And obviously we have to wait to see the actual details, but if the devs have implemented some kind of system where Jeanne gets stronger (as the Journey of a Hero and the available info we have suggests), that’s something brand-new we haven’t seen before.
These things don’t just pop out of thin air. They take effort to implement, even if it’s all code and no art.
No, after the fall of the Western Empire, the Kingdom of Italy was created, that is, let’s say that the Italians recovered their proper identity…
That’s true, AoE 4 in 2010 would have felt better, because I feel that way, it’s a game from 2011-2012 (it wouldn’t feel so outdated; it would feel something between AoE 3 and AoEO) (the problem is that it would face SC2 in all its glory and the MOBA boom)…
My problem is the game is far from exhausting all realistic settings (not mechanisms) before going for wild or fictional settings (not mechanisms).
You don’t even need to invent a new definition of “variant civ” and force a person, a real faction, a small group, and whatever it is into this definition. There are a lot of real factions that can be used as “sub” or “variant civs” based on existing ones that do not break the current consistency. Like Ayyubids (the only one that is consistent), Khitan or Jurchen for Chinese, Seljuks for Ottomans, Teutonic Order for HRE, etc.
And all of those can also support very “new” mechanisms like hero-centric gameplay or high pop elite units. Anyone that is familiar enough with this series would not find it a problem.
AOE2 Gujarats have protoss shields.Romans have aura (rare for AOE2 respectively). AOE3 native Americans and Africans have more “magical” hero abilities. Malta is an overly exaggerated defensive civ. Mexico oddly has the high pop elite unit.
These are all loosely based on history that you can always find evidences. But by the same logic other civs can have such features as well and these civs do not necessarily have to have them either. So that’s always a natural part of civ design. You don’t need a zigzag way to justify it.
I think many people fall into the trap of “if you want to introduce wild and new mechanics, you have to give it a wild and unconventional name or setting”.
That’s incorrect, because right after the fall of Rome great part of the italian peninsula passed under the control of the Ostrogoths, which aren’t italic but germanic. Then the eastern Romans came back, then Longobards and Franks, Arabs, Normans… the first Italian-led states were the republics and duchies that gained Independence after the succession issues within the HRE if I remember correctly, things like Venice, Milan, Genoa, Florence… Italians weren’t under a single banner until the 19th century I believe, so it’s hard to talk about an Italian identity as a whole before that. To me Romans in Italy are just Italians at the roman time. But yeah I’d consider the germanic kingdoms in Italy more of a parenthesis than an italic state.
So Western Romans weren’t contemporaries of the Italians as Genoese for instance, no. There’s a few centuries of difference, as with other matchups.
When designing a civ, should the Devs start by the civ’s characteristic or by a gameplay concept? What should come first for you?
Yeah, I understand. Not sure what you want me to say, though. We both care about the game, we both play the game
To me it’s obvious that the devs thought Jeanne d’Arc would resonate as she’s been used in the franchise before, and has even appeared in the campaign for IV. But maybe I’m wrong.
I think the level of “consistency” is pretty similar. There are a number of issues in the historical representation of this game (weapon detailing, overused buildings, etc), some (or all) of which I hope the developers get to. But some of it is intentional for the sake of gameplay (like Priests, the old AoE staple), and to me Jeanne falls into this category. I don’t think she breaks it anymore than anything else breaks it.
I personally think a lot of folks also oppose the hero concept because of the whole MOBA thing, and I get that as well. But I went through that back in 2009 with Dawn of War II (before “MOBA” existed as a word), so all I can do there is agree to disagree.
This is not the problem I’m talking about.
But here is my thought on this. There are two philosophies:
We can see traces of both. But the end product is always a combination of these two ends.
Like English/British always being an archer civ obviously comes more from the first idea because it is the most iconic thing they have in the middle ages (in popular culture).
English being an agricultural and defensive civ is more from the second one because you can find a lot of other factions that could have those traits.
That’s true, now let’s not come and tear our clothes…
Of course, that is, the civ of the Italians (both in AoE 2 and AoE 3) symbolize the Italian city-states of the Renaissance (and the Risorgimento in AoE 3)…
Yes, the MOBA genre appeared in 2009, before that, the post-WC3 RTS with heroes still existed…
Yes, the thing about the English with archers is like continuing a feature that was there since AoE 2 (in AoE 3 classic the Longbowman was very anachronistic for the industrial age, luckily they put the Ranger in 3 DE)…
I was thinking that trying hard to find a historical civ may lead to a unfitting choice, if starting from a gameplay idea. I agree there are those 2 philosophies you laid out and that we can see them in game. The Devs may have plenty of ideas already associated with could-be civs, even before researching about them.
In the case of the variants though I think these philosophies get stretched, mainly the second. The idea of JdA is just as crazy as it could be, I’m most definitely certain no real civ could have been properly represented that way. It would need a civiliziation/Empire characterised by the presence of a extremely strong leadership (not just a single person obviously) throughout it’s whole history, one it would have had no hope of existing without. Something like a Khan but even more influencial and vital.
