Mind linking his sources then? I won’t be mad if I’m proven wrong or not. I play historical video games because of my love for history, not for citing my opinions on the subject.
As a long-time EU4 player, I honestly think Granada is the best. It’s an obscure pick but they’re pretty powerful if you play them.
The Ottomans (or Ming/Qing) are definitely the most powerful if it’s just AI though. Historically the Ottomans were a superpower until WW1, and China has always been up there.
the ottomans werent ever actually a super power, they also certainly weren’t considered highly by the start of WW1 and had for decades, if not a century, been called the sick man of europe.
Then who?
This is the difference between Europa Universalis 4 and AoE4. EU players like us get acquainted with history.
i actually study history…
the ottomans were not a superpower. a super power is a country so strong that it can influence practically any country on the planet, typically the first true super power is considered the British empire, followed by the french and then the americans and soviets, and in the future is likely to include the Chinese and EU.
Hungary’s Black Army I think would make for a great faction feature as well as for uniques. Considering the force was mostly commoners and tradesman turned mercenary army when needed. Kind of like a medieval version a reserve force or minute men militia. You could make one of the features be that they don’t train soldiers. They only train villagers and villagers can be upgraded to various combat roles. So villagers are both your economy and military. Then maybe toss in some unique tech surrounding the black armor they wore (not necessarily because the equipment was historically better) but to help cement that unique factor as a significant element of the faction. Finally you give them bonuses based on unit composition. One of the historically noted advantages of the black army was the formations they used in that they had a higher ratio of arquebus users within the units. So infantry gets proximity bonuses if within a certain radius of arquebus units that goes away if they spread too far.
Visual aid for what we have:
1 - The Byzantine Empire (Early game defensive civ)
A large, powerful and well-known empire, represents a large area in both Europe and Asia, culturally distinct from every civ we have right now and there aren’t any Mediterranean civs.
2 - The Almoravid Empire (Agressive Rush civ)
A very large and powerful empire, represents a large area in both Europe and Africa, culturally distinct from every civ we have right now, and there aren’t any Maghrebi civs.
3 - Spanish Kingdoms (Defensive and Naval civ)
You cannot have the Almoravids, without adding their eternal enemy, the Spanish Kingdoms. This civilization should have a very cool and unique mechanic where you start as “Asturias” and then as you Age-Up you can become the several different kingdoms in Medieval Iberia.
4 - Italian City-States (Turtling and economic civ)
If we could work out some way of representing several different city states using a single faction, then this would be an option. I tried to sketch it as well but it is much harder to achieve than with Iberia.
If i had to pick a single civ i would pick Venice, but in that case it would also drop to last place in the priority list, as Italy is already partially represented by the HRE.
5 - North-Sea Empire (Agressive naval civ)
We lack any scandinavia civilization, this one would be a good representation of both Norway and Denamark without naming it something silly like “Vikings”
6 - Kingdom of Hungary
7 - Grand-Duchy of Lithuania (Cavalry and aggresive civs)
8 - Kingdom of Poland
All large, long-lived, powerfull and culturally distinct realms in Central/Eastern Europe, which is currently lacking representation.
Maybe I am going overboard with civs in this location, but i couldn’t think of any civ that could represent all of these combined (Maybe the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth, but that is more Early-Modern than Medieval)
If i had to pick a single one of these i would pick Lithuania because we need more pagan civs. (And i would proceed to add the top 2 in the honourable mentions)
9 - Empire of Abyssina (Defensive civ)
We need at least one sub-saharan civilization.
10 - Khmer Empire (Economic civ)
We need at least one SEA civilization.
Honourable Mentions:
-Ashikaga Shogunate
-Goryeo Dynasty
-Aztec Empire
-Inca Empire
-Malian Empire
-Majapahit Empire
Reason why they don’t make it to the top 10: Too isolated from the other civs to make sense to interact with them.
New 4 campaigns:
1-Reconquista (Longest, and second blodiest war in Medieval Europe after the Mongol conquests, synergises well with the addition of the Spanish and the Almoravids, criminally absent from launch).
2-Northern Crusades (Way cooler than the Holy Land crusades, and much less known, would feature the Lithuanians and Poles if they were added)
3-Arab-Byzantine wars (Would give the Abbassids a campaign, which they lack)
4-Something in Asia, maybe some conflict between China and the Khmer.
Sorry for the delay.
