I know they should probably be separate, but the Khazar Khaganate was the direct successor of the Western Gokturk Khaganate, so it wouldn’t be that strange for them to be the same civ.
Never said there can’t be campaigns about them, I just made one lol.
What I said is if you go outside north Africa, Ethiopia and by extension nobatia, Somalia etc. Probably the campaigns you can make with a minimum bit of realism (like Yodit and Sundjata) you can count on the fingers of your hands (until proven otherwise).
One thing is being inaccurate like the Joan of arc thing or me with Dihya for the sake of storytelling, another is having to purely rely on a myth or no sources at all. There’s a place for that which is age of mythology I guess.
I write this just to correct what I feel sometimes is the vibe here of an excessive Europe vs Africa polarisation making it look like Africa could have double or triple the civs from Europe but Europeans are evil and don’t want that. It just requires a bit more of research to do African civs and campaigns and I suspect, judging from the last DLC, Devs are becoming a little lazy or simply running out of ideas but it’s not out of an anti African sentiment. It’s not that there’s always a design or a conspiration when something bad happens, sometimes is just what I call “things call for things or they don’t”.
I wouldn’t ever argue about that.
Yeah he’s the best candidate, maybe I underestimated him.
Super cool.
1 Like
First, the successors of the Western Turkic Khanate were not simply only the Khazars. They were only independent on their own territory and did not take over the majority of the Western Gokturks’ territory.
If you advocate that the Khazars were one of the successor of the Western Turkic Khanate, then it is a reasonable choice to only introduce Gokturks to represent the Khazars, Uyghurs, Karluks, etc. Otherwise, if you argue that the Khazars have enough unique characteristics to make them different from the Gokturks and to be their own civilization, then they should not represent any other place and tribe in the Western Turkic Khanate.
The Caucasus, where the Khazars are located, is the westernmost border of the Khanate, far away from the Transoxiana region, the core of the Khanate, and much closer to Constantinople than to Samarkand. After the collapse of the Western Turkic Khanate due to the attack of the Chinese, the power and influence of the Khazars never entered the main areas of the Khanate in Central Asia. The Khazars, who are already considered a European civilization to a certain extent, should focus on their activities in the northern Caucasus and Eastern Europe, rather than Central Asia. Letting them control Transoxiana on behalf of the Western Turkic Khanate is robbing the Gokturks of their job.
Both Khazars and Gokturks could have their civ but no doubt Gokturks works better as an umbrella ranging from Caucasus to China in early middle ages. Khazars are cool but more specific.
What civ better represent Gokturks in the current game? Turks in Bukhara seems off to me (only because of Gok-Turks?) So I made them Mongols in a scenario I made about the last byzantine-sasanian war, at the time of tong yagbhu and bori shad (620s).
I do not want to small Slavic civs in the game, but we should still be fair. The fact is that the 3 big Slavic tribes have ruled large parts of Central and Eastern Europe since the Late antiquity (including throughout the Middle Ages) and this should also be honored here in the game.
The Slavs should get their own campaign, historic battle scenarios or challenging scenarios and it is only unfair, that they are the only civ until now, that have no campaign and scenario in the game. If the Slavs were then renamed to Kievan Rus, they should get a corresponding campaign in the Kiev area.
What the hell should the recently introduced Romans supposed to do? We now have a completely overflowing Italian peninsula of civs, but huge empty spaces in the Muslim and Buddhist areas. And then without a campaign, historic battle or challenging scenarios for the Romans? It makes ZERO sense. The developers should rethink their thinking.
Real question - Which is the bigger umbrella between Slavs and Turkic?
Umm…Dracula?
That was a bait for AOE2 only people to buy the DLC. What else would make sense when the DLC itself is named after “Rome”.
They share this campaign with the Turks and Hungarians, so we can not speak of a separate campaign for the Slavs. Scenarios like this one do not fit well into the picture.
From what I read in the media, the DLC was not really successful.
I would most likely suggest the Visigoths as competitors for a campaign, that would fit well into the time frame of Late antiquity.
Visigoths are Goths not a different civi.
That is what they are named after a subfaction. You want to allude to the fact, that the Goths against Romans campaign already exists in the Goths campaign yes they are. Then I ask myself, why do the developers bring the Romans into the game? Just to please for the YouTube creators? They should have the game in the center not something else.
I think the developers should add more here, scenarios or even a campaign can definitely be created for this if they do enough research. We already have Goths and Huns as opponents of the Romans in their campaigns. The Vandals would be a good choice of Romes opponents for a Western Roman campaign, since they sacked Rome in 455.
The Romans were also brought into the game to ensure the transition from Age of Empires 1 to 2. That is why I would rename the Romans to the Western Romans or the Western Roman Empire, it makes more sense. When most people think of Romans, they think of the classical Romans, so it would be helpful to make changes here.
1 Like
Spanish share their campaign with Saracens and Hindustanis with Tatars.
We already have Goths and campaign is Visigoth.
It does not change the fact, that the Spanish, Saracens, Tatars and Hindustanies each have their own map campaign with coat of arms symbols and background pictures, but unfortunately the Slavs do not have them. Historical battle scenarios should be given to the Slavs as at least.
Yes, but I wrote in the last post, that a Western Roman campaign against the South Slavs would make sense in the Western Alpine and Dinaric areas. This area is just a few occupied in terms of civs and campaigns.
We have Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Let’s have both Khaganates
We have the Western Romans in a game that is supposed to begin in the Dark Ages, after the fall of Rome. The AoE2 timeline just expanded to 395-1601. You can have Spanish fight the Romans who are further apart than we and the Spanish civ in game.
Dracula should be reworked into a Romanian/Vlach campaign. The only reason we have Turks, Hungarians and Slavs for a Vlach campaign is because we have a Vlach campaign but we don’t have a Vlach civ in game.
2 Likes
Well let’s have gokturks first and then we’ll see
1 Like
Dracula should go to a Romanian/Wallachian civ imo, and Slavs should get a completely new campaign.
Other than Wallachians I don’t really want more European civs 
1 Like
I feel like a good figure for a Slavic campaign would be Alevander Nevsky.
DLC civis come in two so romanians and something else will come 
My idea: add a non-Euro one as well
Wallachians/Romanians/Vlach + Serbs + Croats and let’s get rid of all these “sLaVs ReWOrK pLz”, “sPlIt sLaVs pLz” threads.
4 Likes
Sorry. I apologize for my talking too much out off this topic.
1 Like