- Don’t you think it is strange that Chinese, Saracens, Tatars and Turks don’t have access to Caravanserai tech? The same is for civ, which represents Gokturk khaganate and its successors. (More likely also Byzantines should be added; Mongols, Khitans and Jurchens - debatable, i’d prefer to read a Chinese historian opinion on this matter.)
- If Cumans represent Gokturk khaganate and its successors, why they have Paladin, Halberdier, Plate barding, Crop rotation, Two-man Saw, Guilds techs then? (And why they don’t have Bracers tech?)
1 Like
AoE II timespan has been f***d up since The Age of Kings OG days and The Conquerors Expansion
This DLC perfectly belongs to the last portion of its timespan (the 16th century).
Would I prefer to have it on III DE? Of course, this could have been a nice content for III DE cuz we only have Mapuche and Tupi as minor civs (Native Settlements you could ally to) but not Muisca. Not even as one of this minor factions.
The thing is a window has already been open for Early Modern Era gimmicks
4 Likes
Caravanseai is a common building in eastern countries expecially along Silk Road. I personally saw some of them in Türkiye. Caravan trade is very important for landlocke countries, only way to make trade. Every tecnology can’t be given every civ because of balance issues. I can’t speculate how will it effect balance if other civ can build caravanserai.
Tatars are mostly landlocked and have control on oasis cities along Silk Road. Caravanserai can be given to them. Same for Mongols.
Turks that controlled Anatolian and Balkans Peninsulas, have many ports. Ottomans conquered Italian trade colonies during Mehmet the Conquerer and took control of eastern naval trade. Western countries started to look for new routes because of high Turkish customs. After conquest of Egypt, Ottomans started to control Red Sea and tried to be active on trade roads along Indian Ocean. So, Turks are related naval trade more than caravans. Caravanserai isn’t necessary for Turks. Same for Saracens and Byzantines that have access to naval trade.
No idea for Chinese, Jurchens and Khitans.
I texted Cumans can represent not represent 100%. In fact it is debatable how much game Cumans represents real Cumans and this debate can be done for every civ. Of course if I design a Gokturk civ, it would be different than Cumans (don’t have paladines or halberdiers) but they will have many common points.
Common points;
Both Cumans and Gokturks speaks pure forms of Turkic languages.
Both Cumans and Gokturks religion is Tengrism. In fact some Gokturk elites are Buddhist and some Cumans are converted to Christianity and Islam but general population is Tengrist.
Both Cumans and Gokturks are nomads.
Both Cumans and Gokturks rely on husbandry, fast cavalry and mounted archers.
Debatable;
I don’t know Cumans well but Gokturks are known their blacksmith skills. It is normal to have plate barding armor and paladines, two-man saws and guilds. Bracers effects food archers that Gokturks don’t use them. I think Cumans have halberdiers, crop rotation because of balance so Gokturks can have.
I don’t agree because you propose to choose either land or sea trade, while historically both were used if it was possible. And in our case it will be definited by map type. Or, on other hand, it should be maps kinda of AoE III, with fixed trade routes.
As far as I know it started even in mamluk sultans time.
As far as I know, the Caspian-Volga route and ports in southern Crimea were significant parts of their trade. However, the Tatars did not have their own fleet, they just own ports.
E.g. Persians had vast naval trade in Arabian sea and significant one in Caspian sea and they have access to Caravanseray (unnesessary according to your logic, but i consider it as much more a question to devs).
1 Like
The word “Caravanserai” is of Persian origin, and its appearance is also very Persian. I guess this reflects that, in most contexts, it might primarily refer to ones in regions with significant Iranic-speaking populations, such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. So, I personally think it’s reasonable in the game for it to be accessable only for Persians and Hindustanis. Of course, other Islamic regions, Byzantine, Mongol and Chinese regions obviously had similar post-station functions.
If Sogdians can be added in the future, they would be more fitting to have Caravanserais. On the other hand, the eastern terminus of the Silk Road has traditionally been considered Chang’an (today Xi’an). The traditional regions of the Jurchens and Khitans further east are generally not considered part of the Silk Road, except for their relatively brief periods of conquest.
As far as I know, most Gokturk warriors rarely wore heavy armor. Chinese historical records indicate that only elite troops, such as the royal guards, were granted and allowed to wear armor. This implies that in the game, they wouldn’t have even Knights, not to mention Paladins, and their UU at Castles would be a heavy cavalry.
This is somewhat similar to the current Jurchens, but in reality, the Gokturks are even more suitable for this design. The Jurchens relied on quickly mobilizing large numbers of heavy cavalry to conquer northern China, but having their heavy cavalry at Castles rather than Stables in the game actually prevents this aspect from being properly represented.
On the other hand, CAs would inevitably become the cornerstone of the gameplay for the Gokturk civ, unlike for the Cumans. Not only would they be fully upgradeable, but they would likely also benefit from civ bonuses and UT improvements.
It’s said that the majra used in modern Turkish archery originated with Gokturk archers, who, when fighting the Chinese, invented this auxiliary tool to reuse bolts fired by Chinese crossbowmen. Therefore, their UT could perhaps give the Archer and Cavalry Archer lines a special effect when got hit by projectiles, for example, generating gold or wood.
