Should the next DLC be: Slavs rework, Croats, Serbs, Romanians?

At the end of the day none of these matters, it’s all about preferences.

You can spot people’s preferences when a key word is used “important”. Important means nothing more than “I like it”. You’ll see people arguing for African civs making the case that they are more important than whatever European civs are left, and then those “important” African civs are so important they are mostly undocumented.

I agree, although “Luzviminda” is simply the combination of the names of the three major regions of the Philippines- Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. It is not a demonym, rather a mnemonic we use in grade school geography, and also happens to be a common Filipina name. So it wouldn’t work, “Filipinos” would be fine.

It wont sound odd in a medieval game?

I mean I’d like more African civs to be in game like the majority of people, splitting Malians, Ethiopians, adding Nubians, south Africa etc.
The problem is when you’re forced to “check the African box” before any comment about Euro civs otherwise people get crazy.
In general I think it’s not a good indicator of an healthy discussion to start by having to justify your own taste.

The point is that sub-Saharan Africa is severely lacking in representation, while Southeast Asia has 4 civilizations. The lack of written records does reduce the number of reliable potential African civilizations, but a new African civilization is still more profitable than a new Southeast Asian civilization. If we went back to before the release of AoC, the Aztecs and Mayans were still definitely more attractive than the Magyars and Slavs, even though the latter two have more records.

Compared with the new African civilizations and the Chinese split, the priority of the new Southeast Asian civilizations is indeed lower. Even inside Southeast Asia, the introduction of the Siamese, Chams and Nuosu might have taken precedence over the independence of the Javanese and medieval Filipinos from under the Malay umbrella, as the first three had heavier interaction with more existing civilizations.

2 Likes

Kinda funny how most of the replies here are about africa, america, asia and SEA civs.

Might as just let this dead thread die, and move on to a new thread that actually is on topic… or at least to one of these fitting ones:

etc, etc.
You know, instead of hijacking and bumping this one.

2 Likes

the “Romanians” is a pretty modern term which includes all the peoples you mention, but what is the point to add more civs if they are going to be a modern name and a collective civ? I see the problems you are pointing at, but…

The Romanians is not a modern term, it’s an endonym. The Romanians have always called themselves Romanians since they were first mentioned. And Wallachia was called in romanian “Tara Romaneasca” meaning “The Romanian Land”.

Wallachians/Vlachs is an exonym. They were called as such by other people, but that’s not what they called themselves. It comes from a proto-Germanic word that means “stranger” and was generally used for romance-speakers. The Hungarians used to call the Italians olasz, and the Slovenians used to call the Italians Lahi, both having the same root as Vlachs.

So Romanians is not a modern term. Other nations also started to user the term Romanian to refer to Romanians since the little union of 1859, but it’s not like Romanians suddenly started to call themselves Romanians in 1859.

1 Like

As for being a collective civ it’s a shade of grey. The Romanians in Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania considered themselves Romanians or “Romei” and spoke the same language (more similar than the Italian languages were). But ethnicity wasn’t a big thing back then.

If you take it by country, they lived in 3 different countries: Wallachia, Moldavia and Hungary. If you take it by culture, they had more or less the same culture even if they lived in 3 different countries.

I would argue that a civilization is first a culture and then a country, but as I said it’s a shade of grey.

We have vietnamese which is never a medieval thing in game so romanian is fine.

Romanian is a medieval thing as well, in the romanian language.

Yes, let’s say the Saracens represent the Abbasids and the Ayyubids (separate civs in AoE 4)…

You would still be missing the Balkans…between the Bulgars and the Byzantines in Greece there is nothing…you can divide the Byzantines into Serbs, Croats and Albanians and the Slavs into renamed in Ruthenians and Vlachs…

You can reuse the voice lines of the Lakota from AoE 3 (the Lakota between the 9th and 12th centuries were part of Mississippian culture)…

Siouan language speakers may have originated in the lower Mississippi River region and then migrated to or originated in the Ohio Valley. They were agriculturalists and may have been part of the Mound Builder civilization during the 9th–12th centuries CE.[7] Lakota legend and other sources state they originally lived near the Great Lakes: “The tribes of the Dakota before European contact in the 1600s lived in the region around Lake Superior. In this forest environment, they lived by hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rice. They also grew some corn, but their locale was near the limit of where corn could be grown.”[8] In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, Dakota-Lakota speakers lived in the upper Mississippi Region in what is now organized as the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas. Conflicts with Anishnaabe and Cree peoples pushed the Lakota west onto the Great Plains in the mid- to late-17th century.

