It’s simple. Delhi and Persia are zero relation. Absolute no exist. Can you understand?
Other than architecture and the culture of the ruling class. I do see the argument that they aren’t Persian though. However what would you choose to represent Persia? Safavid easily falls out of the games current timeline and Buyids were somewhat shortlived but maybe a possibility. I could definitely see Seljuks but while they ruled Persia, they were a Turkish culture.
@Vinifrss How dare you say vast empire “English” was not the mighty powerhouse of the Middle Ages?
How dare you suggest “long-lasting empire” Mongols didn’t dominate history for centuries until World War 2, even today?
Relic gonna get you Delhi-ted from the forum man! Wait… done already.
Lets look at this in batches of 4 or 8, as that may be the most likely way civs get added. I’m hoping that the game doesn’t end up being too Europe focused, and has no more than half the civs be from europe (hopefully more like a third). With 4 more civs I would think Turks and Byzantines would be automatic, and from there 2 of either another Indian, another east or southeast Asian or a european civ. I imagine there would be a ‘new world’ batch at some point, including Spanish (or simply Castille, or yes, possibly Iberian Union), and then basically signficant people the Spanish fought: certainly Aztec and Incan, and then one more between Maya, a southeast Asian civ, a north american indigenous civ, Portugal, or an Islamic civ from North Africa or southern spain. There might eventually be an african batch, including Mali and Ethiopia, possibly Berbers and maybe something from Arabia.
Separating the civs into groups/geographic regions and then ranking them within those categories is another useful exercise.
Europe:
- Byzantine
- Norse / Kalmar
- Spain / Castille
4-6. Hungary, Italian City State (one), Poland
7+. Bulgaria, Portugal, Burgundy, Flemish, Dutch, Swiss, Celts, a Crusader kingdom/Knightly Order
Middle East / North Africa / Central Asia:
- Turks
- Persia
- Berbers
- Fatamid / Cordoba
- Something else from Central Asia
(Hard to work with Middle East with how powerful Abbasid was)
South Asia:
- Vijayanagara
- Chola
- Bengal
SE Asia:
Khmer, Vietnamese, Burmese, Malay, etc
East Asia:
- Japan
- Korea
- Machu / Liano / Jin / Jurchen
Americas:
- Aztec
- Incan
- North American, Mayan, Caribbean
Sub-Saharan African:
- Mali
- Ethiopia
From these the civs I would group the civs roughly into these tiers:
1: Essential: Byzantine, Turks
2: Should Include (may not): A second Indian, 2+ SE Asian,
3: Probable / Popular: Norse, Spain, Japan
4: Reasonable Addition (Eurasian): Korea, 3rd Indian, 2-3 SE Asian, Berbers, Persia, Central Asian, Hungary, One Italian City (or a combo :P), Poland and/or Lithuania
5: Essential if Africa/Americas get included: Aztec, Incan, Mali, Ethiopia
6: Absolutely non-essential: Portugal, the rest
Highlighting Portugal there because prior to the 1500s (pretty much the end of the games timespan) Portugal has no argument to be worth adding to the game. They are essential for something like AoE3’s timespan, pretty much irrelevant in this one. They are just as reasonable an addition as things like the Flemish, Bulgarians and Dutch.
3 Likes
Commendable tier analysis for prospective civs. I have limited objections or observations:
- DLC civs will probably come in batches of 2-3, not 4, certainly nor 8.
- I agree Turks/ Ottomans and Byzantines are essential civs, but I think Persia too, because of cultural significance, depth, richness and uniqueness.
- Two SE Asian civs in “Tier 2” (Should Include) is too much. Africa or Americas are more deserving of 2 civs. Mali is so cool, Inca was huge.
- You put Norse ahead of Spain in Europe; in reality, Spain, Hungary and even Bulgaria were stronger powers in both population and army.
- Civs like Hungary and Bulgaria were the truly tough, sturdy, steely fighting forces in Europe, far more battle-proven than, say, English or Norse; they just got very unlucky geography, close to the Ottoman Empire, which led to their demise.
