ANd starcraft, and warcraft, and AoE 3, and those are some of the most loved rts games of all the times. So the balance excuse is just not acceptable… oh and since the game is stuck to historically correct facts then its dumb to dont have a complete whole asymetry
AoM2 is the savior to that one.
1 Like
Ah ■■■■, here we go again…
EDIT:
Weird how did the comment I replied to vanish and seems to now be reposted below.
So my Chinese friend, after dozens of failed sieges for 1,000 years, the Ottoman Great Bombards finally succeeded in conquering the Eternal City…
… and it was just a coincidence huh? Interesting.
Ok if Great Bombards are not very useful, why on Earth did Suleiman the Magnificent (the world’s #1 powerful man in 1529) order the most costly logistical operation ever, only to transport the super-heavy monster bombards all the way from Istanbul to attack Vienna? The mother of all mysteries right?
Kings and Generals themselves: Vienna was only saved because Great Bombards never arrived there.
Even more… if Great Bombards were not game-changing, why were they the priority weapon again and again, in Belgrade? Castelnuovo? Rhodes? Malta? Szigetvar? Vienna (1 and 2)?
And so many of AoE 4 time’s most incredible and spectacular sieges in the world?
Why are some people resistant to History?
1 Like
They would be unique from a game design perspective and historically accurate unlike the current English
I thought Rome was the only city known as the Eternal City. I see now there were at least two! https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/13563
1 Like
Russian and Polish architecture are very different. The Folwark is a German design called a Vorwerk for instance. You would only get something like that going so far east as modern day Belarus.
The English didn’t invent castles
Right?
Everyone knows the source of all everything are the Greeks.
Ok, I agree with most predictions, but here’s my verdict:
Fully agree, though I may be biased.
Disagree, Navarre just wasn’t important enough and the Habsburgs just feel redundant with both Spain and the HRE.
Agree, will probably call them Almohads.
Was on the fence, but since the Abbasids have nothing to represent the Ghulams, Mamlukes and Bedouins, it might be possible.
All three obvious additions that I fully agree.
I think we will most likely get Iranians through a Timurids faction.
Most likely they’ll call them Danes or something like that.
While I believe that we’ll get a Venetian faction, I believe the other will either be an umbrella “Italians” civ or a Two Sicilies civ.
I agree with all other choices, except maybe I would have the Poles and Lithanians as the PLC.
1 Like
It was not that different in year 900 when game starts. It would differentiate greatly after that for sure.
I’ve never seen a polish church that look like it was Muslim or Indian though.
Well the OP question was what civs Can be used as template for other civs and not asking for carbon copy.
I Just said that language and building design Can be used for both civs in age one. Thats All.
Mosques look like churches and Not other way around since they were inspired by ERE designs.
And indian temples look totaly different.
A Spanish civ seems like a no-brainer. You even have a political entity that evolved and organically encapsulates the four ages of the game:
Dark Age: Kingdom of Asturias (718-924)
Feudal Age: Kingdom of Leon (924-1230)
Castle Age: Crown of Castille (1230-1474/9)
Imperial Age: Hispanic Monarchy (1474/9- 1700). Obviously in-game you can make this age stop in 1556 or 1598 with either the abdication of Charles I or the death of Philip II.
I want Eastern Roman Empire so much, too. I’d say these are my two most wanted civs.
2 Likes
I would really like a civilization that does quality over quantity, or uses towers far more frequently compared to others. I incorporated both in this thread: Faction Idea: Teutonic State
I can’t wait to see what Relic will come up with for future factions! Thank you so much for listening to the community!
I doubt they will add so many Civs since AoE4 is more about gameplay changes between civs than some stat changes, unique upgrades and units. But I hope to see Norsemen, Polish, Japanese, Aztecs, Spanish/Portugal and Byzantines
1 Like
If there is Medieval Rus there should be Lithuanians and Poles, or maybe the union of these (aka Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Rzeczpospolita). But more civs we get the better.
1 Like
Polish-Lithuanian Union 1385-1569, 1569-1791
1 Like
Well, that’s what we call meta, there is no balanced multiplayer game and there won’t be ever, it’s impossible. If they add more civs, that’s fine. Like in Dota, there is always a pool of heroes who is more useful than others. Balance patch comes, and the pool changes. It can be similar here. These days most of the games are works in “live balance”. Dota has smaller changes every 2-4 weeks, other games 3 months, half-year etc. If the game will be successful then they can work in a similar way.
So it’s not that hard to add more civs to the game.
They had to include india and chinese cuz that means 2.6 billion potential customers.