Some history facts:
Albania does not have medieval history either, they haven’t progressed since they came to Europe from Caucasus, Albanian people are tribe people, and they were living in tribal manner just 20 years ago, and that’s generally known fact. Bosnia and Montenegro are Serbian lands, and Serbs live there.
1 Like
Skanderbeg was a tribal leader then?
I think by insulting all the other countries around serbia you don’t make a good point for adding your civ tbh…
I mean that’s literally why devs stepped away from balkan so far. Just want to mention that.
Only if you and the other balkan people of the community come to an agreement I see any chance for a balkan civ being added. It’s the prerequistion for that.
1 Like
“Ђурађ Кастриот Скендербег” (Serbian)
Skanderbeg, Skander - meaning Скадар (Serbian) - One of the most important Serbian cities during medieval ages, “beg” meaning Leader (Turkish), meaning Leader of the Skadar.
Skanderbeg was a fighter against the Ottoman conquerors and Islamization, of Serbian origin, who was proclaimed by the Albanians (at the end of the 19th century) as their national hero. The biggest role in proclaiming Skanderbeg as an Albanian was done by USSR, by promoting first ever made film about Skanderbeg in 1953. (Albanians didn’t know much about him until USSR started promoting Albanians as a “History rich people” because of political reasons (Albania was communist) while Serbia was part of Yugoslavia at the time, and opposed USSR leadership and its values.
Nobody is insulted, everyone in Bosnia and Montenegro know that they are Serbs, exception is that Bosnjaci are muslim Serbs, who changed religion because of Ottoman invasion, but they are still Serbs.
Fact: the movie was one of the most popular in the Albania and was aired for years after its release.
-
Russians are not very good allies, Serbs know that very well.
There is one slang in Serbian language, which says “Тешко оном кога Рус брани и Грк храни.”
Which means “It’s hard for that one a Russian defends and a Greek feeds.” -
Also, Albanian state was established in 1913, within the Treaty of London.
The state is given to the tribe people so they can represent disruptive factor in the region, so the region could be used for future conflicts triggered by their creators.
3 Likes
It seems to me that the presence of Bulgarians civ did not disturb the creators for one very obvious reason - Bulgaria was not part of Yugoslavia.
I think that after so many years of all the unpleasant events and terrible decisions of mean people, regardless of nationality, religion or ideology, we should all come to terms with each other. We are now in the 21st century and let’s bury the war axes that did a lot of evil in the last century. You have to come to terms with what was and create a better future together. This applies not only to the Balkans, but also to the whole world.
By the way, AoE 2 tells about medieval history, so let’s not mix up contemporary conflicts here.
2 Likes
I know, and it is terrible, but let’s not forget that each side of the conflict had something behind their ears. I know what it was like in the Balkans - hatred because of religion because it was a greater reason than nationality. It was a futile and unnecessary hatred that took many innocent lives into the other world. But remember that there was no blameless side. The same during other conflicts, e.g. in the 20th century Poland - which also made many mean decisions against other nations and states, but it is politically incorrect in Poland because Poland is created as a victim of history - and by Poles themselves X D
We live in the 21st century and we know the disgusting mistakes of our ancestors. They were blinded by the hatred fueled by sick ideologies. Let’s be smarter than them and end this crap.
2 Likes
And this is a great explanation of the situation in the Balkans. Contemporary conflicts in the Balkans were caused by religion. New nations arose through religious separation. After all, Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs use a language similar to each other - could this be the first South Slavic division of one nation by religion?
1 Like
That’s true. People are speaking the same language, but are divided by religion.
Except that Croatians are making up their words every few years, which i don’t think is happening anywhere in the world. They do it in order to distance themselves as much as possible from the Serbian language and present their language more as autochthonous and different.
So a compromise Serbo-Croatian civ could be an agreement for these nations. This civilization would focus on the origins of Serbian and Croatian statehood when the differences between these peoples were practically solely in religion. Units of this civ would use the Serbo-Croatian language. The architecture of this civ would be a completely new Byzantine set - shared with Bulgarians civ and Byzantine civ (Croats used an architecture closer to the Mediterranean set of architecture, but the shared Serbo-Croatian civ is also to be an impulse for the creators to create a Byzantine set).
