ROR : map of existing and potential civs

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Ave omnibus,

Here is a map of existing civs in ROR, with their shield icon approximatively where their starting heartlands are, and of civs that I think should be added with future expansions (dots of colour, I may or may not have shamelessly copied the colour code from Rome TW for most of them) :

AOE1 map 3
AOE1 map 31949Ă—959 143 KB

In no particular order, here is my list :

Asian civs :

  • Indians
  • Armenians
  • Hebrews

European civs :

  • Gauls
  • Germans
  • Britons
  • Dacians
  • Iberians

Steppe civs :

  • Scythians
  • Parthians
  • Xiongnu
  • Proto Indo Europeans

African civs :

  • Nubians

Unknown civs :

  • Sea Peoples

With some major exceptions, the list is quite Iron Age heavy. The reason is simple : the areas settled during the Bronze Age are already very well packed (mainly missing the Indus River Valley), so most of these civs new became relevant in the later part of AOE1’s timeline. Not too late though, giving them several centuries to carve themselves an empire before we enter the territory of AOE2 (I set the limit around AD 300 but you mileage may vary). My list is also european-heavy, but only as 1- Europe beyond its coastline only has civs for Italy and Greece and 2- I don’t know much about antique history outside of the Classical World.

Feel free to add any civ you think should be added on the list

5 Likes
2

Can you please please, put names on the civs shown on ur map ? THANKS <3

1 Like
3

Here it is, reuploaded the map :smiley:

3 Likes
4

I just viewed the mod called 5th legacy for age of empires 1
(LINK> 5thLegacy AOE1 mod for Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome - Mod DB)
I dont want to steal his work, but just to credit him and mention the civs he used:
Achaemenid Aksumite, Atlantean, Bactrian, Baekje, Celtic, Cyrenean, Dilmunite, Dravidian, Elamite, Etruscan, Gallic, Germanic, Han, Huynh, Iberian, IIIyrian, Indus Israelite, Jomon, Kushite, Lang, Mauryan, Mitanni, Nok, Numidian, Parthian, Philistine, Pontic, Ptolemaic, Sa Scythian, Seleucid, Thracian, Trojan, Uartian, Valley, Van Xiongnu, Zhou

1 Like
7

Also, why dont we get Meso civs like the Mayans (Maya) ?
Of course they would need a slight revamp into the aoe1 sphere, but they can make an eagle warrior too and remove the stable, I think would fit perfectly with the theme and would be fun too!

8

Short answer : there was ZERO contact between the Old World and the New World, no one knew the other existed, with the possibile exception of some ships lost at sea that never returned anyway (I wish them a happy ending but roman ships were not designed for the high seas of the Atlantic)

The Mayans also established themselves around AD 250 which is at the very tail end of AOE1 (I set the bar at 300), sure we already have Palmyre but while we know exactly what Palmyre did at the time, the Mayans were only starting to establish themselves.

So putting isolated civs that we’re not even sure of what they were doing… I prefer cutting America entirely.

3 Likes
9

I thought would be cool, but ur statement is correct.

10

I read that after conquering the Aztecs, the Spaniards use Aztec warriors (most likely one other allied tribe) in the Philippines and may have even fought samurais and Ottomans

1 Like
11

They did. But it’s not even close from AOE1’s time, it would be the tail end of AOE2 if not AOE3.

1 Like
12

You are correct, I was thinking EO2 time frame, I miss read your comment.

1 Like
13

Ok, I know you’re not the person behind this list, but…

What???

3 Likes
14

Alright the Atlanteans… let’s take care of the elephant in the room first, they are a fictional allegory by Plato to criticise the decadence of Athens in his day (they forced his master Socrates to drink hemlock so it was personal). But…

Atlantis was an advanced island that got destroyed by the Gods, meaning some natural disaster. Conveniently we have that close from Athens with the explosion of the Santorin (approx 1000 years before) that was a big factor in the fall of the Minoans. Which are one of the suspects for the Sea Peoples.

The main difference being then : the Atlanteans ceased to exist, while the Sea People refused to let themselves die alone and went on a destructive crusade that destroyed most of the Bronze Age kingdoms (that’s why they are on my list), only Egypt being strong enough to survive. “Our Gods may have forsaken us, let’s see if those other empires are protected by theirs !”

