You still have to convince other people that Romania alone deserves to be represented by 3 civs.
And I’d still want an African or American/South American DLC first
3 Likes
I don’t need to convince anyone anything. If people want it they will buy it.
I guess that’s fair
But if every other civ has at least one full campaign, there could be at least a few civs that get a second campaign on top of that. This might not happen at all, but it would mean Romania could get three campaigns without being represented by 3 civs.
1 Like
Every duchy in germany can be its own civi but not a completely different people who are not slavs nor italians?
4 Likes
I think you should be more concerned with “Why would this be made if barely anybody wants it?”
Oh don’t worry, he will buy us all a free copy when the DLC arrives. 
I don’t think Mutylator is the “split Teutons” guy?
I haven’t seen his threads in a while though.
1 Like
No, he is. He posts about it almost as much as Player87 posts about Romania.
2 Likes
He’s one of two iirc. Both are definitely different people
4 Likes
I’m going to throw my hat into the ring with my own Vlachs civ concept.
Eastern European Architecture Set (unique castle: Bran Castle)
Cavalry and Defensive civilization
Civilization Bonuses:
- Start with +3 sheep, but -100 food
- Fortified Churches cost -25%; +5 garrison and population space
- Spearman line trained 33% faster
- Stable units gain +1 pierce armor per age, starting in Feudal Age
Team bonus: Scout Cavalry +5% speed in the Dark Age
Unique Unit: Viteji (cavalry unit that can survive 1 normally fatal attack with 5 HP)
Unique Technologies: Voivode (Castles, towers, and Fortified Churches built 100% faster), Romani Ironworking (damage of Mangonel line shots evenly distributed)
Yes, that’s why I say it… we don’t have to invent gunpowder either…
But for that we already have the Franks, right?..although France was called Gaul until the 9th century…
Yes, what this dlc should have been and not “we sell you the Filthydelphia campaign collection”…
Technically, the only ones that do not have a campaign are the Romans…the rest of the civs have campaigns or historical battles/scenarios…
Yes, everything can be…
Yes, I agree with everything…
Na, I don’t think they will make 3 Romanian civs (they will unite them into a single Wallachian civ) with their respective AIs…
That would be good…
I think the same…
But Venice was a naval civ (which is what the Italians are), I would settle for Albania and that’s it…
At this rate the game is going to be Age of Duchies and City States xd…
They are the “splitters” of civilizations xd…
1 Like
Speaking of this, the Dacians are already in the Rome Ad Bellum mod, and Trajan’s campaign is against the Dacians.
It’s also historically accurate and fun to play:
Dacians
- Infantry and Defensive civilization
- Unique unit: Falx Warrior (Dacian infantry with an armor piercing attack.)
- Unique technologies:
- 1A. Cult of Zalmoxis (Non-siege land units return 40% of their cost when killed)
- 1B. Sarmatian Cataphracts (Cavalry units receive -33% bonus damage)
- 2A. Davas (Forts have +3 range; Garrisoned infantry also fire arrows)
- 2B. Murus Dacicus (Elevation bonus damage +25%; Buildings also receive -25% bonus damage)
- Civilization bonuses:
- Gold mining upgrades free
- Receive +100 food, +100 gold
(Gold | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom) when advancing to the next age- Swordsmen upgrades free
- Buildings cost -15% stone
- Team bonus: Forts work 15% faster
The falx infantry especially effective against armored enemy warriors. Historically the Flax was so effective at piercing Roman helmets that Trajan ordered a new Roman helmet design just for this war. And it still wasn’t enough to stop the flax’ pierce.
When you have to harvest you wheat at 11, but the Romans invade at noon.
The Dacians were one of the few nations called barbarians by the Romans to use siege weapons. Thus the bonuses on siege.
Cult of Zamolxis: This may sound shocking to us today, but considering the Dacian’s fanatical belief that the soul is immortal and when they die they don’t cease to exist but simply change location, it was the normal thing to do for Decebalus, going to Zamolxis and avoiding being captured by the Romans.