No punch held, this statement is false in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end.
Firstly, peak British Empire, Americans, Soviets etc is half a millenium after AoE4 or EU4!
The British empire was most definitely not the first “superpower”. (Achaemenid) Persia had 40% of the world’s population right in the core of civilization, and by far the most dominant culture of all. Brit Emp had only 20% in the periphery, at its peak in 1900.
Persia was much stronger (40% is double 20%) than Brit Emp, and was also superpower 2,500 years before. Nothing to add here.
Brit Emp in 1800 could not even daydream of conquering Germany, Italy, Russia, the Ottoman Empire or even Poland or Hungary. Much less defeating huge coalitions of European powers in the Middle Ages!!..
The Ottoman Empire did just that, several times - right in the heart of AoE4 timespan. The Ottoman Empire was the only superpower of AoE4 and EU4 time.
Don’t believe me, visit Istanbul, and then visit Ulaanbaatar.
Brit Emp was a vulture: it only preyed on temporarily very weak and backward (post-Industrial Revolution) peripheral states in Africa and Asia for easy opportunistic victories. Against Europe, it was a small side presence.
Therefore no, the Brit Emp did not dominate every country on Earth, even 400 years after AoE4 was over. Far from it, this idea is ridiculous. It only dominated a fraction of the then-weakest ones.
“Soviets” were as ephemeral as the “Mongol Empire” - less than a century!! A glitch in history. A side note.
The EU has no army and some countries are leaving. I wish it were a superpower, but not. Ch*na is angry, hateful, huge, agressive, arrogant, genetic supremacist, revanchist, but it’s not respected. Respect is important in 2022.
I recommend you try Europa Universalis 4 for some genuine history acquaintance.
okay, clearly you dont understand what a super power is and is confusing the term with great power, regional power or major power.
neither could the USA today realistically take over europe, that doesnt mean the country isnt a super power.
a super power is a nation so strong that it influences the policies of every country on earth, it doesnt actually need to be able to occupy said countries.
there where no super powers.
are you seriously arguing the soviet union wasn’t a super power? have you ever heard of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world?
i suggest you stop pretending you know anything about history because you played EU 4, i have played it btw. it doesn’t change the fact the ottomans weren’t a super power, or for that matter even the strongest state within the periode, that would most likely go to the Chinese.
your understanding and resistance to a word you can google is embarrassing.
Clearly you are being pedantic, basic and boring. Like, well, a student. Which you are. Academically the term “superpower” was coined to describe a very narrow, specific 2nd-half-of-20th-century Cold War phenomenon.
Obviously, a smart person, like many in this forum, is able to generalize this term to history in general. Persia of Cyrus the Great had 40% of Earth’s population and its greatest cities and monuments. What was the percentage for Soviets? The USA?
I said it lasted less than a century, similar to the Mongol Empire. A very brief historical time. Ottomans lasted 6 centuries, Byzantines lasted 10, Ming lasted 3.
If you like Soviets x Americans, you can find a game forum that caters to your interests a little bit more.
Yes they were, no need to be pedantic. In EU4, Ottomans are the strongest faction together with Ming. China was big and unified, but got conquered much of that period. Ottomans never got conquered, they only conquered others, expanding non-stop.
@moderators can someone close this topic yet? It’s just an endless cycle of @Vinifrss and his alts continually arguing with whichever new person choses to try and engage it. It no longer serves a purpose, doesn’t go anywhere with the discussion, and really should be closed now. Thanks.
This “visual aid” is showing states from 750, 900, 1250 and 1500 all together, plus territory is super inaccurate. It’s crazy. It’s the opposite of “aid”.
the ottoman mostly bullied smaller kingdoms but never defeated the Poles, Austrians, Russians and Persians and was even bailed out by France and the UK at some point.
both economically, in population and militarily the ottoman empire was quiet far behind the HRE.
sure they managed to gooble up quiet a lot of territory but the only significant power they managed to defeat was the Byzantines who where already pretty weak by that point.
but the ottomans never got to the point of being a superpower or globalpower, like the spanish, french and british where.
Reading this thread reminds me why the Ensemble series Devs said of vanilla AoE that they’d include an educational aspect, but make it mostly about gameplay. Genius idea.
England never enthralled its peoples in warfare with the Mongol Khan in AD 1500…
Um… excuse me? That’s wrong in so many ways. Even if it wasn’t, this ain’t a forum for politics.