1 Like
15

Good work but I don’t think we would see the Proto Indo Europeans, especially with such a name. I’m not entirely convinced by the Sea Peoples either, though they would certainly be interesting.

I think Indians should at the very least be split into Harappan (the Indus Valley civilization), Magadhans (the Maurya empire) and Tamils (Chera, Chola and Pandya kingdoms). Others South Asian civs could be considered, such as the Kalingans or the Sinhalese, but I think the first three I mentioned are the most essential.

In Africa, I would at the very least like to see the Numidians and the Aksumites.

An Arab civ would be nice, possibly split into Nabateans and Yemeni.

In Europe, I would probably introduced the Celts as a united umbrella civ first before spliting them apart later, but in any case I think they should be split into three eventually. Otherwise, I think the Thracians and Etruscans should also be added at some point, and maybe the Lusitanians and Illyrians too.

The Lydians could probably be added to wester Anatolia, and maybe work as an umbrella for Phrygians, Lycians, Carians, etc. since this area had way too many civs for all of them to be represented. Obviously the Hatti could also work as an umbrella, but it wouldn’t hurt to have some more variety.

In South East Asia, we could have the Khmer. I don’t know much about them in this time period, but Funan seems to have conquered a relatively big territory which coexisted with the Lac Viets, so there’s that. There were also Chams in the region, but it seems they were subservient to Funan, and I can’t find much about other relevant states in the region in this time period.

Finally, despite the total absence of contacts with the rest of the world, I wouldn’t completely rule out the Precolombian civs from this time period… I know it’s completely unrealistic, but to be fair so is the idea of most civ from even the Ancient Middle East waging war with the Shangs, not mentioning Choson and Yamato. Despite possible trade contacts, many civs were quite isolated in this time period. There’s also the fact that the technology gap between some Mesoamerican or Andean civs and those in Europe, Asia and North Africa was not necessarily as huge as it was when we finally established a continuous contact, and despite the lack of cavalry, American civs could be quite balanced for AoE1. I actually wonder if they couldn’t manage even without a civ workshop.

8 Likes
16

What’s the point of adding civilizations to aoe1? They all look the same, because they don’t have UU-s and UT-s.

1 Like
17

The Proto Indo Europeans sure have a lot of existing successor civs already ingame (Romans Greeks Hittytes Persians…), but I see them in the same place that the Huns are in AOE2 : an early apocalyptic force. They brutally conquered all from Europe (only small pockets like the Basque Country resisted) to Northern India, having the decisive advantage of chariots. Sure, they had no written history and their very existence was only revealed by archaeology, but I see them as a civ that did a Fast Bronze Age strategy and rushed in all directions.

The Sea People would be all about destructive raiding from the sea. Faster ships + more destructive siege or various anti-building bonuses.

I split the Gauls (which would cover everything from the Celtiberians to the Boians and the Galatians, extending further than Gaul) from the Britons for gameplay reason, as the Britons lagged behind technologically and still used mainly chariots, while the Gauls had switched to cavalry. I’d also make Briton infantry lighter but faster than Gallic infantry.

1 Like
18

In aoe franchise, devs put civs that existed in the specific time frame of each title. They do not cut civs because they never interacted with some other civs (we speak always on the same time frame).

E.g. Goths and Japanese in aoe2. Never met each other, but both existed in aoe2 time frame, so both are aoe2 civs.

What I say is that we can have american civs, such as Maya, Olmec, Zapotec.

Maps of world history

2 Likes
20

But we have a chain of interactions.

Goths - Franks - Saracens - Mongols - Japanese

No civ is isolated by itself, the American civs all got conquered by the Spanish. How would you form such a chain in AOE1 with American civs ? With no recorded crossing of the Atlantic or Pacific (not counting Siberian hunter-gatherers that crossed the frozen Bering Strait during an ice age), they might have been on a separate planet.

(the Romans and Chinese exchanged emissaries so there was some contact, and they was some trade passing through Persia)

21

Huns ceased to exist as a sovereign entity in 5th century, and in-game can fight American civs.

American civs first met an Eurasian civ in 15th century.

22

Yes but the Huns fought the Franks who were for a time overlords of the Spanish (until their kingdoms were strong enough to defend themselves), who conquered American civs.

Who outside of America interacted with antique American civs, to form a chain to other civs ?

23

Is that “chain” thing, really something that we should count on it? :stuck_out_tongue: Do devs really have used it?