Some people say the game starts in the 5th century, other say around 1000 AD. Is there a source?
1 Like
Most likely 5th century, it is going to be a wider timespan than Aoe2 and that goes from 5th century to 16th
Looking at the revealed civs:
Chinese: Song dynasty is the earliest dynasty in game and is dated 960-1279
Delhi Sultanate: 1206-1526
Mongols: The mongol empire existed 1206-1368 and then went on in other forms of course. Mongols existed before that as well but this is by far the most prominent Mongol legal entity.
English: Kingdom of England existed 927-1707.
From these pieces of information, we can establish that the game is following these civilizations from 1206 at the earliest since it wouldn’t make sense to consider the Delhi Sultanate in particular before this date. A final confirmation of this timeline would be the omission of the Byzantine empire which was fatally crippled in 1204 by the fourth crusade in the services of the Venetian republic and its leader Enrico Dandolo.
3 Likes
Idk about when the earliest campaigns are set.
But from the looks of unit and buildings, the design of the first age looks like 800~900-ish, but definitely not ~500. Or even maybe later than that because I don’t see round shields.
Early Mongol and Turkic people are the Huns. The last Khan passed away in the 19th century.
The Chinese have the Tang dynasty which existed way before Song.
You are right about the Chinese dynasty which is strange since all of the other civs fit the era quite neatly. Huns are arguable as they weren’t so directly connected to the peoples we call Mongols. They probably originated from the same area though, yes.
P. S.: This doesn’t change the timeline though, as the Delhi Sultanate is very specifically only relevant to the period of 13th to 16th century.
If you study history, they relate themselves to the Huns. They still celebrate it and many Hunnic tombs were found and scientists did research on 80 Hunnic skeletons and bones from Hungary and Mongolia to determine their ancestry. The result illustrated that more than 80% matched Mongolian built. Huns exalted the same religion as the Mongols. Which is called “Tengri” or known as eternal blue sky in English. The word originated from the Huns and Turkic people do not have this word. Moreover, “Hun” is a Mongolian word you cannot find this word in any Turkic language. If we translate “the Huns” it would mean Human Empire “The Hunnic Empire” they call it.
Early tech is going to be rough
Huns and Goths in Aoe2. I don’t think it matters their relevant time period
Teutons-HRE
Age3 USA
There are probably a few more I’m not thinking of right now.
Japan in day 1 or dlc?
The devs said it would start earlier then AoE II and end later then AoE II.
So most likely fall of Rome till around 1700s.
Probably in DLC
For me, the better strategy of marketing for them are (popular):
Vikings > Japanese > Aztecs/Spanish conquerors > Koreans (big rts community)
All for DLC’s
Koreans are stupid to include, they only got included in AoE II because microsoft bullied ensable studios into adding them, guess what it did for the sales in Korea? Nothing. Korean rts fanbase is more towards Starcraft type of games that are way faster paced then a building up game like AoE IV.
Vikings are Im pretty sure leaked as a civ? Not entirely sure. Koreans arent a conquerer civ btw. Also again refering to them being added to the dlc because of bully microsoft.
1 Like
Yes, im agree with u, but i feel them will add Koreans in DLC again
I think they will add max 4 big civs with 2 more campaign. If e-sports can be successful, I don’t think we will see more civs which is okay for me. If e-sports fails there will be many civs I guess.
Age2 gets more civs and that has a healthy competitive scene
1 Like
Age2 doesn’t have asymmetric civs
I don’t think that would matter but to each his own.