I find it rather baffling that an expansion centred around the Crusades and the rivalry between various Levantine factions and the “Franks invading in unparalleled numbers” did not include a proper Crusader variant faction for the French, especially with the campaign snip talking about facing off against the Holy Orders of the Templars, Hospitallers and Teutons.
Sure, we get the Order of the Dragon, but that was not involved with the Crusades for Jerusalem, but with the struggles against the Ottomans slowly getting a foothold close to Central Europe.
With no particular source I can cite, I do remember reading something in the lines of “No crusade faction because that would be problematic.” Was that really the case? Do the devs think so little of their community?
I feel the same way. If anything, adding an explicitly jihadist faction (Ayyubids) is equally problematic. If adding crusader factions was “problematic,” then I wish Relic steered the hell away from the crusades in general. Or treat them equally and added crusader factions as well.
I also really dislike the fact that you can’t even play as one of the brand new factions in the new campaign. What’s the point?
Would have rather liked multi-sided campaign missions with Byzantines, Ottomans, Ayyubids, Kingdom of Jerusalem (instead of Jeanne d’Arc variant), and Order of the Dragon. Instead, you get a one-sided campaign with just one of the new faction featured through the DLC.
I reallydon’t get the sense in making a paid expansion campaign without featuring most, if not all, of the multiplayer civs/variants introduced. Rather disappointing.
################## post:4, topic:239934"]
Would have rather liked multi-sided campaign missions with Byzantines, Ottomans, Ayyubids, Kingdom of Jerusalem (instead of Jeanne d’Arc variant), and Order of the Dragon. Instead, you get a one-sided campaign with just one of the new faction featured through the DLC.
[/quote]
Yep, this. For a company going for ‘historical authenticity’, it would have made for a nice even-sided portrayal of a pretty complicated political issue, and would have made for some very interesting setpieces, like the Siege of Antioch or the Battle of Montgisard. And it also feels rather cheap since it’s just a variant and not a full new faction (although the lines at the moment seem to be pretty blurry).
Overall, I’m getting the feeling of a “We’ve got a Crusades expansion at home”, which, given just how easy it would have been to nail the factions for this, makes me think one would need to actually put effort to go out of their way to avoid the actual rival factions.
Because putting together this Jeanne D’Arc civilization, didn’t require to make any real assets. The units they showed are recycling existing assets. Guy with shield and axe. Horseman with shield. Jeanne sitting on Royal horse. Maybe her handcannon is new I guess. The reason they didn’t make a variant civilization that makes actual sense, is because it’d require them to make proper crusader related assets.
There is a reason why they kept the Order of the Dragon. Because they had already reskinned HRE models. They won’t do it again. Even if a more appropriate variant civilization is Teutons or Kingdom of Bohemia, the Variant civilizations are designed to be lazy and low effort.
So making changes to them, or adding effort defeats the purpose. They will launch this product despite all criticism, because it doesn’t matter. This is just filler to pad out this bare minimum expansion of 2 civilizations and a SINGLE campaign.
Ironically I would’ve prefered the expansion without these variants. They are a total, waste of design space and time. They have actively lowered the value of this expansion in my eyes, and Jeanne D’Arc might actually be the worst thing I have seen added to this game so far. It cheapens the identity of Age of EMPIRES and does not bring anything in the form of historical immersion.
Yeah, According to the devs, Turks didnt fight against Crusaders. Dear devs, Why did crusaders go to middle east by Sea? Yeah, Turks didnt fight them and Crusaders ##### ## in the Anatolia lands and the middle east. You can ignore Turks and you can make worst historical crusade display as DLC
Responding to the general topic: About why I think there are no crusader civs or knights templar.
I think it has to do with the way the campaigns are designed.