“We have conquered even these Dacians, the most warlike of all people that have ever existed, not only because of the strength in their bodies, but, also due to the teachings of Zamolxis who is among their most hailed. He has told them that in their hearts they do not die, but change their location, and, due to this, they go to their deaths happier than on any other journey.” - Emperor Trajan
Sarmatian Cataphracts were mercenaries from Scythia.
Davas were the Dacian villages. Which most of them were fortified. Reconstruction of a Dava:
Murus Dacicus is a reference that the Dacians fought mostly on hills and again a nod to their defensive structures.
As for civ bonuses.
Gold upgrade free →
Dacia was easly, very hard to defend. And the numerous invasions in Dacia are a testament to that. Why would they want to keep a region so difficult to defend? isn’t it more trouble than it’s worth? the reason for that is - gold. So it was an important region in many ways. The Romans conquered territories but didn’t do extensive colonizations, Dacia was an exception. Because of gold.
After he defeated Dacia, Trajan brought back to Rome 700.000.000 sesterces. And every year after that, Dacia would supply Rome with 7.000.000 sesterces. Is a region like that worth being intensely colonized and defended even if it’s invaded from all sides? I would say yes.
Most prosperous mines of the Roman Empire:
Dacia: 15 tons of Gold in 162 years. - 0.09 tones a year.
Wales: 1.3 tons of Gold in 305 years. - 0.004 tones a year.
Spain: 5 tons of Gold in 250 years. - 0.02 tones a year.
Starts with 100 Gold and 100 Food → The mines and their 2nd most popular job → argiculture.
Swordman upgrades free → The infantry focus.
Building cost 15% stone → Fortifications.
Team Forts work 15% faster → Fortifications.
As for Decebalus’ campaign, we already have him as an enemy in Return of Rome. A better option if there was to be added a campaign would be Burebista.
-
He was the first king who successfully unified the tribes of the Dacian kingdom, which comprised the area located between the Danube, Tisza, and Dniester rivers.
-
Around 61 BC Burebista expelled the Celts and moved into the middle Danube.
-
In 60/59 BC he defeated and conquered the Boii, who were led by Critasiros, and the Taurisci tribes dwelling in the Middle Danube, in modern Bohemia and Slovakia.
-
These conquests were followed by the destruction of the Bastarnae peoples. Similarly, Burebista conquered a tribe that Strabo describes as living among the Illyrians and Thracians – most likely the Scordisci – while simultaneously conducting raids throughout Thrace, Roman Macedonia, and Illyria.
-
Beginning around 55 BC Burebista annexed the Greek cities on the coast of the Black Sea, occupying the Greek fortresses from Olbia to Apollonia, as well as the Danubian plain all the way to the Balkans. These conquered cities were: Olbia, Tyras, Histria, Tomis, Callatis, Odessos, Messembria, Apollonia, and Dionysopolis.
-
Burebista inevitably came into conflict with Rome. During the Roman civil war of 49–44 BC, Pompey gained the support of Burebista through Akornion of Dionysopolis. Pompey himself had recognized the might of Burebista and Dacia after their successful conquests against the Greek Black Sea cities. Caesar, however, ended any alliance between Pompey and Burebista at the Battle of Pharsalus. Caesar was also aware of the growing strength of the Dacians and had planned to lead an attack against Burebista. Burebista at this time had a force that may have numbered up to 200,000 men – though it is disputed whether this force was an actual military force or the number of ablebodied men within the kingdom. Regardless, Dacia was a formidable power that Caesar perceived as a threat to Rome. But Caesar was never able to start his intended campaign because he was assassinated in 44 BC, Burebista meeting the same fate when he was killed in a civil uprising in either 45 or 44 BC.
Anticlimactic ending but good run.
1 Like
The Mediterranean set really needs to be split with a new Byzantine set.
You know something is wrong when the Spanish and the Georgians have the same architecture set.