- Persia was always way more influential than any SE Asian civ, regardless of the dynasty. Persia should definitely be “Tier 3” (Probable / Popular) because it’s very popular, a “Top 5” civ in both civ polls in the forum, not “Tier 4” (Reasonable).
- It’s true Portugal was not large, I agree it’s not essential, but it created a legit empire within AoE4 years; Japan, Norse never did.
3 Likes
I would put Portugal in front of Ethiopia, korea, japan,Norse, byzantines ( on steep decline despite a brief second wind), absolutely in front of Spain. Your argument does not make sense when you say Spain is important, when they started even later than Portugal on empire building. Spain finished Reconquista in 1492. Portugal has reached the Indian Ocean by then.
Absolutely in front of the native American civs, Berbers, Poland, Hungary and Lithuania.
And ahead of a few east Asian ones aswell.
I’ll keep repeating myself. The first GLOBAL empire, built within the game timeline should be essential. It literally opened the way for globalization and further european dominance in the following centuries.
Amd considering the game timeline, Porrugal should be a late game civ with focus on Navy and Fortresses with a couple of elite infantry units.
You know who built Empires on AoE3 timeline?
English and the French. Portugal was already well established by then, by a century.
1 Like
Both Vijayanagara and Chola are very important, populous states centered around the Tamil people of South India. Therefore I’d suggest to call them “Indians”. Sultanate of Bengal is quite different, and a very significant historical state in world trade and early globalization by itself.
This is a decent list but I wouldn’t go so far to place them in the bottom tier but yes, Portugal is indeed non-essential but no less than all your #4+ civs. Also “Norse” was a a culture, not a civ. “Kalmar union” was a union but was more like a “truly personal union” than a united country. The Swedes rebelled like every other decade. More appropriate for Scandinavia is actually “Denmark” (as much as it pains me to say that).
I’d like to clarify that those tiers are not meant to be ordered in tier, and are also not meant to be strictly “tiers” in the sense of 1 being more important than 2. Its more groupings of civs in like situations. In hindsight tier is the wrong word.
For example, I agree that the tier 3 civs are not necessarily more important than most of the others, but I’m more suggesting that regardless of their importance these civs are probably going to get included whether one likes it or not. Persias placement is an oversight for sure.
Tier 5 is separate because I know aoe2 developers have at times expressed regret on the addition of american civs, I think due to how fundamentally different to have to be, so I figure its not so much a question of importance, but whether or not they want the game to be broader or more locked in in terms of scope. If they go broad, these are essential. If they don’t, then they’re out.
On the subject of Portugal, my issue isn’t how important they are, its how late in the timeline that they become even remotely relevant. 1400 as a start date beyond being a tiny european corner state is extremely late and to be clear, I’m not stating directly that Spain belongs over them, moreso that there is more demand for Spain and general public knowledge about Spain, meaning they’ll be in first regardless. I think its also worth mentioning that Spain has direct conflicts with Aztec, Maya and Inca, which means if they do end up adding Americas civs then it would be weird not to have the Spanish.
Having them behind people like Ethiopia again isn’t a comment on global importance - more that diversifying the geographic locations of civs is important, and Ethiopia is in the top 2 for sub sahara, while Portugal, if its even being considered, wouldn’t be added until after there’s already 4 european civs + (guessing) 2-4 that’ll get added.
Lastly, Norse wasn’t meant ot be the name of the civ, moreso just a placeholder for Viking/Dane/Sweden/Norway/Kalmar since regardless we’re going to get 1 Nordic civ at most.
I don’t know what kind of personal investment you have in this but there’s really no reason to be rude.
Portugal doesn’t culturally represent non-european locations and you know it. Thats like arguing Mongols represent Persia.
Aztecs are late (still earlier) but there’s very little choice when it comes to Americas factions, and they’re much more regionally significant than Portugal ever was.
