Slavs Civ new DLC

Colonization? This is simple conquering of lands. Pretty much every AoE personality was busy same. Colonization is much more, it involves discoveries, sailing oceans, building cities on another continents. Ivan Terrible didn’t do any of that and could do even if he wanted. AoE 3 Rus is a huge anachronic mistake.

The Rus aren’t the same as Russia.
The Medieval Rus are more Ukrainian.
Russia is basically Moscow plus colonies.
Land doesn’t have to be overseas to be a colony.

Russia was founded after the Middle Ages, si there can’t be Russians in AoE2.
Moscow or Novgorod could be civilisations though.

2 Likes

Aha. Especially Ladoga, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver, Ryazan, Pereslavl, Vladimir, Yaroslavl, Suzdal, Tula, Shuya?

Then EVERYTHING is a colony.

Germany was founded after brakeup of Prussia in 1900s. There can’t be germans in AoE2. Like how it works?

2 Likes

This whole conversation feels super nitpicky about some region on earth.

5 Likes

Welcome to the forums. Everyone here is nitpicky and pedantic.

3 Likes

Personally,a nice solution is a Balkan dlc like DoI:
######### renamed)+Romanians(Dracula campaign)+Serbs(new civ)+X(new civ).

1 Like

Wait, they censored “Slavs”?

That X could be the Croatians.

1 Like

What about the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

The Rus originated in Kyiv and then expended eastward.
So it’s primarily Ukrainian and secondarily Russian and Belarussian.

Moscow only got important at the end of the Middle Ages.

Colonisation and Conquest go hand in hand.
You conquer something and then build settlements there which is colonisation.

I don’t see “Germans” in the civilisation list of AoE2, do you?

Also German was not founded after the brakeup of Prussia, the German Empire was founded by Prussia in 1871.

People suggested splitting the Slaves into Ukrainians and Russians, and my opinion is that that would be a bad idea.
Splitting them into Kyiv and Moscow would make more sense.
Also not to forget Novgorod was a very important power in the late Middle Ages.

Are we really considering current day politics for events from hundreds of years ago. I don’t understand hyper nationalism to events from before your great grandmamas were born. Its the past guys, let go of it!!

Werent there some plans to get Hungarian settlers to “magyarize” somevregions? That sounds like colonialism to me

4 Likes

This is occupation. Austrians didn’t fight natural forces, didn’t discover, didn’t build all of it. They just came and conquered it. They didn’t populate those lands, they enslaved the existing ones. That’s why I can’t imagine this being called “colonizing”.

Well, I hate to tell you, but if that is the explanation you’re giving then that invalidates 90% of what is considered “colonization”.

4 Likes

You know nothing. Srsly. Even a child from slavic school could tell you that you wrong.

That IS why I am talking about separate Rus and even suggested a unique mechanics for Rus with choosing principalities. Also there were Tver, Ryazan, Vladimir-Suzdal principalities. And all of this was called Rus’.

1 Like

Fighting natural forces is not a requirement. Spain & Morocco. (this is just the first that came to mind, there’s more)
Discovering it is not a requirement. Again Spain & Morocco.
Populating those lands is not a requirement, again Spain & Morocco and also happened in Austria-Hungary’s case, especially the Hungarians had plans to “magyarize” some regions.

Much of what you’re saying either also applies to colonization or also applies to Austria-Hungary.

Haha, no bro, I don’t. Conquest and occupation were essential in the process of colonization, didn’tcha know? German Congo, Spanish Morocco, Mexico, and Peru, Portuguese Zanzibar and Goa, Dutch Ceylon, Formosa, and Indonesia, British India, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia, Russian Siberia, Manchuria, and Transoxiana, French Tunisia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Vietnam, also the various Treaty Ports in China and Japan, etc etc. All of these are only just a few examples of colonialism that took place AFTER conquest and occupation occured. The two terms aren’t mutually exclusive, they’re actually synergistic.

1 Like

Remember when this topic was about a video game?!

I see your point but I just disagree with it. For me, colonization is something relatively noble. Although there are casualties too, it requires a struggle with nature, with the unknown, it is tied with discoveries and science. But when one came and seized what others had created - this is simply power, the right of the strong.
Now in the modern world, conquering is banally prohibited and recognized as a crime, and colonization (if, for example, we had a new continent) would be a noble pursuit.

Sadly, history just ain’t that noble. Things happened, and the world kept on trucking. I appreciate the different perspective, idealists are always good to keep the moral line, but the past is the past whether you demonize or harmonize it. Let’s get back on topic, eh?

Now, I’ve already said my piece on how I’d want a Slavic civ split dlc, but if it has to come between a North-South Rus split, rather than Muscovites I’d have the Novgorodian in the north. More relevant in this time period than Muscovy, who imo is perfectly fine in Aoe 3 as Russia there.

Just check out my explanation of why Rus and Ukraine are totally diferent:

And also a pic in post #35

About Novgorod and other principalities I said here in the “unique mechanics” paragraph:

In short, I propose not to rack your brains over which city to embody as a civilization, but crate Rus’, at the same time there would be a unique mechanic that would allow, without moving into the imperial era, to effectively linger in the castle, choosing which principality to implement, and Novgorod is one of the options there (along with Tver, Ryazan, Vladimir-Suzdal). The transition to the empire means a change of principality to Moscow.
This fully reflects the historical process - Rus’ really lingered too long in archaic forms, but this is precisely what allowed later sub-civs to exist.