Swedish civ concept for AoE 2

Cost of buildings so more like Malians and Japanese :slight_smile:

Oh, I read develop and thought of research.

That’s not it. The issue is that companies are less willing to pay for 5 flesh-and-blood human employees when they can simply have 1 employee do the work of five using AI. They don’t care about quality. It’s all about saving money.

Ironically, the only fields that are likely to remain intact after this are trades.

People would rather have the same european civ twice than have a second civ in South America.

1 Like

You can make a Swedish civ before and after the Union of Kalmar (970-1611)…

Saint Ansgar is usually credited with introducing Christianity to Sweden in 829, but the new religion did not begin to fully replace paganism until the 12th century. During the 11th century, Christianity became the prevalent religion, and from 1050 Sweden is counted as a Christian nation. The period between 1100 and 1400 was characterised by internal power struggles and competition among the Nordic kingdoms. In the years 1150–1293 according to the legend of Eric IX and the Eric Chronicles Swedish kings made a first, second and third crusade to pagan Finland against Finns, Tavastians, and Karelians and started conflicts with the Rus’ who no longer had any connection with Sweden.[44] The Swedish colonisation of the coastal areas of Finland also started during the 12th and 13th century.[45][46] In the 14th century, the colonisation began to be more organised, and by the end of the century, several of the coastal areas of Finland were inhabited mostly by Swedes.[47]

In the middle of the 14th century, Sweden was struck by the Black Death.[52] The population of Sweden and most of Europe was decimated. The population (at same territory) did not reach the numbers of the year 1348 again until the beginning of the 19th century. One third of the population died during the period of 1349–1351. During this period, the Swedish cities began to acquire greater rights and were strongly influenced by German merchants of the Hanseatic League, active especially at Visby. In 1319, Sweden and Norway were united under King Magnus Eriksson, and in 1397 Queen Margaret I of Denmark affected the personal union of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark through the Kalmar Union. However, Margaret’s successors, whose rule was also centred in Denmark, were unable to control the Swedish nobility.

Many times the Swedish crown was inherited by child kings over the course of the kingdom’s existence; consequently, real power was held for long periods by regents (notably those of the Sture family) chosen by the Swedish parliament. King Christian II of Denmark, who asserted his claim to Sweden by force of arms, ordered a massacre of Swedish nobles in Stockholm in 1520. This came to be known as the “Stockholm blood bath” and stirred the Swedish nobility to new resistance and, on 6 June (now Sweden’s national holiday) in 1523, they made Gustav Vasa their king.[53] This is sometimes considered as the foundation of modern Sweden. Shortly afterwards the new king rejected Catholicism and led Sweden into the Protestant Reformation.

However, the Swedes began to resent the monopoly trading position of the Hansa (mostly consisting of German citizens), and to resent the income they felt they lost to the Hansa. Consequently, when Gustav Vasa or Gustav I broke the monopoly power of the Hanseatic League he was regarded as a hero by the Swedish people.[57] History now views Gustav I as the father of the modern Swedish nation. The foundations laid by Gustav would take time to develop. Furthermore, when Sweden did develop, freed itself from the Hanseatic League, and entered its golden era, the fact that the peasantry had traditionally been free meant that more of the economic benefits flowed back to them rather than going to a feudal landowning class.[58]

The end of the 16th century was marked by a final phase of rivalry between the remaining Catholics and the new Protestant communities. In 1592, Gustav Vasa’s Catholic grandson and king of Poland, Sigismund, ascended the Swedish throne.[59] He pursued to strengthen Rome’s influence by initiating Counter-Reformation and created a dual monarchy, which temporarily became known as the Polish-Swedish Union. His despotic rule, strongly characterised by intolerance towards the Protestants, sparked a civil war that plunged Sweden into poverty.[60] In opposition, Sigismund’s uncle and successor, Charles Vasa, summoned the Uppsala Synod in 1593 which officially confirmed the modern Church of Sweden as Lutheran. Following his deposition in 1599, Sigismund attempted to reclaim the throne at every expense and hostilities between Poland and Sweden continued for the next one hundred years.