IMO, it would work best like this:
AS IS:
Eastern European: Bohemians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, Magyars, Pole, Slavs(Ruthenians), Romanians.
Mediterranean: Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians, Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish, Croats.
- Bohemians were Central European in Architecture so they should be moved there.
- Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians were under the Byzantine Empire at some point, so their buildings style were influenced by the Byzantines. NEW: Byzantine set.
Central European: 4 civs.
Eastern European: 6 civs.
Mediterranean: 8 civs.
AS COULD BE:
Central European: Bohemians, Goths, Huns, Teutons, Vikings.
Eastern European: Lithuanians, Magyars, Pole, Slavs(Ruthenians).
Mediterranean: Italians, Portuguese, Romans, Sicilians, Spanish.
Byzantine: Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians.
Central European: 5 civs.
Eastern European: 4 civs.
Mediterranean: 5 civs.
Byzantine: 4 civs.
And if you add the Romanians it would be 5 civs for Eastern European. Serbs could be Byzantine & Croats could be Mediterranean.
Historically accurate & balanced.
I feel like we could just have a Balkan architecture set so we avoid overcrowding more sets.
Yes, I agree, if they include the Dacians or their predecessors the Thracians, it would be a way to cover Romania and Bulgaria without having to resort to the Macedonians, which feels strange, since the Macedonians were more Hellenistic… also a Burebista’s campaign would be contemporary with that of Caesar one…
Yes, I agree, if they include a Balkan DLC, they should at least include 2 new architectural sets (Balkan and Byzantine) and that way the Mediterranean set is not overloaded so much… and in an Alpine or Nordic DLC you make the corrections for Central Europe …
The Thracians weren’t predecessors as much as cousins. It’s like the Germans and the Dutch, both Germanic and similar but not the same.
I agree that having Macedonians play the Dacians in Trajan’s campaign is a lot like having the Slavs, Magyars and Turks play the Romanians in Dracula’s campaign. But at least you aren’t playing as the Dacians just against them.
While I 100% wish for more architectural sets, I don’t know if they will add 4 new ones in a DLC. But just adding a Byzantine architectural sets and making the above mentioned changes to balance them out is reasonable in my opinion.
About equipment:
On my Civilisation Hub (which unfortunately I wasn’t able to continue) I have listed 6 different Vlach and 1 Romanian Civ concepts:
When you link this thread main page (Romania/Wallachia general post) in one of your civ concepts there will occure a reverse link in the footer of this topic, so people could easily jump from here to your civ concept.
Edit: As in general I would like to have Romanians/Vlachs reflected as an “economic defensive” civ. Meaning they get bonusses that encourage to add economy first and then convert it into military very quickly. An example of how this could work:
-
TB: All Cavalry units cost - 5 F (Scouts/Steppe Lancers/Knights) - reflecting their influence in Horse breeding.
-
Main Eco Bonus: Farms directly touching Town Center are slowly harvested automatically (8F / Minute) even if no Farmer is working on it (doesn’t affect farm rate).
-
Castle age UT: Mass Recruitment (work name): Barracks, Stables and Archery Ranges work 50 % faster. (150 F / 150 G / 20 s)
This would be the baseline, giving space for other bonusses to specific units/playstyles.
It is unfortunate that one person continually spamming the same concept over and over again has forever robbed me of the opportunity to make my own in-depth post about a Vlachs civ like I usually do. I could post it here, but it would get hardly any attention and would just be drowned out by future additions to the thread.
In the future, consider how your actions impact other people.
1 Like
I like @Player870583437 motivation to share his impressions of his own (i think so) civ.
He probably should have made one topic where he collectively improves on it like others did (eg venetians from doctbaghi), but I only see it positively when people try to bring forward their culture for the devs and the community to let them be inspired.
I don’t have an issue with him posting about the Romanians once. I think they’d be a good addition. But his continual spamming of the subject up until this topic was created just ruined it for everyone else, because now we can’t make our own topics on the subject.