In that case, I wouldn’t consider it a split – and if the devs see lots of people calling for a “Teutons split” and decide to act on it, they might well really split them, i.e. distribute the bonuses amongst several new civs.
2 Likes
I’m ok with it. I guess every main Euro civ through the Middle Ages is culturally diverse and politically divided enough to the point you could split them. The same could be said of Spanish and Italians.
But we have to factor in stuff like civ design, impact on balance etc, like many have pointed out. So one solution is redesigning Teutons so to reflect HRE’s diversity - units, bonus, techs. Maybe allowing the player to chose between UTs in each Age, enabling or blocking special buildings.
Another point to consider is the need to rotate new civs through continents so we don’t get too focused on Europe.
I sure hope it doesn’t, other than one DLC giving South Slavs/Romanians some love, and maaaaaybe Saxons (as in when they were in Britain, but I even view that as a stretch) we should be moving away from Europe, and representing Asia and Africa (and maybe even a few more pre-columbian American civs) more.
This game doesn’t even have Aragon & the Papacy, both were super powers
1 Like
Goths are already a good enough placeholder for Germans from the Barbarian Invasions, the Saxons for example. Alternatively for a more sea-focused civ, the Vikings.
Because AOE2 is not a grand strategy game, civs are not countries on the map. It’s not Total War or a Paradox game. Civs cover a cultural group, so Aragon is covered by the Spanish (as well as Castile Leon…), and the Papal State by the Italians (alongside Venice Milan Genoa…).
To split a civ, you really need wide differences. It was absolutely necessary for the Indians and the Slavs (who should be renamed “Ruthenians” as Poles Bohemians and Bulgarians are Slavs too).
3 Likes
Papacy can be represented by Italy (Microsoft will also never touch the Papacy because of religious connections) and Aragon can be represented by Spanish. Not every state needs represented, but the South Slavic ethnic group isn’t represented at all.
1 Like
I admittedly would love to see a Barbarian invasion DLC that had the Vandals and another more prolific barbarian civ (I do still lean towards the Saxons) along with a barbarian architecture pack that the new civs share with the Goths and maybe the Huns, and a Romans campaign with it with one of the late Roman generals that fought off the barbarian invasions, but I’m not holding my breath for that.
The game also features the Crusades on both sides so I really don’t think putting the Papacy would cause problems here. And any Medieval II player would love to use this civ as a punching ball.
It’s just hardly warranted as the Italians already represent them quite well. For example the Papal States were no strangers to using condotieri during the various wars on the peninsula.
Goths and Vikings are already good enough placeholders, the Goths are used in the Gaiseric mission for the Vandals. Alternatively, the Vikings as the Vandals were quite proficient on the sea. Just change the architectural style which can be done in the scenario editor, et voila.
The problem with barbarian invasion civs is that most civs wouldn’t last long. The Goths were utterly KO by the 8th century, the Huns vanished when Attlia died, only the Franks had a long-lasting presence. And they were the most emblematic of the period. The Burgundians are clearly more based on a later period.
Others Germanic groups - Vandals Alamans Lombards Saxons… already feel good enough as Goths & Vikings.
Of course there are other priorities, Also i’d think the Slavs should be renamed Varangians cuz it sounds cooler and isn’t incorrect, too many civs are too similar with modern day country names
The Papacy would just be great as it’d be a Monk/Infantry Civ, and was Defacto Ruler of Europe after Rome fell, which is kind of the theme of this game
The Spanish were just too influencial in the new world so I think it deserves a split, though i just realized Vandals sounds better
It wouldn’t cause a problem, but Microsoft avoids talking about religion at all costs. Look at the Jan Zizka campaign, they make Jan Hus sound more like a populist political agitator than a religious reformist.
Either way, religious side of the civ aside, I agree Italians are more than good enough to represent them, and the other city states of the Italian Peninsula. About the only one I could see getting a unique civ is Venice, and even at that i’d be opposed to it.
1 Like
Varangians were Nordic-ized Balts…Slavs should be renamed Rus’ along with the Serbs/Romanians DLC I’d like to see.
Varangians were a generic term that mostly concerned Vikings. I don’t remember if it was Harold Godwinson or his cousin Harald of Norway, both fought for the english throne in 1066 before some Norman duke took the cake, but he was in the Varangian Guard before that.
Ruthenian however is a medieval term for inhabitants of the Kievan Rus. And given the current political context better avoid calling them Russians as some parts of the Rus may disagree…
2 Likes
The nobility called themselves Varangians until the end of Kievan Rus, and all the civ bonuses are not indicating otherwise except boyars… which regionally was located at 2 other civs
Ruthenians would be a good alternative as well. I don’t think the Rus’ name would cause too many issues (as someone who is very pro-Ukrainian myself) but yeah if they went full Russia that’d be a major issue. For most of the scope of the game the nation that became Russia was called Muscovy anyway, so Russia would just not work, even disregarding pro-Ukrainian arguments.
1 Like
I don’t know much about the Hussites but the Reformation was motivated in large parts by what we would call populism now. Notably revolting against the sale of “indulgences” at exorbitant prices, inciting people to sell much of their belongings for a promise of skipping purgatory, by a visibly corrupt Church who made a business out of it.
Also by the time Zizka became a revolt leader, Hus had been executed for years.
The thing with Rus’ is it sounds a bit weird for a civ name (please avoid the inconsistency of AOE4 for civ names…), as it’s the name of the State already.
I just don’t want Putin to start parading that game in his propaganda “see, this famous game says I’m correct”.
There were secular or mixed aspects too for sure, but the religious/doctrinal reasons were very important, and Microsoft completely ignores them. Tbh Microsoft does it with the crusades too, just in the case of the crusades ignoring the religious reasons is more historically accurate because most of the crusaders weren’t there for the religious reasons themselves lol. (I’m trying to avoid getting too religious). Even though yes Hus was gone by the time Zizka was leading, his religious teachings were still a driver to the Hussite movement.
Yeah…that is a fair point, maybe Ruthenians would be the best way to go.