That’s why an entity which was an empire for 20 years should not be part of the game. If you’d be honest with yourself, you wouldn’t even consider adding Serbs with the civs we already have ingame 
1 Like
Now who is taking thing out of context?? 
Ok so Serbia was empire for 25 years, DOES THAT MEAN SERBIA EXISTED FOR 25 YEARS?
Serbia was regional power for 300+ in a region with Byzantine empire, Bulgarian empire, Hungarian kingdom at its peak.
I don’t know if you are just trolling me or you are really clueless…
1 Like
There are lot less of those people here in this forum than those who want to generalise the culture of the Old World.
But yes, people who use that kind of derogatory language to talk about cultures shouldn’t be taken seriously.
AOE2 generalized a lot civs. The fact that we’re getting specific entities which were not even local empires goes against this philosophy and I’m really not a fan of it at all.
Generalised civs aren’t a good thing though.
If more content comes out that develops regions in more detail, I see that as a good thing.
Also, not every culture or nation in history was so large that it encompassed an empire.
There are a number of smaller cultural groups pre-LotW in AOE2, like the Bulgarians, Celts, Huns and Portuguese.
Just because a culture or nation wasn’t the size of an empire, doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of being added and past civ decisions by both Ensemble Studios and Forgotten Empires indicate that.
The new civs don’t go against the previous philosophies at all.
3 Likes
Not to mention that you are so strongly opposing any European kingdom or duchy but strongly supporting civs like Mississippians and adding images of castles which are nothing more than a wooden hut on a hill… A castle that can be completely destroyed with JUST ONE fire arrow!!!
It is a hypocrisy! And you are telling me that i’m not honest with myself…
2 Likes
Frankly, medieval Serbia was quite important and different enough to the civs ingame.
They had as much impact as Bulgaria or arguably more impact on the Balkans in the middle ages.
I actually made a big post about this somewhere previously.
2 Likes
Dude, try to treat people and other cultures with a bit more respect.
Part of the reason this stuff gets so out of hand in when people start getting rude to each other and other cultures.
Disagree about things but try to remain resonable and cordial.
Nothing will get resolved if this turns barrage of insults.
3 Likes
You are right… i went out of line.
But it’s hard staying cool headed when people label you as biased and nationalist for defending your country’s history…
Anyway this conversation went off topic, i won’t argue anymore.
3 Likes
The expansion name is not Dawn of the Duchies, but Dawn of the Dukes. In every campaign dukes rises. In Lithuanian campaign you will see the story of Grand Dukes of Lithuania, in Polish campaign you will meet duke Jogaila ( who became king of Poland ) and Vytautas who due his achievements will be named Alexander ( after ofcourse Macedonian Alexander The Great ) and I don’t have entire context of Bohemian campaign, but Hussite asked duke Vytautas to be their leader.
At this time period when new campaigns begin both Poland and Bohemia are kingdoms.
Name of dlc have nothing to new civilizations, unless someone really believe that Portugal was kingdom located in Africa, and other missconceptions.
6 Likes
False.
Get a life.
2 Likes
Learn some manners. The Germanic Burgundian Kingdom of old has lmost nothing in common with the Romance Duchy the game represents
If they haven’t lost completely good sense, DotD will be the last Euro DLC for a while.
3 Likes
The Burgundians in game represent both the old kingdom and the… less old duchy. The fact that the ai names include such hits as “Gundaharius” should be an indicator of that. Still, it does drastically tend toward the duchy as far as style.
That being the case, if the question is why were they added, it is because it was fun, because the duchy had a massive impact on the western Europe, and because even while it was a duchy, it still acted frequently as an independent state, even going so far as to begin to conquer other regions, such as the Netherlands.
For my money, that is why they were added into the game; not to be just another French faction, but to actually stand in for the Netherlands.
2 Likes
I haven’t seen such a beautiful thread for a long time
3 Likes
Rest of the world which had actual empires is fun too.
1 Like
Just because its a dumb way of naming then doesnt nean Vikings dont represent Normans.
If those new civs dont add anything gameplaywise closely related civs cant represent is there any point at adding them? I would say clearly not. The only case I would consider doing it is if the civ doesnt manage to portray sonething super important and this isnt the case.
Diferent? Depends how you look at it but yes, sure. Not sure how they would add something unique gameplaywise that cannot be represented by other civs of the region well enough but they were diferent for sure.
But they just werent that powerful. Even the very shortlasting Serbian empire was fairly small for whatvyou see even in Europe (not to mention in the wider world) and wasnt that rich (I think, will mke a quick check) nor populous.
I can only agree with 99% of the things already posted here. I’m looking forward to play the new civs. And I will buy them regardless of their content.
I hope FE supports AoE II:DE as long as possible. But support costs money. So I will happily buy 2 DLCs every year for my favorite game. That’s 20€ - 1 night out - half a dinner with my fiance. That’s less than a voobly paid account for a year.
So there are no cash grab DLCs.
Because they patch the game every month! That’s really important.
If we want to find a more adequate name for the game:
Age of Empires or everything between a tribe up to a massive generalised nations that inpacted history at on point.
So I think Age of Empires is fine
6 Likes
I don’t think that is right to blame labeling an expansion (or DLC) because it doesn’t fit with ‘‘empires’’ title. Even the original devs used Conquerors in the past and the almost all the 5 civs were made to represent that expansion. Many of them went for the popular culture (Huns instead of Magyars, Koreans instead of Tibetans or Tamils, the Aztecs to give context to Spain besides Reconquista), many other stuff:
http://aok.heavengames.com/gameinfo/conquerors-expansion
3 Likes
Tbh theres also a lot of people constantly complaining about how dumd the Teuton civ fir Germans is but its alwayd not the Germans themselves
2 Likes
For the record, your point does not contradict mine. The Burgundians participated in empire too, but that said, I actually agree with you. I wasn’t so much making the argument for them, only my take on why they probably were chosen.
For my part, I really want to see more civs all around. Bengals, Punjabi, Moors, Afghans, Armenians… maybe add another civ to cover the Chinese better. I just have nothing against the addition of the Burgundians, apparently unlike many others here. For that matter, I still hold out hope for the Basques and Swiss… if somewhat forlornly.
You. I like you. Age of Empires II has been one of my favorite games for 20 years now, and I am glad that it is back and growing.
Cheers!
…
…ALSO, FRANKS ARE THE BEST CIV, CHANGE MY MIND!
1 Like