Age of empires classify the Saracens civ as naval and camel civ, but according to history there are many mistakes that the creators of this game made it to Saracens civ. First of all the Saracens live in dry and desert environment, and in early Muslims or Saracens conquest they didn’t have any good navy and here in aoe2 they classified them as navy civ?!
Second thing, the Arabian horse is the best horse in all human history, the Arabian horse is the fastest and strongest horse of all civs, and here in the game we didn’t see any bonus for this unique charactaristic?! The Saracens civ should be a light cav civ at least or a horse civ because they were extremly good in early muslim conquest against the Byzantine and the Persians!!! The Saracens with their unique light cav defeated the strongest civs in that time, the Persians and the Byzantines in less than 30 years!!!
My point here that the Saracen civ classify must be changed in to light cav civ and to give them a bonus for the unique Arabian horse.
They already have Hussar, and if the game was historically accurate, then Chinese would have Platemail, Halberdiers, Bombard Cannons and Crossbowmen, IN THE DARK AGE!
It is a game element, it is not meant to represent historical arabs in any way, shape or form.
Otherwise you would also have to get them to insta-lose against Frank Infantry (Charles Martel) or get replaced by Turks in the Imperial Age.
Also, Arab Purebloods (name of the Horse) were known for being fast. In Europe and Asia, they were crossbred with stronger horses because they could not carry a full barding and a heavily armoured rider.
All the civs in this game were taken from the middle ages, so this classify for the Saracens is completly wrong. The examples that you made here about chinese and other civs is wrong too, because we are talking about the mid ages and the peak of every civ with their unique charactaristics in that time. You also talked about the Arabian horse as it was normal, well it was not, it was really the fastest and strongest and why? Because the purebred Arab horse grew up in a dry and difficult environment, and therefore it is the most hardship type of horse so the Saracens must have a unique tech about this.
I am not talking only for the Saracens in special, because there are many wrong calssifications for the civs in this game.
Except that the Huns are not Medieval, The Celts and Franks UUs are from the Iron Age, Chinese have no Guns, Indians have no Battle Elephants, American natives have access to technology they in no way would ever get access to…
Peak of China was when everyone else was in the Dark Ages. Should Chinese start the game in the Imperial Age already?
It would only be realistic!
It is a fast horse, but otherwise it is quite normal. Could not carry heavy armour like a destrier, though.
So did the Mongolian Pony, and they destroyed half the world, despite being small, short-legged, fuzzy and having a comically wide neck.
Goths were not an Infantry civ either, but you do not hear me complain about it. It is a gameplay element, and like in any good game, gameplay comes way before accuracy.
I suppose it’s represented by the flawless light cav and cav archers. AoE historical accuracy is often shabby. For instance if we go down the “good horse” road Vikings should have even better cavalry than your Sarracens because of the way the Icelanders protected their unique breed.
The Sarracen were pretty good for a lot of things, which is represented by their wide tech tree and quite distinct bonuses. I suppose they had to make choices for which parts to emphazise. Back in AoK they gave the light cav role to Mongols and the camel role to Sarracen, and now with all the new civs there are so many others light cav civs (Huns, Magyar, Cuman, Tatars, ect…) and so few camel civs (Indian and maybe Malian if you feel like it) that I don’t feel it’s appropriate to take away from the small group to keep feeding the bigger one.
Huh? As already pointed out a lot of the civs are fictional so don’t take it too seriously.
Or did you forget that aztecs (my go to civ for comparison) didn’t have onagers, scorpions, steel weapons, arbalests nevermind crossbows, and the cherry on the cake… TREBUCHETS…
Its a fictional game with a few basis on history. Not the other way around. So don’t take it seriously. Mamelukes didn’t throw their swords at enemies, and likely didn’t eat pig… Just saying
People misinterpret camel units. Actual camel cavalry was very rare and unconventional. Instead, camels in aoe2 represent counter cavalry in a generalized sense. At least that’s my take on it.
These are match ups that Saracens can be extremely good in, so I don’t see the issue. They counter Practically every way. Persians have halb, Saracens have arbalest, heavy cav archer and hand cannon. Persians have Paladino and camels, Saracens have zealotry camels and mamelukes. Persians have elephants, Saracens have amazing monks. Saracens also happen to have one of the most open tech trees and siege workshop options in the game.
AoE2 has a lot of trouble with historical accuracy. I suspect if we’d really want to fix it a good step would be to rename a bunch of civs, before making other smaller changes. I doubt that’s really going to happen though.
As @SpecificElk9218 mentioned it already, war camelry was extremely rare across the world, and I agree with his interpretation.
As opposed to the Knight line, representing the heavy European style cavalry, camels are a stand in for medium cavalry, notably the one used by the Arabs. With lighter equipment and faster breeds, these horsemen were better equipped for arid areas and vast spaces. Being able to outmaneuver European cavalry, it makes sense for them to be an anti knight unit.
In that sense, Saracens having excellent light and medium cavalry, as well as cavalry archers, but rather poor heavy cavalry makes perfect sense.
And that’s why they have lower damage and less armour than light cavalry
Across any gaming system people will rationalise the weirdest stuff simply because they cannot be wrong…
“these camels are actually medium cavalry because my brain can’t accept that the devs are using camels in the wrong place”
“these knife throwing women are actually effeminate men”
“these mamelukes are actually riding horses and are so good at engaging opposing cavalry that its symbolised by throwing their swords”
“these TREBUCHETS are actually aztec saboteurs that have infiltrated the enemy castle and destroyed it from within”
The extent to which you have tried to rationalise the game instead of just accepting that the units are literally what they are because its fun… Not some representation of something else…
Yeah its completely irrational. But as we’ve repeatedly pointed out the game is full of irrational units. Your pet unit isn’t special. If they were to change it 25 000 other players would demand their “pet unit/civ/bon bon” needs to be changed too…
I demand that all Muslim civs in the game not be allowed to eat pig because it is 98% unrealistic!
Yes, they had good and large navy. During Sieges of Constantinopole 674-678 and 717-718 Arab fleet (mainly Egypt)was larger than Byzantine Fleet. Luckily for Byz, they had Greek Fire.
