I am very pleased that this topic is so popular and has probably become the most wanted on this forum. If you look at the voting, 41% were for this. It would seem less than half, i.e. the idea failed. In fact, it won. Because the remaining 59% of players do not want the same thing for themselves. Let’s say 10% want Africa, 10% want America, another 5% want, for example, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, etc. And 41% spoke for the Slavs. In fact, it is an absolute success. I just want to add that we need several more civilizations than indicated in the title:
Rus (not just renaming, I have a detailed concept long ago)
Ukrainians (no need to argue with me anymore, I have already defended my position 20 times, they should be there)
Vlachs
Serbs and Croats (not sure, together or separately, I have never heard an argument about their fundamental difference, perhaps just the Balkan Slavs would be enough, but I do not have a strict position on this).
Albanians (they are not Slavs, of course, but they belong to the Balkans)
So we have 5 or 6 civs. I would suggest splitting this into 2 dlcs. One about Rus and Ukraine, the other about Balkans. Vlachs already have Dracula campaign.
While I agree with your point that this means 41% spoke for the Slavs. I don’t think 5 or 6 civs is realistic. We should probably expect 2-3 at best. Hopefully, Romanians and Serbs and if there’s 3 civs then Croats as well.
You know more on this topic, what’s the difference between Rus and Ruthenian, aren’t they the same? I know Rus didn’t use to mean just Russian.
Vlachs is okay, but I think “Romanians” would be better representative as an umbrella for all 3 Romanian princiaplities: Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia.
Some would say Romania is a modern term, but this is a misconception just like Rus = Russian, it’s not a modern term, it’s a former 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 never 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.
A large number of replies had nothing to do with the Balkans DLC, or even Europe.
The 10% who want Americans won’t say no to Africans and Asians, the 10% who want Africans won’t say no to Americans and Asians, and the 5% who want Asians won’t say no to Americans and Africans. However, these people all say no to Europeans, at least to the Europeans mentioned in this topic, for the next DLC.
That’s not an absolute success. It’s not even a success.
One person’s opinion repeated a million times is still one person’s opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
People must respect that you have your own ideas, but it does not mean that your ideas must be regarded as justice after being expressed many times.
The fundamental difference is religion. But this difference is not what games are good at presenting and should present. I agree that if they are introduced, bringing them under one umbrella is a valid choice, but the name of the umbrella is a big question. Also, the architectural style of this umbrella civilization is also a big problem because the Southern European style is a Catholic church, while the Eastern European style is an Orthodox church.
Maybe in 10 years.
I can only see one DLC for the Europe, including the new civ for Vlach, the Rus renamed from Slavs, new campaigns for Rus, Magyars, Turks, and a new Dracula campaign played as Vlach. At most, this DLC could also include a Viking campaign.
There is no difference. Rus and Ruthenian mean the same thing. Furthermore, Russia and Ukraine have the exact same origins, being the descendants of Viking traders who intermarried with Slavs. It’s no coincidence that the Rus started in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, and that the name “Russia” comes from the Rus. The entire distinction between Russia and Ukraine is purely political, as there is no historical basis for it.
Do you have anything to back this up? I want America but will say no to Africans and Asians.
A great name would have been the Yugoslavs, meaning literally south slavs. But given what happened in the 90s, that 's a bad choice.
I’d prefer the names Romanians & Ruthenians. So you can later maybe add Muscovites, etc. And Vlachs would be confusing if only Wallachians or all Romanians.
Yeah, but that’s only 1 civ + 1 rework there. Maybe Romanians + Serbs + Slavs rework into Ruthenians. And if the devs hopefully decide on 3 civs - Croats as well. Romanians aren’t slavic per-se but have slavic influence, so it checks out.
For the campaign:
A Dracula rework (maybe added some co-op? with Stephen the Great who helped him in mission 2 and mission 5 but isn’t mentioned). It would be like the Gurajas where you can test the civ before you buy it. 1st Mission you could have the Romanian noblemen supporting you, and so on.
