or Aztecs seems like an extremely difficult choice, ideally a future 3-civ expansion with Spain may be feasible and thematic.