Yes and you could fight against Italians, Turks, be an ally of Dracula in the Skanderbeg campaign and an enemy of Mehmed II in his campaign…

Skanderbeg’s rebellion was an almost 25-year long anti-Ottoman rebellion led by the Albanian military commander Skanderbeg in what is today Albania and it’s neighboring countries. It was a rare successful instance of resistance by Christians during the 15th century and through his leadership led Albanians in guerrilla warfare against the Ottomans.[1]

On 2 March 1444 the regional Albanian chieftains and nobles united against the Ottoman Empire and established the League of Lezhë. The coalition would go on to successfully fight the Ottoman forces up until 1479, after which it was dissolved. After Skanderbeg’s death in 1468, the league would continue fighting under Lekë Dukagjini.

Skanderbeg’s revolt represented a reaction by sections of local society and feudal lords against the loss of privilege and the exactions of the Ottoman government which they resented.[citation needed] Because of the frequent conflicts between rival families in Albania during Skanderbeg’s rebellion, particularly between Skanderbeg and Lekë Dukagjini, Albanian studies scholar Robert Elsie described the period as more of an Albanian civil war.[2] However, Skanderbeg reconciled with Lekë in 1453 and re-allied with Gjergj Arianiti in 1456.

Internal power struggles within the Byzantine Empire in the 14th century enabled Serbs’ most powerful medieval ruler, Stefan Dusan, to establish a short-lived empire that included all of Albania except Durrës.[51] In 1367, various Albanian rulers established the Despotate of Arta. During that time, several Albanian principalities were created, notably the Principality of Albania, Principality of Kastrioti, Lordship of Berat and Principality of Dukagjini. In the first half of the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire invaded most of Albania, and the League of Lezhë was held under Skanderbeg as a ruler, who became the national hero of the Albanian medieval history.

There you have the 2 campaigns for the Balkan dlc (add Tomislav for the Croats and Dracula for the Vlachs and ready)…

Yes, the issue is that before 1400 there is not much information for civs and African campaigns…Sundjata and Yodit are almost semi-historical oral legends…and after 1500 it is pure colonialism (that is, AoE 3 timeline)…

A little late, the Uzbeks appear in the 16th century (or lasting until the 19th century)…

The Burgundians are medieval Dutch…the Dutch became independent in 1581 (already very late in the timeline)…

This is because (as seein in Bayinnaung) Burma expanded throughout the SEA in the mid and late 16th century…

Yes, we need more campaigns between the year 500 and the year 1000…

Of course and end in the Portuguese Historical Battle of AoE 3 of Cristopher Da Gama’s expedition in 1542-1543…

And so you would have a campaign from the 7th century…

Yes, the Turks represent all the Turkic peoples and Khanates from the Gokturks to the Ottomans passing through Rum and Turkmens (Seljuks, Chorasmians and the Qoyunlu) in between…

Of course, in fact Return of Rome is more of an expansion of AoE 1 than AoE 2 (the civs and campaigns are from AoE 1 perspective)…

True, they would have to bring in the Vlachs and then give the Slavs a campaign (Ivan III)

Exactly, the Western Romans are from 395 to 476 and from there come the Italians (476-568), Teutons (568-774), Franks (774-936) and well from there Teutons and Italians until 1494…

Yes, maybe a Barbarian invasions dlc (250-400 CE) for RoR…

Yes, let’s say that the full Middle Ages began with the Arab invasions (because that led to the Reconquista in 711 and the Crusades in 1095)…

Of course…Armenia is more centered between the 9th century and the 14th century and Georgia between the 11th century and the 15th century…

Maybe this one fits more…as the Vietnamese have the imperial skirmishers…

No, it’s a limitation of the engine…

Visayans are fine,but Filipinos are Malays/Polynesians…

Of course,the Filipinos are Malays,but Malays could be divided at some point…

It is because they were very far from Spain that the Americans occupied the Philippines with greater force and began to limit the use of Spanish language in the area until it disappeared after WW2…

As a revolution of Spain…

It’s better for AoE 3…

That’s true… the same thing, Africa in AoE 3 just started in 1543…

1 Like

But they only did that in the late 16th century at the very end of the AoE 2 time period, for much of the Middle Ages the Mons had their own independent kingdoms (Haripunjaya, Thaton, etc.)

1 Like

Give Vikings Indians treatment and split it into multiple civs. Shield Maidens, spinning infantry dps, dismounting raiders, spear throwers. There is so much potential over there. Maybe add some unique buildings like raiding camps that heal units, and add scout ships with ability to build lighthouses that are basically naval outposts.

I wouldn’t mind if they went far and changed them to Norselike nomadic civ from Age of Mythology where villagers couldn’t build, but only gather while walking around with Mule (Ox) Carts. The one that could build is infantry and they had weaker defenses and were lacking most tower upgrades and their villagers couldn’t build towers or walls.