Olga of Kiev
Mehmet the Conqeror (Turks)
Harald Bluetooth (or any Viking cool leaders, there are many)
Unfortunately he is not no. The term “Yugoslavism” came first into use in the 19th century (1800 to 1900) to mark the unification of the South Slavs or South Western Slavs.
The Yugoslav Committee also known as the South Slav Committee, was an association of South Slav politicians from the Habsburg Monarchy, founded in exile after the outbreak of the First World War at 1915, which represented the ideology of Yugoslavism.
The Yugoslavian war in the early 90s ist not a reason, to give not this name to Croats, Bosnians and Serbs, but the term Yugoslavia did not exist at all in the Middle Ages, what is the bigger issue.
Another issue is the multiple religious affiliations of Croats, Bosnians and Serbs which all are Yugoslavians. We have Croats with a Roman Catholic influence, Bosnians with a Muslim influence and Serbs with a Byzantines Orthodox influence.
Yes an Eastern European DLC with the introduction of Muscovites or the Principality of Moscow can make sense as a good geographical and cultural balance to the current Slavs or Rus or even better Rus States.
Both civs would then need campaigns with appropriate Campaign symbols and Missions, that take place in the Ukraine, Western and Northern Russia. The Muscovites would also need new Special units and perhaps Special buildings.
I would be in favor of one civ of them, that would be enough since we already have Bulgarians and Byzantines from this area.
There is a religious reason. Croats and Serbs have different Christian religious affiliations. Apart from that, Bosnians are even Muslims.
Balkan Slavs are already Bulgarians mixed with Turkish Bolgars. I would be for Dinarid Slavs, that means more for Croats.
The “Sclaveni” (Latin speaks) or “Sclabenoi” (Greek speaks) would be a suitable civ name, because this term was already known as an Western South Slavic branch during the Middle Ages. I think however, this name is more suitable for Serbs than for Croats.
I have one sure. Take one civ from the Western South Slavic area. The Bulgarians are already taking the Eastern Branch.
Religious differences wouldn’t be such a big deterrent, given this game has Orthodox Byzantines with a Catholic monastery model and Catholic Teutons with a Georgian temple, among other things.
With this argument you are obviously in favor of bringing Croats, Serbs, Romanians and Wallachians into play as different civs?
If religious monasteries are misrepresented in the game, should we continue to do so? Making mistakes worse makes the game worse, not better, and it does not stay the same.
Since they are going to rework the Dracula Campaign regardless if they add the Romanians. It would be cool if it were made a co-op campaign.
EDIT: Made a more in-depth suggestion here:
Basically:
Turn it into a possible co-op campaign.
M1: Vlad the Implaer (Romanians) + Turk player.
M2: Vlad the Implaer (Romanians) + Prince Stephen (Romanians; Moldavians).
M3: Vlad the Impaler (Romanians) + another boyar (Romanians);
M4: Vlad the Impaler (Romanians) + another boyar (Romanians);
M5: Vlad the Impaler (Romanians) + Stephen III of Moldavia (Romanians; Moldavians - yes, prince Stephen but with an upgrade)
End of Mission 2 - at the end of the intro in the 2nd mission it says: Bogdan II, Dracula’s cousin and the new Voivod of Moldavia. This is not correct. Bogdan II was Dracula’s uncle. The creator of the campaign in Forgotten Empires likely confused him with his son. His son, was Vlad’s cousin, he was Prince Stephan who helped him take back Wallachia in this 2nd mission. And after becoming the new Voivod of Moldavia (because of other events not in the scope of this campaing) would help Vlad take back Wallachia from the last time in Mission 5. So if a voice editor could be used to change “cousin” into “uncle” it would be great.
Wallachian & Moldavian politics would put Game of Thrones to shame which also justifies Vlad the Impaler’s actions but also the confusion, since rulers would change quickly, so I understand Forgotten Empires Team’s mistake, but it would be a nice detail for historical accuracy.
