These four countries, I published a post a month ago, but the forum withdrew the post on the ground that it was not allowed to disclose the content of the game…
2 Likes
I think we will have units with muskets. Because muskets for example in France appeared in 1525.
3 Likes
Because at that point the civs weren’t revealed yet. Thus making it leaked content and leaked content is not allowed in this forum.
2 Likes
I think if the give Strelci some early heavy version of Arquebuses it could work.
2 Likes
In AOE there was supposed to be only the Mongols. All of China was conquered in the Middle Ages. It is just, they want Chinese money xD
They should have slow reload animation, high damage, medium range and low health.
1 Like
Infact Mongol conquered southern China much later than eastern Europe.
If it’s for money, Mongolia should not join the game. Mongolia only has more than 3 million people, with little sales. Maybe the sales volume in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China will be more than that in Outer Mongolia. The Yuan dynasty founded by Mongols was destroyed by the Han people more than 70 years later. How could the whole Middle Ages conquer China? The Mongolian Empire has existed for no more than 300 years. It’s just a civilization destroyer and butcher. Few people like it, right? The Mongols did not contribute much to human civilization, did not invent anything, but brought about killing, and the history was very short. Mongolia’s only contribution was to bring Chinese gunpowder and other inventions to Eurasia.
Well that is a very one-sided view of the Mongol empire. A good thing they did after conquering was to let everyone co time with their own religion instead if forcing the Mongol religion on everyone. Also I read that they had a fantastic postal system as it was needed for such a big empire. Also trade in Eurasia flourished because it was pretty safe to travel as a merchant on the Mongolian empire.
The Mongol empire wasn’t put into the game for the purpose of getting the game sold in Mongolia but because of its significance in history during the middle ages.
can you give an ss?..
14 seconds
5 Likes
I feel bad for you guys hoping for Meso civs that you all are so passionate about .
But still , you should’nt be expecting an American civ this early since neither AoE2 nor AoE3 had American civs in the core game.
I’m pretty sure the devlopers will drop a civ representing the Toltecs or Aztecs along with the Koreans and Iberians to cash in some sweet , sweet money
1 Like
It’s may be siege of Kazan ?
5 Likes
Yes i agree, i posteed the same here , and infact it is in my search tab bar rn haha 
maybe as a unique unit, the siege tower will double as a cannon mount in the IV age of the game, after an upgrade
Where is seen a tower with a cannon?
Some Siege Towers with Guns at the base, did existm but the idea was completely abandoned, because Cannon shot so far away it no longer made sense to use a Siege Tower, the only Guns taht you could mount on teh base were smaller calliber than the Cannon, and the rise of sloped Walls made Siege Towers majorly obsolete.
" Siege towers became vulnerable and obsolete with the development of large cannon. They had only ever existed to get assaulting troops over high walls and towers and large cannons also made high walls obsolete as fortification took a new direction. However, later constructions known as 'battery towers took on a similar role in the gunpowder age; like siege-towers, these were built out of wood on-site for mounting siege artillery. One of these was built by the Russian military engineer Ivan Vyrodkov during the siege of Kazan in 1552 (as part of the Russo-Kazan Wars), and could hold ten large-calibre cannon and 50 lighter cannons.[8] Likely, it was a development of the gulyay-gorod (that is a mobile fortification assembled on wagons or sleds from prefabricated wall-sized shields with holes for cannons). Later battery towers were often used by the Ukrainian Cossacks."
1 Like
This is all just speculations (and according to such speculations some leaders were descended from Tatars, not Mongols). There are different versions.
Some of Russian nobles might have had a drop of mongol/tatar ancestry in them, but it wasn’t even significant enough to become a sure fact, they didn’t even look “mongol”, because they were descended largely from Russians or other Europeans anyway.
To say that the Russian leaders were descendants of the Mongols is an overstatement, if at all true in many cases.
2 Likes
You have to read the comment that I wrote earlier in this post. And then you will understand why Russian leaders are mixed with Mongols. In Europe, the Mongols called themselves Tatars bcse of religious fear creation “Tartarus” which means devil.
Let’s stay on the topic of the Rus civilization please.
3 Likes