I am making a cool picture right now to explain things once and for all. When ppl don’t get words, only pictures help. I am designer, I can do that.
Well, it took me 2 hours, but I did it. The picture was created by me using AI, which is so unloved here, and Photoshop (except for the bear, which I already had).
1 Like
Problem with that is, ################### are a different ethnic group also living in Romania, where as Romans & Slavs are the ancestors of Romanians.
Of course, everyone is pretty much a mix of anything. But if you say that Romanians = Romani+Romans+Slavs you might as well add +Hungarians+Germans since they also live in the region. See? it doesn’t make sense to say French = Romans+Gaulls+Algerians+Moroccans+Italian+Portuguese.
Not the same thing.
The Romans&Slavs on the other hand, it’s right at the beginning “The first stage, the Romanization of the Geto-Dacians, had now been followed by the second, the assimilation of the Slavs by the Daco-Romans”. So the Dacians were romanized by the Romans, then in a 2nd wave the slavs came and the slavs were assiminated by the Daco-Romans, now you have the Romanians.
1 Like
Look, there’s no point in us digging this far. All that interests me is that the Vlach race should exist in the game, at least because there is a campaign for them long ago. And when I talk about it, I consider it in context of splitting of Slavic civ. Is it possible to just make it on its own instead? Of course yes. But I just LOVE the experience of how the Indian races were separated. It was done very well, especially their campaigns. I would just like the same to be done with the Slavs, that’s all.
1 Like
Yeah, I really want to see Wallachians/Vlachs. The only new European civ I want to see in the foreseeable future, unless we get more early middle ages civs or maybe a Celt or Viking split (I have nothing against new Slav civs but idk if that needs to be considered a split).
Also I think we need more architecture sets.
1 Like
east-slavs
russia √ now slavs
ukraine
belarus
west-slavs
czech, slovakia √ bohemians
poles √
south-slavs
croatia
bosnia
slovenia
serbia
bulgaria √ bulgarians
And I also hope for civs which are non-slavs but covered by slavs or not mentioned in this game:
Albanian
Romanian
Chechens
and so on
I agree with you on that one, the Vlach race should exist in the game.
The Slavic civ should have been split patches ago. It made sense to have a “Slavic” civ when you didn’t have Bulgarians, Bohemians and Poles.
But now it’s like having Germans, Prussians and Bavarians in the same game. Well, aren’t the Prussians and Bavarians also Germans? pretty much the same thing with Slavs.
So yeah, I support a DLC with: Serbs (the Serbian Empire campaign could be interesting), Croats, Romanians and a Slav/Ruthenian rework.
And we also have the Dracula campaign so there’s no need for another Vlach campaign.
2 Likes
Yes, I mean the player’s civ must be replaced in existing campaign. May be not all of the missions but at least 3 for sure.
Just renaming it is not enough. Existing slav race is done very poorly and inaccurate. The voicing and some aspects may stay but a civ with almost no Imperial period can not represent Rus. Priests must have beards. More specific units are needed (Strelets, Ratnik, Ladia). Boyar can not be a battle unit, this unit must be renamed to Vityaz. More unique design needed (houses, churches, mills). I want a qualitative work on this race as it was done with India and Mountain races, not that dim shadow.
I would argue all 5 could have the Vlach civ, which of the 5 missions should be like that and why?
Beard for orthodox priests is a tradition but not a requirement. It helps to the image to have beard, but nobody is going to kick you out of priesthood if you don’t have a beard.
The issue with merely skin rework for priests is that then you’d have to make a skin rework for all other in-game civs. Sure the Pre-Columb Americans are so different that a skin had to be made, but what about Ethiopians or Chinese?
Btw, our discussion has inspired me to make this topic:
Thoughts?
You consider it further, I hope for its coming true.
For now there is 1 mission as turks, 1 or 2 as hungarians and the rest as slavs. This is due to the fact that Dracula in real history actually lived in different countries and in a sense represented them. Therefore, leaving one mission for each of these parties makes sense. But the Slavic missions definitely need to be replaced with Wallachian ones. However, it doesn’t matter to me, it’s up to devs to decide.
When? Now or back then? Even in our time, a Russian priest without a beard is a rare case that will be written about in the newspapers. Now, of course, he won’t be fired. But in those days, they would probably have been anathema for something like that, for church canon denial. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he was killed or sold for soldier.
Not all. Only certain archetypes are needed:
- European (the one that exists remains)
- American (already exists)
- Islamic (already in the editor)
NEW: - Orthodox with beard (for Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians, Georgians and maybe Serbs and Greeks)
- steppe shaman
- Asian
- African
Is that really that much?
Personally, if I were going to do a Slavic split, it would be:
-
Rus- I do think the current Slavs represent the various Rus principalities the most, and no, I don’t think the Rus need to have a North/South split. Both Novgorod and Kiev were closely tied to each other during the time period, and they were the main powers in the area pre-Mongolian invasion. Ergo, they should remained tied together as the (Kievan) Rus imo.
-
Serbians- They were the first South Slavic faction to claim an Empire title, were an important regional factor even after their decline, and even resisted the rise of the Ottomans, even during occupation. It’s honestly a no-brainer new civ pick amongst the remaining Slavic umbrella civs, at least imo.
-
Croatians- They also held an Empire title for a decent chunk of time before their subjugation under the Hungarian crown, and did become a power that even rivaled that of Venice and Byzantium during their height. A solid pick that, imo, might be fine to stand in for the Bosnians as well, seeing as Bosnia was a sizeable part of the Croatian Empire’s lands. Maybe include a Bosnian UU for representation? Also, Tomislav. 'Nuff said.
-
Vlachs- Being honest, even if the Vlachs aren’t strictly fully Slavic per se, I still think the Vlachs qualify to be a civ in the same way as other civs in the “underdog” category do: by virtue of insane resistance and/or cultural feats done even in the face of oppression, like the Celts, Koreans, or the Vietnamese. Not to mention the amount of notable people amongst their roster like Vlad Tepes and Stephen the Great. Personally, Vlad’s campaign is fine if they want to keep it around, but Stephen’s story would do the civ more justice since it would focus primarily on the civ itself.
2 Likes
So where would a name like Muscovites work?
Nowhere. In the AoE 2 time frame, Moscow was a backwater of Rus.
Im seeing a principality of Moscovy or soemthing. With golden horde influences a combo Cav Archer/Infantry civ is yet to be seen and no I dont really see Japanese as such unless that small anti archer bonus goes harder than it seems
You’re literally just asking for the Age of Empires 3 Russians.
2 Likes
Lol no. In AoE 3 we have post-Peter Russian Empire with fleet.
I am talking about Rus from Oleg Prophet to Ivan IV. With Vityaz, Ratnik, Strelets units and low fleet of Ladia boats.
My brother in Christ, the civ has Oprichniks and Strelets. The AI personality is literally Ivan IV, what are you even talking about.
Who is your brother in Christ? Whom you talking about?
I never advised Oprichnik for AoE 2.
Strelets existed in many centuries.
Ivav 4 in AoE 3 is a HUGE LAUGHABLE MISTAKE. During his reign, Rus’ never engaged in colonization. The fact that they did this is a ridiculous anachronism. Peter 1 or an even later tsar should have been there.
He did engage in colonization though?
You have a really weird view of Russia’s history.
3 Likes