What other Asian civilizations do we need?

Everyone worries about Paladin regionality when half the world that wasn’t europe or Easternmost Asia wasnt even using Crossbow and evennless used greatsword

Yeah, I always found it weird that the knight line is the only one that evokes this response.

I actually wasn’t even thinking that a hypothetical Kannadiga civ would even have knights. Instead having a knight-like unit at the castle as their UU. Keeping to the S. Asia restriction of none of them having knights.

Because it’s the most obvious of all units that it comes from a very specific area.

The militia-line (apart from the Men-at-Arms) all look very generic. So does the crossbowman.

Meanwhile the Knight very clearly looks Norman, and the Cavalier looks overall Western European, and the Paladin is very French.

I don’t agree. The South Asian theme of complete lack of Knights makes zero sense historically.

You can’t be seriously telling me these guys look like they could have come from anywhere from West Europe to the Far East:
Y’all are just nitpicking.

I’m 1000% sure AoE2 Indians only lack knights because AoE3 Indians don’t have horses either, which also makes 0 sense there. Using AoE3 instead of historical sources is probably also the reason why AoE2 Portuguese have organ cannons, which they basically never used.


You cant tell!? I wasnt sure if they were Aztec design or if they came from Africa but it was obvious those dudes are one of the two!


I know it is. But this is me dealing with the world we live in, not the one we would like to.

Those images? No. The actual in-game models? Those are less obviously anything, as a lot of the details get washed out.

Anyway. I never said they were perfect. Just that the knight-line is especially egregiously Western European.

For a future east asian dlc campaign a similar thing could be done with a yi sun shin campaign,conflict shown from all three civis views.

I think it’s partly that cavalry are bigger than foot units, so the European features are more obvious. Also, people associate crossbows at least as much with east Asia as they do with Europe, and the militia line sees comparatively less use.

That said, personally I think pikemen and champions look really European, even with such small sprites.

Is the ################ realistic? (Genuine question, I have no idea.)

EDIT: good old forum censor, always protecting us from such dangerous words. What I tried to ask is, is it realistic that he has almost ## ####### on his torso?

EDIT 2: Seriously?! Clothes above the waist are the thing that he doesn’t have much of.

An affordable combination!

Just to come back and say, now that we know the devs are going to release DLC ​​that may only include the campaign, we won’t have that problem anymore.

It is possible that there is a DLC containing Gokturks, Sogdians and Tibetans/Qiangs and another DLC containing Jurchens, Khitans and Chinese. We no longer have to think about whether Japanese and Koreans should be stuffed into these DLCs.


One down side could be they will only add the missing campaigns for current civis without adding anything new. 3 campaigns per dlc and all missing 9 covered with three dlcs. China korea japan dlc one maya roman viking dlc two slavs magyars turks third dlc.

Yeah, maybe it’s a retroactive retcon…many civs from The Forgotten onwards are influenced by AoE 2 mods like Age of Hegemony (LotW civs), SWGB (the DoI civs), AoM and AoE 3 (Indians, Portuguese and the LotW civs)…

[quote=“UpmostRook9474, post:211, topic:246618”]
It is possible that there is a DLC containing Gokturks, Sogdians and Tibetans/Qiangs and another DLC containing Jurchens, Khitans and Chinese. We no longer have to think about whether Japanese and Koreans should be stuffed into these ############## [/quote]

Yeah, it’s fine for me…

A campaign-only DLC will most likely not perform as well in sales as a DLC with new civilizations. Quite a few people don’t actually play campaigns. If they want to get enough revenue, new civilizations are still a decent choice. On the other hand, one civilization may have more than one campaign due to the DLCs. For example, the DLC could include Charlemagne and Justinian. They may not just add the campaigns for all civilizations and then end everything.

Yes, it can also be a dlc with a Roman campaign for AoE 2 and the Rise of Rome campaigns for Return of Rome…

How much different the design need to be? I mean I can get a small picture of how Tibetans civ be like. Can we just design Tibetans but named it Qiangs for obvious reason. Or their should be some difference in the design as well?

I think their difference may be mainly in whether have Elite Steppe Lancers or not, but it’s not serious.

The Tibetans did not live on the steppe, but they once controlled a small part of the Silk Road, and some Qiangs tribes lived on the steppe.

The Tibetans were famous by their excellent armor making technology, while in records from the Song Dynasty, Qiang people were also said to be good at making armor.

The Tanguts (another tribes of Qiangs) had elite heavy infantry, and in Chinese records, the combat performance of Tibetan heavy infantry is the most praised among the Tibetan military.

1 Like

I have a feeling that the next DLC will add Siamese civ + Campaigns (Chinese, Korean and Japanese).


They absolutely should, not because they lived on the steppe, but because they were famous for using extraordinarily long lances on their cavalry.

1 Like

I knew about their armor craftmanship. However Steppe lancer of Tibetans/Qiang is a new info to me. Thanks.

Just because they’re known for using lances shouldn’t give them access to Steppe Lancers.
Historically every civilization in the world that had cavalry used lances or similar weapons. If you give Tibetans Steppe Lancers just for this reason, then you have to give almost every civilization with decent cavalry access to Steppe Lancers as well. I must adhere to the principle that Steppe Lancers belong to steppe people, otherwise we will face a slippery slope.

I know about the Tibetans’ lancers, but the reason I gave this civilization the Steppe Lancers is mainly because they did control the steppes, and the Qiangs do live in the steppes and are part of the steppe peoples. On the other hand, although their lancers are described as featuring extremely long lances, in reality their cavalry did not perform particularly well in the war. Comments on their military performance in Chinese records specifically praise their infantry rather than their cavalry, as far as I know.