The Order of the Dragon on the other hand is vague enough as a gameplay concept. Although it would be hard to justify a normal civ with only high-power, high-value units. The Devs said this idea had to do with accessibility, which is very noble of them, but maybe maybe it could have just been offered as an option. I’m afraid it would be too hard to balance across all the civs and that crazy shenanigans could happen that way, though.
Zhu Xi’s Legacy I have noooo idea what it could be about, as game mechanics. But this one could be so tied with history that it’d actually make sense only this way. If that’s the case they may even turn out to be as good as the Ayyubids, go figure!
But obviously it’s best to normalise when possible, not exaggerate.
Well you were wrong about that supposed purpose.
Well, I only got into this topic to talk about Italians.
In theory, Age II covers a very broad period… and it can be said that there are civs that cover the High Middle Ages (300 AD - 1000 AD) and the Low Middle Ages (1000 AD - 1452 AD) and some of the modern age (1492-1600 AD), it can be justified that there are civs like the Romans and Huns, at the same time as Ottomans and Spaniards from the time of the conquest.
The Romans of the recent DLC (Return of Rome) would be the Western Roman Empire, before its fall after the 4th sack of Rome (One of them, the Gothic sack, is in the campaigns, the Hun was avoided, but they followed him 4 more), and the coup d’état of General Odoacer. They are necessary for the “Huns” campaign and that of the Goths.
The Italians represent the Italian city states, which after the Lombard League, accepted to be only nominally part of the HRE, but in practice they governed themselves and had their own idiosyncrasy, as well as responding alone to foreign attacks, or reaping their own fruits of Trade, especially for the control of the Baltic. Many of these mini-states helped in the Crusades and had frenemy relations with the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines), especially the Genoese and Venetians.
The Byzantines represent the Eastern Roman Empire, which during the early Middle Ages invaded Italy and the city states several times. You can see something of this in the Bari campaign.
For AoE IV, for the time the game cover (800 - 1650), I don’t think the Western Romans will enter (they didn’t get past 476). The Byzantines are coming, but in the case of Italy there are several things to consider:
Medieval Italy.- As several users mentioned, medieval Italy was not a united country, but a series of independent city states, which from time to time gave a tribute to the HRE and the Papacy. Of course, they shared a common idiosyncrasy, which often allowed them to ally themselves against foreign enemies (Lombard League, Italian Wars), or to fight each other (Italian Wars again).
Mechanics: Build your Italian city state?: Now, the fun thing about AoE4 is the concept of the unique mechanics of various Civs. You could then get the idea of building your Italian city state, with tower houses and medieval and Renaissance Italian architecture for Imperial. They could, like the Romans, have mercenary units, and have a mechanic based on it. They would mainly represent Italian states such as Florence, Milan, Pisa, Lucca.
Civ variants?: Although in the past there was the problem of whether civilizations could exist with the same architecture or model of units, at least the civ variants solve the problem. Some states in medieval Italy created their own kingdoms or thalassocracies, and would be worthwhile as their own civ. These could be 3 cases:
– Genova.- Representing the Republic of Genoa, I made a concept for the new year of 2022. (The Republic of Genoa: Civilization Concept).
– Venice.- Representing the ############# of Venice, which controls a large part of the European Mediterranean coast, especially in the area occupied by current Greece and Turkey, as well as colonies in Africa and the Middle East. There are already some concepts in the forum. (The Republic of Venice: Definitive and Improved Version)
– Papal States.- Obviously the Papal States. I don’t think they will come out initially, perhaps in a very distant expansion or to fill in if there are missing civ to join the 6 or 5 civ per expansion. Unique Unit: Papal Guard obviously, and the Black Band Guard.
Sicily?: If anyone is interested, I invite you to make a concept of this Civ, although I find it difficult. The problem is that more than a Civ, Sicily was a colony/viceroyalty/sultanate of several kingdoms that always captured it. During the Middle Ages, it was owned by the Abbasid Caliphate, Byzantine, Normandy, France, Aragon, and then Castile and Aragon. And so it was until the so-called Italian reunification of Age III.
The irony is that the Ming dynasty ACTUALLY adopted neo-Confucianism as the official ideology, which is NOT even a “What if” situation.
So we also have chinese 2.0…
I actually was in the process of designing a fan made civilization for a broad italian civ, which would respect the fact that they were different polical entities into one civ.
It had a lot of potential in my humble opinion, but after the release of DLC my attention kinda changed focus, and lost the motivation for continuing…
BC no, it’s CE… but it seems like you’re talking about antiquity…
Exactly…that is, AoE 2 is 394/400 to 1598/1600…and from there it will not move…
Exactly…that is, AoE 4 is later, from 800 to 1650…and from there it will not move…they will not include the campaigns of Belisarius and the Arab invasions for example; Vikings and Normans who knows…
Of course, it would be a mix between the Song and Ming dynasties but more religious…
Too bad…but sometimes AoE 4 makes you want to stop playing it…
Amazing. Thank you !!
What about polish or lithuanians in the game time period? And the dutch(fiandre)?