1 Like
I agree, but checkerboard symbol should not be used.
Also without the new Byzantine style set, it will just resemble a total mess.
Slavs should also be renamed to Russians, because Eastern European architecture resembles Russians more than any other civ.
1 Like
So what do you think could replace the chessboard as the symbol of Croatia?
If the Croats had their own separate civ, the Mediterranean set of architecture would suit them better.
Exactly, but a better name would be Ruthenians - to be able to represent Ukrainians, Belarusians and also Rusyns. The name Russians would refer directly to the Russians who developed their distinctiveness thanks to the flourishing and expansion of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. This civ refers to Kievan Rus - the ancestor of all East Slavic nations.
Yes and no
Only the bright buildings from the Imperial Age would I call strongly different from the rest of the Eastern European civs. I think there is a huge architectural mess in AoE 2, but some elements can always be used in a different set.
2 Likes
Maybe one of these symbols, which are present on their national flag.
That’s true, Mediterranean architecture would suit them better.
Exactly!
That’s true, all the building’s till Imperial Age resemble Slavs as a whole, except maybe Monastery which is an eastern slavic type architecture, (Russian, Ukrainian etc.), Imperial Age buildings (the bright buildings) such as Market, Town Center, University and Towers also resemble eastern slavic architecture (Russian, Ukrainian).
1 Like
Well it is not caused by religion so much but by the people, some of things he’s saying is just examples why we are so divided. Some times people can’t be honest with them selfs.
Hontestly as a Croat this guy did great represation of Serb civ. They have very intresting medival history and there could be lot of camapgins.
But i think combinig civ isn’t solution. Some of things from Tomislav camapagin and uniqe unit as Hajduk would be intresting in Croat civ.
Both states have good story about makeing states and even after when Serbia was part of Byzntine and Croatia part of Kingdom of Hungary. And part with fighting Ottomans is great part too.
As a third civ i would say Venice( and Ragusa) but Venice was major role on Mediterrenien sea and during 1000-1500AD
Wait, Hajduk can only be Serbian, Uskok can be Croatian, and even so both are outside AOE2 timeframe.
I agree that combining two civs into one isn’t a solution. Croatia should definitely be naval oriented, so Sagena or Condura should be looked as UU, or they could be split since both civs used them.
1 Like
Yes I replaced them but what they represent is common. Honestly, the Turks( they did good job with mixing Janassarys and Horse Archers-Sipahi) do not belong to the time frame in some way, because it is not easy to put civilization from the beginning of the Early Middle Ages and Late Middle Age into play. Honestly considering there are Hand Cannoner and Organ Gun I don’t see why they couldn’t do that for Uskos/Hajduks. They show with some civs that they make compromise about timeline. The game easily extended to sometime in the 17th century until complete military technology changed.
I sincerely hope they will take our area into consideration because both nations have rich early Middle Ages and late, you developed middle ages. I think AoE 2 is popular because it doesn’t have a clearly defined timeline in a way. Because science has more theories about the duration of the Middle Ages.
3 Likes
Fully agree with you mate!
I have no problem waiting, if devs want to add civs from Asia and Africa first before they come back to Europe again. But our civs definitely have enough merit to be added to the game, especially at this stage of the game with this number of civs already added.
2 Likes
And let me be honest today gaming is making DLCs all the time, they did short camapgin’s with existing civ’s since AOK. They can make so much veraity and game would be refresing with each new DLC. As for multiplayer players why not include baning the civ, since some of players don’t want new euro civ’s since they are kind similar or same as some other or OP. I think that is win-win. Game industry get’s money we get what we want.
1 Like
weaker version of the lithuanians
melee or pierce? still have a lot in common with lithuanuans if it’s pierce or pretty bad compared to teutons +2 melee.
A weaker version of Turks and Hindustanis.
It depends of the cost but an unique tech only for the unique unit sounds pretty weak. Maybe increasing it to 4 could help but it’s still pretty average.
1 Like
The civ is just so generic. Like, their only diference from.generic at late game is +1 armour on spears and faster created monks
@WedInk504838973 I agree here, this proposal is old and not well made in my opinion.
When i have some time i will make a new post and would welcome your thoughts!
1 Like