Flaming has no place here in the Age Forums, @Rissen6157 . But I guess that is why you are now suspended.
Thank you for all your comments. This gamer forum is literally the best one in the world. You all give me confidence that Age II will continue staying an amazing videogame!
2 Likes
Europe is unique though for having so many active and various nations/cultures crammed into a small continent, while Asia-despite being a much larger continent has been noteworthy of being more uniform in the cultures that have existed there.
Hence why Europe gains the distinction of having so many civs within Age II. It is no deliberate bias on the old devs or new devs’ part. It is just how it is in real history.
3 Likes
This is so wrong lol. Sure, theres some regions that are sorta uniform like the middle East or parts of China, but most of Asia is extremely diverse (Southeast Asia is the clearest example imo).
The diference beetwen Europe and Asia is that some kingdoms have dominated others for a few hundred years, while in Europe, theres not any big expansionist kingdom in the west, and even in the east most civilizations stay indepemdent for a looong time outdiside of the Balkans.
Yeah no. I think you just havent learnt much about Asia. I dont blame the devs, Europe is indeed more marketeable (although not sure about why they added Burgundians and Sicilians, I guess they thought nostalgia, gimmicks would be enough to add these civs that could represent the three things the casual playerbase wanted: Normans, Crusaders and Dutch)
2 Likes
On that basis of chronology, aoe4 would’ve been WW1 or WW2 or some other kind of more modern warfare with planes or tanks and probably would have played out more like Starcraft.
I think if they’d known how long the game would continue, arguably they could have split the aoe2 period into 2 separate games. E.g. 500 - 1100 AD and 1100 - 1500 since there are now like 43 civs.
I always thought thst an AoE2 game thst took place from the dark ages to the fourth crusade would be awesome
Personally, I think that Age IV ought to have been Victorian Era (19th century and early 20th century), with muskets, early rifles, and rifled cannon and the beginnings of modern-day organized militaries. That way, it would have transitioned quite nicely from the “Early Modern Era” style of Age III. But the devs decided to go the “safe” route and make a clone of Age II.
1 Like
Eastern Europe was conquered by Asiatic and Uralic tribes (Huns and Slavs in the early middle ages and Cumans, Mongols, Tartars in the later middle ages) invalidating your claim that Eastern Europe “stay independent”. The Russian principalities were subjugated under the Mongolic yoke for many years (they called it the “Tartar Yoke” in Moscow).
And you totally disregard what I was saying on Asia being “more uniform” than Europe. I never said that Asia was *less diverse" than Europe. Only more uniformed in that greater swathes of Asia were unified by a few great powerful nations meanwhile Europe remained sharply divided by language, cultural, and economic barriers. Of Asia had diversity too, but Asia is a much larger continent, and was mostly dominated by: Sino peoples, Turkic/Mongolic peoples, and Arabic/Iranian peoples.
But most importantly, Europe characterized the Middle Ages, by catching up to the rest of Eurasia in education, learning, knowledge at such a rate, and despite being so fiercely divide by many kingdoms and principalities. They therefore greatly deserve such representation within this videogame.
It is extraordinary that such a small continent of Europe has historically and demographically remained extremely diverse while the larger continents of Africa and Asia have been slightly less diverse and varied (of course they did have diversity, just less of it compared to Europe).
What makes you know more than me? I studied East Asian classics, and have read works on Persian/Central Asian authors. You think that you know more than me? Or are you only a condescending person wanting to cause trouble in this Forum?
2 Likes
What I mean is that the way we look at Europe, we dont see one European empire doing impressive stuff and then falling apart like what happened constantly in Asia, we see multiple kingdoms fighting each other. And Mongols dont count, Mongols are too special to be compared to regional powers.
Europe was dominated by Germanic Peoples and Slavic people then?
Also you ignore how much variety there is in India and SEA.
Only because thats how it gets told to us after European domination. The game isnt even exclusively about the middle ages either.
We dont celebrate that, we barely see anything of Europeans turning away from the dark ages in the game.
Look at India again, why would it be so diferent here?
And Europe had two dominating cultures: west and East, Asia had like 6 or 7 major “cultural groups”.
Ok, theres some arguments for China being extremely uniform but throwing everything togheter is wrong. Just… Look at how many ethnic groups there are in Asia or Africa and look at the map of Africa, India or South East Asia during the middle ages. Even in Central Asia we had a bunch of diferent groups which suceeded each other and not just one or two. Just because they didnt exist for a thousant years in smaller territories and instead were extremely powerful for a century or two dpesnt mean Europeans are more important.