Yes, my mistake (I already corrected it). It is a failure of Google Translate, which apparently if I put “AD” from Spanish to English it translates it as BD. I guess the program thought I was referring to a brand or something. Anyway, thanks for the heads up.
Yes, or at least that’s what I also theorized when the idea of civ appeared. variants. Supposedly tomorrow, they will probably release either the teaser for Zhu Xi or the Order of the Dragon. I hope it’s the Order of the Dragon first, so Zhu Xi can generate even more hype.
The Poles and Lithuanians are in the campaigns, but there would have to be a single civ between the 2 until the creation of the PLC in 1569… the Dutch are not, they are already too late for the game’s timeline…
Well, yeah! I think Polish and Lithuanians could appear in AoeIV:
As 2 separate Civs.- Lithuania existed in the Middle Ages as the “Grand Duchy of Lithuania” between “1236–1795” AD. Poland too from even earlier, with stripes from “1025-1569” AD. However, there is also another possibility:
Poland-Lithuania (1370-1795).- Now, considering the political idiosyncrasy of that time, they could also emerge as a single civ known as “Republic of Two Nations”, or "Commonwealth of the Two Nations*… or simply Poland-Lithuania. Against the background of this I will explain it to you:
– In 1370, and even before, both kingdoms swore to merge in perpetuity. Although this was not made official until 1569, in practice both kingdoms signed new pacts every decade to make the union possible.
– The reason of that is because in the 14th century, after the so-called Baltic Crusades, both kingdoms, Lithuanian and Polish, suffered the invasion of the Kingdom of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, the Mongol Horde in the East, and politics problems with the crown of Hungary.
– In order to effectively combat all these adversaries, the pact was made to unite both countries. The detail is that at that time, the nobles had so much blood mixed between them that practically any descendant of the crown of both kingdoms could be king.
– As a curious note, originally the pact was going to be between Poland and Hungary, but as the Polish nobles considered last minute changes, it was decided to make the pact with Lithuania by marrying Jadwiga to Jogalia (Age II:DE Jadwiga Campaign).
– There are already some concepts in the forum, that of the 2 nations for example:
– Civ Concept: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
– Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth-new civ concept FARM, CAVALRY, COLLECTIVISM
About the Dutch in AoE IV
Regarding the Dutch of Aoe III, first clarify which civilization descends from Aoe2, "Because we all descend from someone:
-They are the " Burgundians ": To understood that: Originally, the kingdom of Charlemagne (800 A.D.) was divided by his three sons into three kingdoms: France on the Left, France of the Center and France on the Right. Since they were HORRIBLE names, their rulers changed them to something cooler:
– France on the right → Carolingian Empire → Holy Roman Empire
– France of the left → France “the only one” —> Kingdom of France
– Central France —> Kingdom of Lothair —> NOTHING, it was divided into pieces, hehe
Duchy of Burgundy.- Continuing the story, one of the pieces of Middle France was the Duchy of Burgundy, which was absorbed by the Kingdom of France. To the 13th century, this county was so economically prosperous that its nobles managed to buy more and more territories, until reaching the coast of the current Netherlands.
Netherland?.- After the 100 Years War, the Burgundian guy who sold Joan to the English (the one from the campaign), Philip the Good, was invaded by the French king, Charles VII. However, like any Burgundian, Philip preferred to leave Charles, lose more than 50% of his lands to France and escape with the money to another county. This fact was so shameful that what was left of Burgundy considered it better to create its own country with stronger laws… curiously this proposal was made by the guy who preferred to cede ground to France than fight to defend it (Yes, that’s how lacking leaders was that new state). So already in 1464, merging with Flanders, the formation of the kingdom that would precede the Netherlands, or Dutch: “States General of the Netherlands” was proposed.
Dutch when?.- Now, the transition between Burgundian States → Burgundian Netherlands → Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, has so many legal transitions that it is difficult to find a name for the civ that would be in AoeIV. Of course, I think it should be clear by now where the Dutch came from, they were not born from the air.
Aoe2 Burgundy - Aoe3 Dutch connection: In fact, precisely because it is known that the Dutch derive from the Burgundians, they have the unique technology of Vineyards, to earn passive gold (in reference to the Dutch banks of AoE III), since the Middle Ages they have I loved making money in any way.
And for Aoe IV?.-No idea. In fact, Dutch/Burgundy would be good enemies of Spain, France and the HRE, as well as the culprits of the 200-year confinement of Japan and many other misdeeds. Of course, I’m not sure if it would be better if there were 2 separate civs, one its beginning, and the other its variant. Let’s consider that the Dutch as a powerful state are already too far away from the period of the game (1550-1800), and the Burgundians themselves would not have much difference in technology with France… because they were part of France in theory. If anyone comes up with a concept for any of those civs, it will be welcome.
Thank you for the lesson, freaking amazing! Id love atleast to have the polish/lithuanians. I remember when visiting Vilnius, at the museum, i saw the statue with original size of this king(i dont remember the name) famous for his strenght and ferocity. It was like more than 2meters and the sword… huge… i think i could not even lift it xD
For the aoe4 timeline definitly there are ither options… portugal as well