Let me explain: Many of the campaigns that already exist in the game are possible because as many allies as enemies of the campaign levels are present in the base game, and if not they are variations of civilizations that are already in the game. Let’s cite examples:
The Normans.- English and French, Normans (Var. English), Danes (Var. English)
Hundred Years’ War.- English and French, Navarra (Var. French)
Moscow Rise.- Russians and Mongols as rivals, Novgorov (Var. Rus), Lithuany (Var.HRE)
Mongol Empire.- Mongols and Chinese as rivals, Hungary (Var. HRE), Polony (Var.HRE)
I suppose that like the original campaigns, for the campaign the crusader kingdoms will also be reskins of the real states they represented (English, French, HRE).
In general, the so-called “Crusader States” were mainly European colonies in the Middle East, with a small colonizing population, since traveling by ship was still expensive and the majority of soldiers returned to their hometown. I find it difficult to make a concept of these states, or unique units apart from the crusader soldier. One of their most emblematic buildings was the Dome of the Rock, which is not even a Crusader construction, but rather one of the Arabs, of the Umayyad Caliphate. I suppose that in the campaign we will see a lot of campaign landmarks of historical sites, it will be nice.
On the other hand, a crusader state that could have its own civ and be functional would be the State of the Teutonic Order in Estonia, or simply the Teutonic Order. However, as their kingdom and participation is more associated with the Baltic Crusades, they would come in another expansion with Swedes, Danes, Lithuanians and Poles, since these civs would be necessary for a campaign of any of them.
I guess for the next DLC we can expect another campaign and more civs. In theory with the new additions, many other campaigns could be made with a few new civs. About those possibilities:
**Ottomana.-**Byzantines, Mamluk Sultanate (Ayyubid Sultanate or Abbasid Caliphate), Mongols, Order of the Dragon (Or failing that Hungary, Walacchia, depends on what this civ is), etc.
Delhi Sultanate.- we still need the Vijayanagara Empire or the Cholas, the Timurids, and perhaps the Persians, must still emerge to have rivals in the campaign itself.
Timurid Empire.- For a campaign focused on Timur, there should be at least Timurids, Mongols, Ayyubid Dynasty (or Abbasid Caliphate or Mamluk Sultanate), Byzantines, Delhi Sultanate, Ottomans and maybe Persians.
Baltic Crusades.- At least there must be Swedes, Danes, Poles, Lithuanians, Rus and HRE.
Huh? That new faction has nothing to do with the Crusades. The factions are not all related to the campaign or the crusades. Where are you getting the idea that they are?
Again, where are you getting that the faction is involved in the campaign at all? That has not been stated anywhere. Do you think the new Japanese civilization is also involved in the campaign?
Regardless, they have not suggested that the Turks did not fight the Crusaders. That statement was false.
Japans and Byzantines are new civs that arent releated with Crusade campaign. I know that we will play the campaign with variants. I hope I am wrong. Turks fought too much against Crusaders and we dont have Turks as Seljuks at the Dlc so I think devs think like that. This is my statement. You dont want to agree that.
Where did you get this idea? As far as I know, it hasn’t been announced anywhere. If anything, you’ll play as the Ayyubids in the new campaign, but that would probably be it.
You seem very angry about this. Jeanne d’Arc is one of 6 new playable factions in the DLC. If you don’t like it, don’t play that civ. I think it’s pretty dramatic to call it the creative death of the franchise. I appreciate drastically new designs for a franchise that has stuck to the same formula for such a long time.
To dismiss my criticism as “don’t play it if you don’t like it” really demonstrates the lack of understanding here. If you don’t like my comment, how about you don’t reply to it?
Because getting so angry can poison the atmosphere and hamper discussion. And I’m not dismissing your criticism, I’m disagreeing with your conclusion. If you don’t like the Jeanne d’Arc civ as a concept, that’s fine, but blowing it way out of proportion is just not helpful. And you certainly do have the option to not play it; as long as it’s balanced well, every other civ should still remain viable. So what is the actual problem? The devs are trying something drastically different. Not everyone is going to like it, and that’s fine. I personally am totally fine with it. Regardless, it represents just 1 civ out of 6, so it is hardly a new direction for the entire game.