→ Bogdan II
→ Vlad comes, his cousin Prince Stephan helps him
→ While Stephan is in Wallachia is father is killed by his uncle who takes the throne
→ Vlad the Impaler helps Prince Stephan to take back his throne (not a mission in the game)
→ Prince Stephan becomes Stephen III of Moldavia, and actually rules for 47 years (unique in W&M at time)
→ Stephen III of Moldavia ne(textGetsCensored)ciates Vlad’s release from Hungary and helps him take Wallachia in mission 5.
End of Mission 5 - Fixing the historical inaccuracy at the end saying he died in battle. Actually he won. This can be easily checked by Wikipedia saying he reign 3 times. He died 1 and a half year after that, betrayed by the boyars and given to the Ottomans (which is ironic considering he hated treachery the most). But he didn’t die in that battle as the game says.
And not a historical inaccuracy but the game doesn’t mention it but it was important - End of Mission 4 - Not sure why this isn’t mentioned, but it’s worth pointing out that Vlad was waiting for reinforcements from Hungary, as they promised since the beginning of the war (they were supposed to arrive since mission 3 at Giurgiu). Instead, King Mathias betrayed and imprisoned Vlad. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the outro. Basically, King Mathias tricked Vlad to fight a war alone, promising he’ll come with the army in Wallachia but never did, and when he lost, King Mathias imprisoned him to secure good relations with the Ottomans. (Kind of poetic, Vlad hated treachery)
Another mission added between mission 3 and mission 4 - the night attack at Targoviste. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RoBspQiOiE
Simply a raid of a huge base without base building but with a ton of army.
Using real people who actually helped Vlad III instead of generic nobleman names:
Vlad the Younger (nobleman & brother; the youngest of the 4 brothers: Mircea, Vlad, Radu, Vlad; he was not sent to the Ottomans and supported Vlad the Impaler when he returned; he would rule in 1481 as Vlad IV the Monk being placed on the throne by Stephen III of Moldavia, until 1495 when he was ousted by Mihnea the Evil, son of Vlad the Impaler. But in Vlad the Impaler’s life, he was a loyal ally)
Vintila Florescu (nobleman)
Neagoe de la Strehaia (most powerful of his allies, nobleman, ruler of Craiova)
Giacu Balaceanu (nobleman)
Udriste Manea (nobleman)
Commander Gales (nobleman & general, he failed to attack the Ottoman Camp from the east during the night attack, while Vlad the Impaler attacked from the west; some sources blame Gales for the failure of the night attack and wonder why he didn’t attack, whether it was intentional or miscommunication)
Prince Stephen/Stephen III of Moldavia could be the co-op partner for missions 2/5.
Commander Gales could be the co-op partner for the extra night attack mission. (between missions 3-4)
Vintila ######### ###### de la Strehaia and Giacu Balaceanu could be the Wallachian noblemen from the 1st mission.
Vlad the Younger could be the co-op partner for missions 3 and # ### # and 5 if Night Attack is added).
I’ve been on the forum for several years. This is my observation. For example, this topic has a large number (I would guess at least half) of the replies that have nothing to do with Slavs rework and those Balkan civs.
Most people have their own preferences among the potential civilizations of Asians, Africans, and Americans, but they will not particularly exclude others, because after all, what most people want is more civilizations other than Europeans, especially after the Poles were released. You may be in the minority.
I don’t really care, but the name Vlach fits the game’s typical naming style, while the name Rus probably has more consensus and was adopted by AoE4.
Obviously no.
For people in the forum, only the Vlach/Wallachians/Romanians are the truly tolerable new European civ. This is because we had Dracula more than ten years ago. Also, renaming the Slavs (although not necessary) is acceptable because it is not truly a new civ introduction. Other than those, the game doesn’t really need. If I had to pick one more, I would choose Croats just for their rare naval strength and potential ship UU in Eastern Europe. Enough.
I mean, I don’t really care when the Russians and Ukrainians separated in the real history. It’s fine no matter when. It’s just that they don’t necessarily need to be covered by different civs in the game for the foreseeable future. There are more obvious deficiencies in Asia and Africa that need to be filled before we get such level of fragmentation.
