Hi and happy New Year everyone!
This is my first topic here and it isn’t caused by positive mood. (It is more WTF mood )
First of all, the anounced factions of “The Last Chieftains” are not enough related to Medieval time, they are far more related to AoE III timeline. However, we have already already existing exceptions in AoE II, so it does not a big emough matter.
The WTF moment is related to the huge amount of obvious perspectives of new DLCs, which still continue to be ignored or neglected.
Let me remind you about “Rise of the Rome” DLC, that is not obviously complete return. I’d like to see campaigns “Empire of Rising Sun“ and “Enemies of Rome“ returned. There also campaigns could be added for Assyrians, Hitites, Shang, Persians (e.g. Cyrus the Great), Choson (IMHO this is better be renamed to Gojoseon), LacViet, Palmyrans (also possibly, Phoeniceans and Minoans).
Another point is related to AoE II original factions, let me cite one of my previous posts: Agreed, especially about adding campaigns for jurchens, khitans and chinese civs. Also the same for vikings (for e.g. Cnut the Great), turks (e.g. Selim II), koreans and mayans; possibly even for Western Roman Empire (e.g. Majorian).
And let’s return to the title. IMHO there is huge area for new DLC in Central Asia.
We already have the Tatar faction with Keshiq as unique unit and Timur as campaign person. However, it remains unclear to me how both are related to the Golden Horde and its factions - various tatar khanates and hordes.
There are entire set of Turkic kaganates (Gokturk, Uyghur, Kyrgyz, Khazar, Turgesh, Kimak, Karluk etc.), khanates (e.g. Karakhanid), sultanates (e.g. Seljuk, Ghaznavid) or Volga Bulgar emirate, which are neither match the Ottoman faction with gunpowder infantry UU janissary nor related to the post-Genghis Khan time or Cumans.
IMHO another notable points for future DLC could be Tibetan state (Tsangpo period), Serbian states, also Kanem state, states of Lower Congo region and Nubian states (modern Sudan) in Africa.
RoR doesn’t seem to have been a financial success sadly, so we probably won’t see new campaigns for it anytime soon The closest we’ll get to the antiquity campaigns are the Chronicles.
As for NEW content for ROR, I’m all for it, and would love to have battle scenarios as in Victors and vanquished or entire campaigns (don’t mind which ones, honestly, as long as the AOE1 game mode gets new playable content that further expands the experience of the DLC that contains it).
I think Turkic people are represented well in the game. Of course we can add more Turkic civilization for a better representation but if we apply this to other civs we may have over than 200 civs in the game.
Tatars represents Turco-Mongol Tradition states in Central Asia and Eastern Europe well. Golden Horde and its divisions Crimean, Astrakhan and Kazan Khaganates, Sheybanis, Uzbeks, Chagatais Khaganate, Timurid Empire can be merged in a single civ.
Cumans represents non-Muslim Turkic nomads in Eastern Europe. However it can be represent pre-Islamic Turkic nomads too. For example; Kimaks are a Gokturk division and ancestors of Cuman/Kipchaks.
Gokturk is a political identity that is created by historians more than a clan name. In fact Gokturks called themselves just Turks. Karluks are close relative of this core Turk clan. Karahanid population are mostly Karluk. Turgesh and Uygurs are divisions of Gokturks. Khazars are a bit different story. Their language is a bit different than other Turkic people. It is close to modern Chuvas. However they conquered by Gokturks and ruled by Gokturk elites even after Gokturks callopsed. Krygyz are another Turkic clan that is conquered by Gokturks. Cumans can represent their relative clans. If we want a seperate civ for them Gokturk civ can be an unbrella civ that represents all.
If we want more civs; Gokturks; to represent nomads as Krygyz, Turgesh, Karluks. Uygurs; because after they lost their homeland in Western Mongolia to Krygyz, they settled in Tarim Basin, accepted different religions like Mani, Budism, Islam and created their own civilization. Khazars; because they seperated from other Turkic people by language and their country has an important amount of Jewish people. Judaism is even accepted by Khazar elites.