Kalmar would indeed be a weird choice but in the same vein of Rus representing/bridging earlier Kievan into Moscovy, so there’s flexibility there to sorta fudge and merge things (which is why an Iberian faction shouldn’t be off the table). Either way, a Nordic faction is relevant as early as any faction already in the game so its likely we’ll see a similar bridg-y situation.
I’ll give you Vijayanagara, but I really don’t know anything about Indian history.
Aztecs would be a stand in for all Nahua peoples, and this period in Mexico was defined by the rise of Nahua peoples. Tamils would cover Cholas and arguably Vijayanagar (it was centered on Kannadiga lands though, why do people claim it primarily as Tamil?).
Spain can cover all closely related peoples of Hispania. Ofc they will be more Castile centered because Castile vs. Moors was more prominent, and Castile vs. Aztecs, Incas, etc. is a great source for a campaign involving any of them. Chill with the blatant nationalist favoritism. You are just desperate to see your country in game, and it’s blindingly obvious to everyone but you.
At some point they can add cosmetic swaps for other civs, e.g. swapping out the language and landmarks for Castile/Spain for Portuguese. You got a better chance hoping for Portugal like that, mate.
Edit: “Norse” fit just fine, alongside Chinese, Mongols, English, etc. So would “Nahua” instead of Aztecs, actually.
Just like Spain does not represent Iberia.
You know Portugal predates most of the factions you proposed, and the aztecs specifically by a couple centuries.
Is it? Then Portugal is relevant as early as any faction aswell.
This is what annoys me. Double standarts.
Saying that Portugal wasnt significant is wrong, it was, as any of the factions proposed.
Saying it comes to late, it is also wrong, just because you only hear about the discovery age, does not mean there is nothing before.
Portugal fits very well within the game timeframe, better than most factions on your list, and I simply refuse to let anyone say otherwise because it is wrong.
Portugal fits very well as a late game naval, gunpowder civ with a focus on trade. It is well within the game timeline.
During the game timeline, Portugal achieved a Global Empire, which is more than some of the factions that are already present in game, and more than quite a few you proposed.
1 Like
I rather not have Portugal, than having a reskin for Spain. It’s simple as that.
Portugal is not smaller Spain.
Spain does not represent Portugal in anyway whatsoever.
Delhi Sultanate does not represent India.
France does not represent England
Rus does not represent nordic countries.
Why should Spain represent Portugal?
3 Likes
Let’s not gang up on our Portuguese friend. Why was his post even flagged and hidden? Cowardly behavior.
Portugal was not the largest population or the mightiest army, but it was no pushover at all. It decisively defeated the Dutch and French in wars in South America.
It even competed with the truly mighty Ottoman Empire (which was more focused in several simultaneous big-power Eurasian wars) in the Indian Ocean and distant, exotic Indonesia.
If you dismiss Portugal as definitely not belonging in AoE4, neither do the English, Vikings/Denmark, Japan!
5 Likes
It was flagged because I put a swear word. Which I believe it was appropriatly used. Fair enough. But it is increasly frustrating to see person after person dismissing Portugal when it became a world power during the game timeline.
1 Like
one has to make choice when it comes to introducing civs.
portugal while havin the potential for a good faction also kind of fill the same niche as spain, the same cant be said for japan as an exmaple.
If the game was made in an east asian country , I don’t think many people will have an issue with English , French and Germans be melted into a single civ called Franks .
1 Like
Don’t have to go that far, even middle/near eastern peoples (including Byzantium) called western Europeans “Franks”!
1 Like
I disagree. They were quite different on their approach, and up to 16th century, Portugal was ahead on Naval power.
Another infantry civ but they have katanas?
We have England, French and HRE all in close proximity.
Suddenly Portugal cant make it because we have Spain?
Nah mate.
2 Likes
Yes but Age of Empires is not made in an East Asian country. So it’s not acceptable to have Franks represent HRE, or “Spain” represent Portugal. Btw it is even more unacceptable to have (Indian) Delhi Sultanate represent Persia.
2 Likes