Byz were literally a part of the Roman Empire before it split into the western and eastern parts.
Literally yes, culturally is very debatable. Taking something literally works well with logic but culture is more complex. I think it was fine to have Romans and Italians should be renamed / splitted but that’s another topic.
The division of west Vs east was administrative but also pointed to a deeper cultural division that has always been there and got remarked in late antiquity when Greeks started moving away from Hellenism before Latins because of oriental cults and Christianity (while the west remained more pagan till the dark ages).
Maybe only Kurds. Current Saracens can be unchanged. Except for campaign which should be same as Prthviraj. Changed from Saracens to Kurds and you can play them for free on campaign but not in anywhere else. And you can play Saracens in SP and MP but not in campaign (A Khalid Bin Al Walid campaign is probably the most appealing).
In the game the Damascus is already represented as Persians in Barbarossa campaign 6th mission. Maybe I will find more Byzantines and Persians if I go through all the campaigns. So not really just one civ called “Saracens”.
I mean you could rationalise anything away if you wana get into that much detail. And you could say the same thing about the Arabs as you just did about the Romans. The real relevant point is no two civs in the game are alike as far as their histories and cultures and identities are concerned. The Persian civ spans across several dynasties. The Spanish are literally the same people as the goths just later in time. The Teutonic order were basically a religious cult but are here presented as a civ representing the HRE somehow. The Turks represent different Turkic tribes that all migrated to the Middle East at different time and settled in different places. And so on… I think the game could definitely benefit from splitting the Saracens as there is more to the Middle East in this time period than one civ can represent.
I never heard that. I knew it was a European term for Arabs. But I never heard it was offensive.
Aren’t they already ingame with saracens and persian then?
Indeed I think you could split Persians which are just Sassanids by now. And Turks… Well don’t tell me that you can’t split Turks cause it’s like having Slavs or Indians as a civ ahah.
I doubt that goths and Spanish are the same thing. Try to ask a Spaniard… That’s a very gross oversimplification, i mean one was Germanic the other is a mix of many things but if Spanish are Germans well…
I’m not rationalising anything, I’m just telling you as it is…
I don’t see how that contradicts my point… You had rus represented by goths in Gengis khan 4… Should this prove something? It was just a stretch as long as Europe I would argue lol so Damascus being Persian or Byzantine in a campaign what should it mean? It was probably just to add variety or as a placeholder… If anything it proves the opposite point, meaning a lack of variety in Levant and middle East where you only have two somehow pre Muslim civs to represent the entire Arab world plus Saracens (the only Muslim civ there apart Turks but that’s another thing one would say).
Contradiction is you’re saying all Arab people of AOE II time frame are represented by Saracens only in the game which is not true.
This proves either that was wrong (and hence changed) or Rus were a part of Gothic Kingdom/Empire. I hope you see the point. Syrians in my knowledge went back on forth by Persians (Sassanids) and Byzantines until Saracens and later Ottomans took over.
My knowledge on history is very limited. Can anyone tell me if any civ in the game that were never independent? If there is, I see point of adding Egyptians, Syrians, Yemeni and others.
That’s can be a bit OP, slavs already gathers food faster and it’s already considered a strong bonus.
I see this as a pain to balance. If you have it cost just wood, it would be used to tower rush at all time, if it cost stone it wouldn’t work as a gathering point.
Maybe just have a bonus that towers can accept all resources as a gathering points.
Teutons already have free herbal medicine, I would give them just free heresy, as it’s already a strong bonus.
Unless this is a free bonus I wouldn’t bother to research the tech, although I would condense some effect into a single bonus.
- Outposts give a +10% speed to nearby foot units. Villagers can be garrisoned inside outposts to shoot arrows.
Extra armor on cav is really strong, considering their tanky camels and good start this is probably an overkill.
This one too, it’s too bland and it can be OP along with their market an camels. Either limit it to a unit type (es light cav, archers…) or change it with something else.
I wouldn’t spend resources to train skirms faster, unless they train in like 1 sec each…
Magyars already have this bonus.
This is incredibly OP, especially ballistics.
Not a fan of double water stacking bonuses like the romans, although it wouldn’t be OP…
They already gave this bonus to 2 different civs (aztecs and goths) and 2 times they take it back…
Those are about the bonuses of huns, cumans and mongols, they aren’t very original…
I don’t think a split would be welcome. There is already Saracen’s for the Arabic (and ayubid) civs from Arabia, Berbers for northern African civs (Fatimids, Moroccan…), byzantine and Persia for pre-arabian conquest territories…
Splitting more civs besides the last Indian DLC which was justified, is a bad idea.
A split (along geological regions and cultures/languages) could be justified.
“Outposts give extra speed to nearby units” sounds pretty interesting, even though it’s an aura effect and I’m not sure I’d like playing with it. It opens up a lot of strategy. It should not be combined with stone-less outposts.
The spear line getting more Armour sounds pretty interesting too. Trying to think of a way it could be powerful but not broken. If you give them halbs it could easily be broken, but without halbs it’d easily be useless in imp. Maybe +2/+2 but lacking attack upgrades could work.
I’m not opposed to a Saracens “split”, but in my opinion (a) it shouldn’t be done along dynastic lines, and (b) the current Saracens civ design should be preserved.
I agree, but there’s no way to avoid this because of the Ethiopian team bonus.
Bohemians, I think, but it depends what you mean by “independent”.
I find it very hard to split the Saracens themselves. The differences between Syrians, Iraqi and Egyptians were not so clear, it was more like a smooth transition between one region to the other.
However, I think it would be a better approach to introduce civs from the “Saracen periphery”, like Kurds, Yemeni or Bedouins, for example. Those peoples were more different and therefore their civs would also be more unique.
I’m not getting into this with you again man, go Google it…
Well the Persians in game are a mish mash of various Persian dynasties from Sassanids to Safavids. Abbasid Dynasty started as a revolution in Iran but setup their capital in Baghdad and so was still centred much more in the Arab world, it wouldn’t be until later that distinctly Persian dynasties would come to power again in Iran.
As for Fatimids they were Shia so they were actually a different sect than and in opposition to the other Sunni dynasties which is the main reason they need to be in the game as their own thing.
The berbers are really from the Maghreb. The Fatimids were based in Egypt.
Fatimids moved from Tunisia to Egypt
Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just never heard that it was offensive before. Given how words change, I’m not surprised. I was hoping you’d give me a quote from a Wikipedia article or something.