Turks represents Ottomans, Rum Sultanate and Anatolian Turkish Beyliks.
Saracens represents sultanates that ruled by Turkic elites in Middle East.
Hindustanis represents sultanates that ruled by Turkic elites in India and Afganistan like Ghaznavids.
Seljuks and other Turkic people between Anatolia and Central Asia like Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu represent by Turks or Tatars. They prefered Saffavids are represented by Persians in Mountain Royal DLC. There may be another civ like Azerbaijanians to represent them.
I agree but the game is not supposed to be centered around pure middle ages either otherwise it would be just Europe from the 9th century to the 13thish. The conquerors expanded it in both fronts so now reinnasance, late antiquity and everything outside Europe is fair game.
That said it seems to me Devs are kinda tired of the middle ages since they do everything except it: Ror, 3k, chronicles, now this South American DLC, the recent additions like Lochness and Stonehenge… only the mountain royals stands as an exception recently.
I also don’t like the hypocrisy of “Romans and Huns are not medieval but I’ll stay silent about Spanish and mapuche”. To me all of them fit but I noticed the dark ages are more adversed than the 1500s for some reason as being part of the middle ages and it doesn’t seem really coherent to me.
Gokturks and Uighurs are definitely needed, Khazars too but less important imo, also cause we have less records about them like with Alans.
There’s still a hella lot to add if one wants to. The world is big and 1300 years are a lot to cover.
Some modders (notably perkymarker) ported all the missing campaigns.
So sad to read these unfortunate things. IMHO one more example how marketologists kill the fun.
However, i still have a tiny bit of hope that we have a chance to get such a gift on some of AoE (I) anniversary.
That’s what i call dualism of studying of Migraion Period - the decline of Western Roman Empire is traditionally more refers to ancient history, while the establishing of barbaric kingdoms at the same time - is more related to medieval one.
And btw don’t forget about enough medieval Romans, whom we traditionally call the byzantines, who called themselves Rhomaioi, not Ellines.
Pretty sure Muiscas are, but the other two are more related to the early 16th century European colonization of Americas as they fit the timeline perfectly when the Spanish and Portuguese civs are mostly based on the late 14th century.
That’s what AoE4 is for since AoE2DE is mostly full of ethnic groups rather than Turks 2.0 and Turks 3.0 without gunpowder. Nothing unique about having dynasties when Saracens, Berbers and Turks are enough for the known sultanates and Caliphates.
Hopefully, since 3 Kingdoms was a terrible way of just adding Jurchens and “Khitans” without having Tibetans which were suppoused to be added in The Conquerors expansion back in 2000.
Sounds like “Dude, have u ever tried to get a PC suitable to play AoE IV without issues and stop clinging the obsolete AoE II?“
Anyway, thank you for the feedback. Especially the rest of it.
In academy has changed since like the last century, only pop culture still clings to the idea of 476 like if Justinian still has to justify his gothic massacre.
The three upcoming new civs have a vast oral history before the European “discoveries”. Pre-Columbian history chronologically belongs to Middle Ages and Antiquity.
Moreover, if we exclude civs that are mostly AOE3-ish (i.e. at the end of Middle Ages and beginning of Early Modern Age), we should exclude the Portuguese, Aztecs, and Inca from the game too.
Did (so-called) europeans have monopoly on writing? I think no. So I think u’re kinda manipulating.
2. Is it fault of (so-called) europeans to make regular round-the-world navigation and industrial revolution before Muslims or Chinese etc. to spread their domination worldwide? My opinion is the same.
Or I misunderstood something in your statement, so make it more clear, please.
It was not related, just a consideration, don’t take it personally. Justinian used the “fall of Rome" (which otherwise was barely noticed) to justify his intervention in the west and the resulting war is more often used to mark the end of antiquity there rather than the deposition of a little kid.
“The Last Chieftains” DLC is completely the one I’ve been waiting for for the last twenty years. My excitement for it could not be higher. Each to their own, I guess.
)
The closest we’ll get to the antiquity campaigns are the Chronicles.