Being fair a further east Russian civ at the border of Steppe peoples and partially influenced could be an interesting Euro/steppe hybrid and I wouldnt underestimate the potential of such as that could be the truest Cav Archer/Infantry civ since Bulgars arent
People here obviously want something other than steppe. But we still have Cumans representing the steppe peoples living there. Khazars have also been proposed by some.
While I noticed that people who don’t want European civs are generally okay with any-non European civs, the key word is generally. There are people who want Asia or Europe, or Asia but not Africa, or Africa but not Asia. True, most non-European people will want any non-European civ, but this is by no means all. So if we take this poll for granted that 41% of players want the next DLC to be in Europe and those specific civs. We cannot say that all those other 59% either absolutely do not want Europe, they might have another preference but be okay with Europe, or that all those other 59% are okay with any non-European civ, be it Africa, Asia or America. So the pro-Europe may be in the majority.
There’s also confirmation bias at play. Not saying you, but in general, one may like African civs, so he generally visits African civs topic, from there he gets the sense that most of the forum wants African civs.
I don’t think AoE2 has a naming convention anymore:
We have Bulgarians & Vietnamese (they weren’t called that back then)
We have Romans & Byzantines (Byzantines weren’t called that back then either by themselves or others)
We have Celts, Franks, Britons (the older civs got really clasic names while the newer really modern)
And the list can go on.
I don’t think AoE2 has a typical naming style anymore.
I’m not saying have the next DLC the Muscovites. But that having the Slavs named Ruthenians would make more sense if somewhere in the future Muscovites were added.
I have to vehemently disagree with your stance that for the people in the forum, only the Vlach/Wallachians/Romanians are the truly tolerable new European civ. Because the people on the forum voted here and it seems 41% want Croats, Serbs, Romanains and Slavs rework. I have to go back again to the confirmation bias at play.
Renaming Slavs is necessary. A civ named “Slavs” was okay when Bulgarians, Poles and Bohemians weren’t in the game. But now, is like having Texans, Californians, New Yorkers and Americans in a game. All 4 as different civs.
Then you can’t say that these 41% definitely don’t want other than Europeans too.
Besides, being pro-European and wanting more European civilization are not the same thing.
People who want those civs actively visit here, while most of people who don’t want them probably not visit here. However, there is still only a little over 40% of people who agree even at here.
My observation is to introduce more European civs, especially them, there is no consensus in the forum. However, Vlach is mentioned more often in other places than Croats, Serbs, etc., so they are the most acceptable and toleratable among potential European civs.
Btw, Vandals are not included in the potential European civs I mentioned because if they were introduced they would certainly appear as a promotional item for RoR content like Romans, rather than a part of a typical DLC, so they are not considered as a general candidate.
But what you can say is that those 41% want the next DLC to be Slavs rework, Romanians, Serbs and Croats. Where as you can’t say what those 59% who voted no want the next DLC to be. Is just as @Nebular905647 said.
Given the size of this topic and number of votes, I doubt this is the case.
40% when the question is so specific “do you want the NEXT dlc to be THIS, THIS and THAT” is huge.
There is no consensus in the forum for anything.
There is no consensus for African civs.
There is no consensus for Asian civs.
There is no consensus for American civs.
So what is there to do?
I think this topic is the closest thing we have to a consensus, true, 41% isn’t consensus, but is the closest.
Vandals are a bit too late for RoR and early for AoE2, they already added the Romans and many didn’t like that.
If they want promotional item for RoR maybe divide Greece into Athens and Sparta, and add some barbarian tribes like Gauls, Germani and Dacians. To keep the theme of the ancient and antiquity era. But I don’t think they will upgrade RoR anymore personally, needing a DLC for a DLC is just bad marketting.
IMO, if they wanted this period, they should have just hired Romae ad Bellum team and made their mod into the base game as a DLC after improvements.
Not really because the Vandals were destroyed as an ethnicity long before the Huns disappeared from history.
It’s like the argument the devs made with Romans “but Huns & Goths are in the game”. Yes, but Huns & Goths overlived the Western Romans way more. You start the game in the Dark Age, you start literally after the fall of western Rome.