Sure, the Chinese and Arabs were extremely skillful at expanding their cultures to neighboring peoples, but Chinese and Arabs represent only half of what Europe has to offer and even in China theres multiple ethnic groups which arent just Han Chinese with a coat of paint. And Africa, I wouldmt say you should even attemp to justify Africa being less varied than Europe. A ton of the territories there werent organized into states, but theres a ridiculous variety on Ethnicities in Africa.
It would be extraordinary but its not true that Europe has such variety (although tbh something remarkable is how weird of a political system they had when looking back on it), and tbh it is crazy what they achieved eventually (I think in AoE3 peioritizing Eurooe int just justified but necessary) but here, Europe doesnt have any major reason to deserve such a privilege.
Yes I am. I am a condescending person that believes that you are saying something that it is completely bonkers. Europe was culturally the most unified continent, can it be both the lost culturally unified and the most varied at the same time? No, it cant. It cant be both.
From the perspective of historical time period yes, but the gameplay is nothing like aoe2
5 Likes
So that’s where I should have voiced my complaint about W. Europe…
And yet, I am still longing for the Mayan campaign.
And that’s where my complaint is about. You see, the DLC already done “damage” to this videogame, and I am not happy. Not happy at all. For the record, with the release of LotW, Sicily is somehow belongs to the West?! Now, I understand that Burgundians (labeled Grand Dukes) are technically Western Europe, but Sicily?! It’s South Europe. I personally won’t mind adding Venice, Genoa, Ragusa, Pisa, and Amalfi, but along with Sicily on a S. Europe map and with Bari and Sforza campaigns on S. Europe as well. Adding to it Spain (El Cid) and Portugal both of which is S. Europe too and you have good 10 campaigns.
Personally for me, the fair game will be to add Pritviraj to S. Asia.
Some people really need history lesson here. First things first, Boyars should never have been a UU of Slavs as they are Feudal Age knight of not only Slavs but also Romania, Bulgaria and Lithuania. What the devs should have done is to establish Boyars to be a Feudal Age stable unit. For more info, show those undeveloped devs this: Boyar - Wikipedia
Second, if any UU Slavs should have, should be a Voivode. However, it too should be a stable unit, as it is not endemic to Russia only. It is known in Poland and Lithuania Voivodes of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth - Wikipedia as well as Hungary and Russia. Voivode - Wikipedia
We can also add Armenia to the mix with their UU being Sparapet - Wikipedia. 
The term “Boyar” was Slavic but was copied by the Vlachs.
Agreed. Not to mention that Slavs don’t have their own campaign. 
We have knights in the castle age so boyars should also be a castle age shared uu.
seems like you are right. this was part of the boxart of aoe3:
4 Likes
My knowledge of Africa is small, but if they will add Edo/Benin civ and campaign and add Mayan campaign I will be satisfied on that ground. Keep in mind that we include world known civs and most of the Meso-American and African civs don’t fall in that category. Also, for your information, Age II is not EU4. The engine probably won’t be able to handle 20+ civs on one map. Let’s say that your wish is granted, have you tought on what UU will Guamar, Itza, Xiu, etc. wiil have?
Agreed. What I am saying is that it shouldn’t be tied to Castle of the Slavs civ only and instead be a UU stable unit for Lithuanians, Poles, Bulgarians, Romanians and Slavs.
That’s exactly what I thought Age of Empires IV would’ve been. The setting was suppose to span the Age from Industrial to the Atomic Age (Cold War). All 4 Ages would’ve labeled as follows: Industrial Age, World War I, World War II, Atomic Age. Unfortunatelly, long before that idea popped into devs heads, a spin off of Age of Empires; Empire Earth, already covered that ground. The lead designer of Age of Empires Rick Goodman was also behind the creation of Empire Earth, sequels of which were appaling in my opinion.
The fifth installment (again, if not for the Empire Earth) would’ve been Modern Age to Space Age, and would have covered such Ages as Modern, Digital, Nano and Space.
i dont think that’s likely.
probably more like imperial age, industrial age, revolutionary age, information age
or something less extreme
putting war in the name of an age would be weird, considering you fight the entire time in this game
Population aside. Have anyone of you thought of what UU those “technological prowess” civs might have? Bulgarians have at least one cool UU - Konnik. What UU will your Chimu civ have? Not to mention that Chimu is more appropriate in Age I: Chimor - Wikipedia