Sure you can create such civ, however what would you done with current viking civ in that case? Vikings and swedes would be overlapping. Maybe you could rename vikings to danes, but then why would you leave out the norwegians?

We already have overlapping civis so this is not a big deal.

Danes, Norwegians and Swedes could all be potential civs for a DLC splitting Vikings. One can disagree of course but there’s plenty of medieval history in Scandinavia and surroundings completely ignored in aoe2 (I’m not talking about priorities, I know Africa blablabla).
Again vikings mean something like “raiders”, it’s not a civ if not by central and south European designation of “those bearded guys with axes plundering here and there”, similar to the “Saracens” designation, another civ that should be split. Today we would call these exhnonims.
So where are now all those people complaining (and rightly so) about Malians representing half of Africa or Sioux being not the correct name for a civ?

Im against adding 3 civs from the same region, which are that similar to each other. We have huge empty spaces in other regions such as Africa, South America or even Caucasus…

One thing doesn’t exclude the other…


1 Like

Can we not promote a man who has some of the WORST design philosophy Ive ever seen IN MY LIFE!?

Oh sure double farm food with a 15% gather penalty is just fine as a CIV BONUS!! Ugh. Wtf man

Ans believe me. Ive tried to help Robby I really really have. But he doesnt listen to any idea about why balance is from the top players down

And if you need proof heres a trch from one of those “civs”

50 Food, 100 Gold

• Available to all Scandinavian civs from
Dark Age at TC; 30sec research time
• Villagers have -25/15/5/0% train time &
+25/15/5/0 HP (diminishing per Age)


Idk man he has cool ideas and does a lot of research to ground the civs historically. I wasn’t convinced by that bonus either but I’m not the best at balance tbh. Other people can think of numbers and implementation (even a well trained AI) but original ideas could be lacking for next dlcs and they’re harder to come up with imho.
So it’s always good having people to think outside of strictly logical frames where creativity and taking risks can exist even if they may need people more versed in technical aspects to implement their vision.
Didn’t want to promote, just show that making a Vikings split is possible and there’s a lot to dig.

1 Like

Try giving a tech tree and a list of bonuses and units: a few examples of format

While his historical research is fine and all his civilization design and balance is horrible.making things playable and balanced should be the main goal of a civi design.


Bruh, seriously? Respect to this man for being bold enough to start his own youtube channel on AoE2 civ design despite his massive lack of understanding, taste and talent.

I wouldn’t dare do something like that if my ideas were as terrible as this.

They are represented as vikings. More importantly, we have so many civs from europe it isn’t even funny. 2 of the 3 DLCs for DE focused on europe, that’s ridiculous. I don’t think they should add even a single european civ at this point, before adding like 12 non-euro civs.

1 Like

You can rename the Vikings as Norse, like in AoM…

The Norsemen (or Norse people ) were a North Germanic ethnolinguistic group of the Early Middle Ages, during which they spoke the Old Norse language.[1][2][3][4] The language belongs to the North Germanic branch of the Indo-European languages and is the predecessor of the modern Germanic languages of Scandinavia.[4] During the late eighth century, Scandinavians embarked on a large-scale expansion in all directions, giving rise to the Viking Age.

Modern descendants of Norsemen include[5] the Danes, Icelanders,[b] Faroe Islanders,[b] Norwegians, and Swedes,[6] who are now generally referred to as “Scandinavians” rather than Norsemen.[7]

I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, indeed, there is a lot of Europe in the game. But this is because Europe really is the most “historically active” place. The most popular languages are European, the greatest colonial influence is European. They have the greatest variety.
I myself created topics about how we need to divide the Slavs into more countries and add Armenians (although many will still consider both of them European). But if we take other nations and continents - do we really have many empires and interesting stories in America? Have we really not enough civilizations of Asia? Even if you look at the statistics, East Asian campaigns are the least popular. And yes, personally, I would like more campaigns about Africa (there are only 2 purely African ones, without Europe), but how many highly developed civilizations were there?
So yes, there is a bias, but it is natural.

Uh-oh. I wouldn’t open that can of worms if I were you.


Man this is just true =)