Heavy cavalry and mounted archers play so differently that they could definitely offer players a distinct experience compared to the Cumans.
2 Likes
Thanks, that’s exactly what I’ve meant.
In comparison, on other hand, we have all civs access to Fire ships (as close-combat naval unit), but historically it was truly unique byzantine weapon.
Yes, that’s for sure…although the Vandals still sort of portray them as Goths…
Easy, for money… if they did it for AoE 3, it would have been more historically accurate, yes, but it wouldn’t have sold as well as a DLC for 2… the same applies to Return of Rome compared to 1DE or 3K with Chronicles…
Yes, I understand…
They could do it as a Mapuche historical battle, even as a prologue to Lautaro’s campaign, but it seems it will only be set in Lautaro’s life, plus perhaps an revenger epilogue in Curalaba in 1598, like in the story of Joan of Arc…
Yes, in the last post they made, Lautaro’s campaign begins in Tucapel and from there on…
-
Tucapel (1553): Lautaro is named toqui (chief) and defeats Pedro de Valdivia
-
Marihueñu (1554): Lautaro defeats Francisco de Villagra
-
Peteroa (1556): Here Francisco de Villagra defeats Lautaro, and Lautaro goes on the defensive
-
Mataquito (1557): Here Francisco de Villagra definitively defeats Lautaro, killing him, and the Mapuche swear revenge
-
Curalaba (1598): The Mapuche launch a major offensive against the seven Spanish cities (the Dutch also appear, with whom the Mapuche can ally to obtain gunpowder and cannons)…
I would add the issue of incest and inbreeding between Cersei and Jaime, and the issue of the Lannisters’ physical and mental deformities compared to the Habsburgs in the real world… even the secret relationship between Jon Snow and Daenerys, who have relations even knowing or not that they are nephew and aunt respectively…
Also the cities of the Hanseatic League…
Yes, the question is whether, after this DLC, they’ll do a pseudo-port of AoE 3 to 2 to cover conflicts from the 17th to the 19th centuries (the Eighty and Thirty Years’ Wars, the Deluge, the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Great Northern War, or even the Napoleonic Wars)… or will they simply cover similar scenarios from the 16th century in Central and North America and even sub-Saharan Africa with Kongo, the Sudanese sultanate, the Adal War between Ethiopians and Portuguese against the Somalis, the Turks/Ottomans, or later the Berbers/Moroccans (which we already saw in AoE 3), or Idris Alooma in Kanem?…
1 Like
I prefer Gokturks military generate food when they attack enenmy farms, mills, pastures. Sudden tempeture changes happen in West Mongolia. It can be snowy in the middle of summer. It causes mass death of farm animals and horses. That is one of the reason Gokturk raids to other nations.
1 Like
The military setup of the free cities is dependent on mercenaries like the second sons similar to condottri forces.
Ah, you’re right…but doesn’t the same apply to the Imperial Free Cities with the Landsknechts?
1 Like
I’m so tired of Turkic civs and anything horse/horse archer related.
2 Likes
History disagrees with you,horses and people riding them changed the world.That being said do we even have any more none gimmick bonuses left for a horse people civi.
3 Likes
And with the attitude of “no more horse civs” we got an unhistorical Armenian infantry civ instead of giving them good cav like they had 
6 Likes
Totally agreed. I’d even propose to replace crossbowman and arbalester techs with composite bowman and heavy composite bowman accordingly for Eastern Europe, Balkans, Saracens, all Asian civs except Southern India, Indochina and Indonesia. IMHO It will be much more historically accurate.
Or also make crossbowman and arbalester separate tech branch from archer branch for the settled (non-nomadic) civs of listed above.
I find it extremely hard to believe eastern europe and balkans did not use xbows.If anyone should loose xbows it should be the american civis only.
3 Likes
They used it indeed, but as weapon for infantry militia, garrisons or by defenders of besieged fortresses.
So I think my proposition of separate tech branch for crossbow will be more accurate in this case.
So why shouldn’t they have xbow units?
I don’t mean they should not have crossbows at all.
But it should be considered that the crossbows were not the dominant ranged weapon in that region in medieval age.
The crossbow is obviously more expensive and more sophisticated in producing and recharging.
Most Balkan civs were primarily cavalry focused, and at this point we arguably have enough horse civs. One could make a case for a Balkan DLC featuring Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia. I group these three together because they would allow for a strong, interconnected campaign narrative, something close to the Jadwiga style multi perspective storytelling. All three had periods when they truly shone, some longer, some shorter. Some existed as duchies for a long time before attaining kingdom status, like Bosnia.
A fun historical note, Jadwiga was the daughter of Elizabeth of Bosnia, who herself was the daughter of Stephen II Kotromanić, the Ban (later King) of Bosnia.
IMHO it could have been a debatable idea a couple months ago… At least for me 
. But as we will definitely have stories about mapuche and tupi empires , why not give a chance for e.g. wallachians, bosnians and croatians.
1 Like