I’m not confused, we were talking about civs whose most prominent time period haapened when AoE2 and 3 overlap and it’s definitely the case for the Burgundians. They were clearly put in the game because of the brief moment when they took control of the Low Countries, not when they were split as a ###### of France and the HRE and were just one of the many constituant parts of those two realms.
1 Like
Yes, but that period prior to the Burgundian division in 1482 was medieval, from then on Burgundy was Habsburg territory…
1 Like
No, that’s not what I’m refering to. For most of the Middle Ages PRIOR to the end of its ruling dynasty and integration into the French and Spanish crownlands, Burgundy was already split into two entities, with the duchy of Burgundy being a French ####### and the county of Burgundy being a HRE member, which could be quite problematic when the two suzerains had opposite policies. And even with the same person holding both titles, it was not an especially prominent title until a time period which coincide with the Songhai empire. So if one want to keep the Songhai out of the game because their golden age coincide with the overlap between AoE2 and 3 (which was what I was replying to in the first place) then the same standard should be applied to other civs, such as the Burgundians and Portuguese which were relatively insignificant until quite late in the Middle Ages.
1 Like
Ah ok, sounds good to me then…
That’s an oversimplification, but yes, it wouldn’t make sense for the Songhai to have gunpowder.
The problem with using relevance as a criterion is that it is too subjective to the point of being irrelevant. For any measure of this to make sense, you would need to specify for which region, in which period and why certain people X was relevant.
For example: what relevance did Vikings have for Ethiopians? What about Khmer for Slavs? Incas for Arabs? Koreans for Italians? Franks for Bengalis? Etc etc
The natural conclusion being that every people on the planet, with few exceptions, was and is more relevant to their own region than to the rest of the world.
To me, for the time period of the game, only the China → Persia → Eastern Mediterranean corridor seems to have been consistently relevant to the entire world, everything else orbiting them (or just too busy in their micro universes).
Perhaps. However I doubt they would put these civs in aoe3 due to the unfortunate association with slavery. And as @Temudhun said, there are already other civs that would be more appropriate for aoe3, however they are present. The precedent was set with the Mesoamericans already in The Conquerors and further solidified with Incas, Indians (when they were more inspired after the Mugals) in Forgotten and the Portuguese in TAK.
3 Likes
I’m thinking that Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds needs some love and the only way to do it is add it as an AOE2 DLC, which could be called "Return of the Jedi"™. The RotJ mode should feature an all-new droid civilization to appeal to the growing bot/AI market and campaigns centered around the adventures of Jar-Jar Binks and his secret quest to become a dark lord of the Sith. As well as a new Ewok civilization with armor-shredding teddy bear slingers as something for AoE2 players (it doesn’t matter if this is ahistorical - you can LITERALLY play Aztecs vs Koreans in Arabia!).
Oops!
For real though, I’ll reiterate my desire for more American, African, and Asian civs (preferably in that order, although apart from my desire for more New World content for scenarios, the first two are interchangeable). I hope for Jurchens and Tibetans at some point, and there’s a strong case for Caucasian civs, but I’d prefer both an American and an African DLC before returning to Eurasia.
3 Likes
I want Tongans and other polynesian civs, maybe Hawaiians and Maori. I also want Missisipians and Puebloans.
IIRC they were denied the request to remake it by the rights holders.
3 Likes
I made an archaeology based campaign for the Mississippians prior European contact in my Mississippians Civ Concept that I am quite proud of.
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/another-north-american-civ-concept/
Well the Hindustanis have the Babur campaign (creator of the Mughal Empire) and the Portuguese have the organ guns (as in AoE 3)…
For that I prefer SWGB DE just…
Tongans, Mississippians and Puebloans are ok…Hawaiians and Maoris are more for AoE 3…
They’re missing it…I’m still sad…they could have made dlcs with the clone wars, the trilogy of sequels or with the high republic now…
It looks good, I hope the devs see it…North America is very empty…
Yeah, I know. If you read farther, I admit I was wrong about the Songhai… that post is no longer current knowledge lol.
However, the Burgs in AOE2 are more than just the Duchy; their ruler list implies that they do include their time during the Kingdom of Burgundy, which was fairly prominent for it’s time. Two of their rulers are Germanic kings of the KOB, while another is the Vandal king Gunderic. So, effectively, they do represent the Germanic kingdom contemporary with Rome as well. They’re not like Portugal in that regard.
Personally, I think we only need one Polynesians umbrella civ, as I don’t think there’s enough material (or importance) for each individual empire to be its own civ.
Yeah, me too. They should have different architecture sets though; the Mississippians would have an Eastern United States architecture set, shared with potentially the Iroquois and Algonquins, and the Puebloans (I called them Anasazi originally, which is apparently offensive) would have a Southwest architecture set, based on the various cliff dwellings. It could be shared by the Navajo or the Apache, or both.
1 Like
Yes, I agree… although maybe they go more for Haudenosaunee, Missippians and Puebloans or just Haudenosaunee and Puebloans, but anything can be…
I think the Puebloans call their ancestors (and by extention, themselves) the Hisatsinom, if you wanted to call them something authentic. Anasazi is apparently “ancient enemy” in the Navajo language.
1 Like
Europe, possibly an Italian split. I heard it would be very popular.
1 Like
Honestly I agree, but I didn’t think they’d make a single polynesian civ if they made a polynesian architecture set. But they have done it before with India so who knows.
And I couldn’t think of any other famous Polynesian civilizations that already existed during medieval times, as back then Samoa was part of the Tongan empire.
For me, I see three Oceania civs existing: the Polynesians (representing Hawaii, Tonga, Samoa, and Rapa Nui), the Micronesians (representing mainly the Saudeleur Dynasty of Nan Madol, but also the Yapese Empire and Kiribati), and the Melanesians (this one’s more of a stretch; it represents Fiji and New Guinea, the latter specifically being the Muslim Kingdom of Kaimana). These three civilizations represent the three main regions of Oceania, and share an architecture set. An additional civilization, the Filipinos, would be thrown in as well, and it would have the Southeast Asian architecture set.
Yes, Polynesians and maybe Micronesians?..
Indians are a special case. They first released it with the Middle Eastern architecture set when Forgotten Empires was just a modding team and didn’t expect their mod to be turned into the official reboot of the game, and iirc another modder created the building set separately. It was so popular that the devs ended up incorporating it.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s what I said. Also Melanesians to round it out, since all three are the major regions of Oceania. See my above reply for specific references to representation.
Yes, I think that eventually they will touch that area to do a naval rework to the game…