Sure, maybe another dlc between the 12th and 14th centuries in SEA would be good, so we would see how the expansion and decline of the Mongol empire affected the entire region…

Small civs like Romanians should have a single “Romanian” umbrella for Wallachians, Moldavians and Transylvanians since I don’t think anyone wants extra Romanian civs.

But big civs like Slavs should definetly be split. Especially when the in-game Slavs are cleary Ruthenians.

And the confusion of having: Poles, Bulgarians, Bohemians and SLAVS in the same game.

It’s like having Teutons, Goths and Germans in the game game.

Like WTF?

1 Like

Well if they added alemans… But still not “Germans”.

A Spanish rebel faction. Not a standalone.

Yes, for me they are going to divide the Slavs for the last time and that’s it…then they are going to fill the remaining gaps with other civs that are not umbrella civs…

1 Like

What do you have in mind when you say that? Care to elaborate?

I already explained that of the 6 civs I mentioned before, only Kongo and Shona would have important participation from Europeans and perhaps Somalis (but they would be 1-2 scenarios at most and as minor enemies).

Right. But as I said, African civs can only have access to gunpowder units (like many other civs in the game), and there is no need for any type of bonus beyond that. This is up to the concept creator.

Friend, I think you’re just reflecting your ignorance (not a problem in itself, nobody knows everything). It is true that many civs adopted foreign religions*, but it is not as if their entire identity (cultural, political, linguistic, etc.) changed from water to wine from then on, as you yourself have noticed. As a rule, the majority of the people continued with their traditional religion, sometimes syncretizing it consciously or not into the foreign religion and this did not only happen in Africa. For example, of the 6 civs suggested (Kanembu, Nubians, Somalis, Shona, Kongo and Benin/Yoruba), only Nubians and Somalis appear to have deeply adopted the foreign religion. Kongo and Kanembu only had their elites fully adopting the foreign religions (Mali and other Sahel kingdoms also fit into this situation) and Benin, Yoruba and Shona remained “pagan” throughout the game timeframe. I don’t see normalization here.

*Both Christianity and Islam have Semitic origins, so if they should be considered foreign to Kongo or Ethiopia and Mali or Kanem-Bornu, they should also be considered foreign to France, Italy and Russia, following the same logic. It is not as if people from various regions do not adapt an outside religion to their customs and traditions, often reformulating it (you also know about the Almohads, don’t you?).

And I think you’re a little late to the party, because Europe only colonized Africa from the 19th century onwards, with only the Portuguese trying to impose their rule in certain coastal regions earlier. In fact, Europeans were unable to go beyond the coast until certain innovations (to steam engines, medicine and firearms, for example) allowed them to do so, but that was long after the game timeframe.

OK I understand. I do not expect nor will I force anyone to be interested and especially to know about Africa; everyone has their own preferences. But if you propose to voluntarily create a campaign and think that the accessible resources are insufficient, in my view you have three options: (1) give up; (2) research beyond the superficial; or (3) be content with doing it with what you have at hand. No one will judge you for any decision you make, as it is voluntary. Of course, I think it would be a very different situation for devs, who could invest more resources than guys like us.

I also don’t agree with some users derailing other people’s threads with their dissatisfaction. But I’m not a moderator nor will I play the speech police. I’ve done this here before, but I decided not to do it anymore.

Nobody likes to be forced into anything, we’ve already established that, right? But I ask, given the situation in the real world, how else would we see this representation in the case of African kingdoms? The first thing people imagine when they think of Africa is poverty and “tribal” wars or maybe cultural aspects like music, food, art etc (which it’s cool but) no one really imagines epic wars with thousands of soldiers in the savannas of the Sahel or rich and powerful monarchs in the mountains of Ethiopia. But both happened in the past. So I think that inclusion in a game with historical flavor is honestly one of the coolest and simplest ways to (re)present part of the history of these peoples (and thus of the world) without seeming forced like some Hollywood movies full of silly catchphrases or controversial racial/ethnic changes, for example.

In other words, I understand your frustration, but I also understand my colleagues’ desire here to see more of places that have something to offer, but which do not gain notoriety in the media.

Knowing the difficulty, I made it my mission to gather as much information as I can and share here (preferably in a single thread) what I found. Maybe I’ll never see these kingdoms in aoe2, maybe I’ll make a game myself, I don’t know. But I know I do it for pleasure. I have no political agenda, nor am I some kind of SJW. I’m just a guy who really wants to translate my excitement into words and drawings, like everyone else on this forum.

2 Likes