I’m just saying that, with the knowledge that we have of Medieval Europe, it’s pretty easy to come up with 10 “assymetric” civs based in Europe. Hell, AoE3, a game that, from the information that we were able to gather about AoE4, is far more assymetrical than the later, managed to squeeze in 9 european civs. So yeah, I think they can still put 10 European civs (or more), 5-7 Sub-Saharan African civs, 5-6 North African and Middle Eastern civs, 4-5 East Asian civs, 2-3 South Asian civs, 3 Mesoamerican civs and 5 Southeast Asian civs.
3 Likes
How would actually “real” Blizzard handle such task to design Aztecs?
I think for PvP they would make some kind of Hybrid Aztec-Europe Tech faction like AoE2
and make some kind of “Historical accurate” Montezuma Co-Op Commander like AoE3.
Blizzard would give them spells, and make a fully fledged fantasy game.
I prefer how AoE2 did it, in which they have no Stables, but get a unit is an hybrid between Light and Heavy Cavalry, while being Infantry, but still gives lot’s of stuff the never actually had, like Blacksmith upgrades and Siege Engines.
Asymmetry is overrated. In AoE2, Mayans and Aztecs have always been some of the most played civs in the game, while in AoE3 you rarely see Native American civs, because they lack too much.
Yeah, would be nice to see some kind of
Age of Mythology 2, where such gaps in tech would be replaced with magic.
Why not have both? AoE2 Style for PvP and AoE3 Style for Co-op?
Because that is silly, and one of the worst things in Starcraft 2, is that you cannot use the Coop Commanders in actual Multiplayer.
You either go full Historically accurate, with all the asymmetry and imbalance it will bring, or you get realistic on what can be asymmetrical and what cannot.
Imagine a Command & Conquer faction without Tanks.
Oh… wait… There was one! General Fai, in Generals: Zero Hour, and NOBODY played him, because lacking Tanks was a HUGE deal!
Civs need symmetry, because this is a game, not a simulation, so it has to be reasonably fair.
1 Like
The Koreans were conquerors?
Focused on Mediterranean
Focused on civs that were considered for the Age of Kings/Conquerors
I didn’t know the Roman Empire was in the north of Europe.
3 Likes
The real reason the Roman Empire survived so long was because of the materials and workers that were IN northen europe (the northen region of europe), work and labor was more expensive there because of the better weather conditions than in the hot south (places like modern day spain and morroco weren’t very good for that because of climate conditions)
Could you elaborate more both aguments? I don’t get what you’re saying.
3 Likes
Forget it. He is just trying to bait people like me.
First he made anti-European arguments, now it is just against Mediterraneans.
Do not expect a straight answer from a man that does not know that the wealth of Rome, came from Egypt, which was their breadbasket province and route to Indian trade.
Northern Europe actually offered only expenses to Rome, but they needed to guard it, because of constant Germanic and Celtic raids.
4 Likes
Ah, so you disagree with my arguments, therefore it’s bait? great.
What arguments? You spew some random bull and call it an argument.
3 Likes
I don’t recall any byzantines glimpse, but I’m pretty sure the vikings one you talk about is from the peek we had of the norman campaign some time ago… so probably still nothing.
They still even haven’t officially revealed HRE and Rus, even when we clearly have a Rus character in the main cover (lol), so hardly will have offered a vikings hint with any meaning so soon.
Byzantines could definitly fit with the trope of assymetric civ.
Their cataphracts which mainly fighted with maces, when every other melee cavalry adopted tactics with spears. They didn’t adopt stirrups when they encountered and fighted civ which used it since a long time, but used special saddle instead.
Their fire grenades, fire ships, strongest navy (atleast in europe) for a large period until an huge defeat against the kingdom of sicily
The huge chains accross the golden horn.
Their technological advancement, in siege engines, architectures (hagia sofia), their walls.
The Varangian Guards, conquering muslim cities for Byz, and coming back in their homeland with byzantine money to become kings.
How they assihimilated their opponents, like the Petchenegs tried to invade them, they were defeated and became some of their town guards.
They widespread their faith to slavic countries.
Crossroad of trade routes and markets.
etc etc.
Even their aesthetic is singular, outfits, armor, architecture, expected music 
They seems to be a given of a demanded comeback, and a civ which could feel unique in term of gameplay, and cover a lot of civilizations in term of influence, being mediteranean but speaking about other civ like Armenians were important in byz empire, byz highly influenced Georgians, Venetians were their vassal and ally for most of the medieval period
4 Likes
Yeah but there is really no point in bringing Byzantines without Turks so I expect them both to be in dlc.
There is, if they bring Venetians, which were their main historical rival, not the Turks.
Well considering it was the Turks who took most of their land over centuries I beg to differ but yeah DLC with ERE Venetians and Ottomans would be nice actually.
The Turks did it very late in the period, the most enduring enemy of the Byzantine Empire was Venice. It was actually the merchants of Venice that blackmailed the 4th Crusade into sacking Constantinople, for example.
We’ve seen no evidence to suggest they plan on making enough civs that the Venetians would be the the next most important civ worth making.
I have never said they would, I only said that if they added the Byzantines (which they should) at a late DLC, then the most apropriate opposing civ would be the Venitians.
1 Like