This.
The 3K DLC still doing damages
8 Likes
We still only have one Sahara civ by the way.
2 Likes
Realistically the only possible Italian civs that could be added are Lombards (most distinct) and Venetians (most requested). But splitting it further into city-states would be too much, imho even the stem duchies of Germany would make more sense as separate civs (not that they should be added either)
Their great migration that’d form the basis of the campaign is indeed a bit late (albeit still within the game’s timeframe), but they were already interacting with Ethiopians and Somalians centuries prior so they could be used to enrich the opponent variety in local campaigns. There’s even evidence that the medieval Ethiopian term “Arämi”, used to refer to pagan and Muslim Cushitic peoples, might have derived from the Oromo’s ethnonym.
Ah, i’m fine with that then…
If anything we have 2 not 3, but the problem is not Sicilians, its italiana that is something that does not make sense. Italians never were a unique people in the middle ages, and they were as different as burgundians and Franks for example, which are different civs.
For example, you could make “Lombarda" to represent either the Lombards of the early middle ages that faced byzantines and charlemagne, or lombard cities that were prominent and important in later stages like the “Lombard league" against Barbarossa, or a blend of the two.
And then have the italians we have now renamed to something different to represent the venetians and other naval states, and you could add a Venetian Galea unique ship, and make condottiero (renamed to something closer to Mercenary) as a regional unit for those two civs, and they would be two very different civs, much more diverse then Franks and burgundians are for example
Well you don’t have to take It into extremes. Vikings could easily be split into two civs, with one just being a refresh of the Vikings we already have, being the Norwegians or Danes, or “Norsmans”, and the others maybe the Variags or something different like that.
They would have a different representation and, most importantly, could have a different gamestyle then just “horned raiders on funky ships” like we have now
No, they were not.
Burgundians and Franks were separate groups before the Middle Ages began, and speak different languages. Neither saw the other as related.
The Italian city states are all the same group of people, they were just not politically aligned. There is also a big gameplay problem, they all do the same thing as each other from a gameplay perspective.
Not to mention, why do we need even more tiny splits within the most saturated area in the game? When there are giant blank areas on the map that had civs which are not in the game yet. Hell, why are we talking about splitting the Italians, when we have Khitans and Tanguts fused into one abomination of a civ.
6 Likes
Yes they were.
The italians peninsula never even taught themselfs as One until very late…also, there were very diverse people influences, and “Italians" largely do not exist. For example, byzantines had a strong influence in some regions like Romagna and Venice, but few KMs away, lombards had drastically different culture, rules, languages that shaped the northern and central peninsula.
Some people got under the influence of normans, later in the south, and infact are now the Sicilians in game, simbolizing that those differences are enough to make a diverse civilization.
If you talk about the renaissance cities then yes, they were largely similar, but if you read my comment, i talked about very different times, when far enough cities barely spoke the same languages and have different cultures and dialects, even in the Hearth of the game time period
You could make the “lombards” based on the 7th century, and the Venetians of the 14/15th century and they would have literally nothing in common
But why should individual cities be civs rather than large empires? And how can a bunch of people that live in geographically very similar areas with very similar militaries add something to the game?
Other than “they are not the same” you haven’t given a good reason as to why these should be civs.
AoE3DE territory which unfortunately got cancelled.
1 Like
I’d go with Norse (current Vikings, just replace the Cannon Galleon with Catapult Ship and reskins the Monastery to a wooden temple for better Viking Era larp) and Finns (good halbs and skirms) as must-haves, and, if there’s no civ limit, also Danes (cavalry and navy civ with more High Medieval focus) and potentially Swedes (either with Varangian focus or as a gunpowder civ, or both in different eras)
…having a Danish flag as your profile pic you surely know that Denmark existed as early as the 8th century, right?
Yes but that doesn’t mean that they need to be in a medieval game where their overlooked timeline was during 17th-19th century, Vikings are a fine umbrella way of representing them.
Most Danish civ suggestions in AoE2 and even AoE4 will lead to the same boring pop-culture Vikings without any difference to other existing European civs when it comes to a unique unit which would be an existing infantry like Huskarl so Scandinavia doesn’t need any more civs in AoE2 while other regions have better offerings.
2 Likes
I know that at some point I’ll be labeled the “annoying Italian guy,” and while I certainly appreciate the interest in Italy, there are a few things that need to be clarified.
First of all, the Lombards/Longobards are the Germanic people who arrived in Italy in 568 AD. The Lombard League is not composed of Lombards/Longobards. I know, it sounds strange, but that’s how it is.
The term “Lombard League” is a colloquial, popular name that actually refers to “Societas Lombardiæ et Romandiolæ et Marchiæ.” Translated: “Association of Lombardy, Romagna, and Marca”, therefore, an association of cities located in those geographical areas.
Much more different and yet much more alike than you might think. At that time in Italy, there was no national or regional unity, but rather a sense of community at the local level. So, in reality, every city should be a different civ, so you can see that it’s absolutely impossible for this game.
Even if you grouped all the cities by language, you’d need about seven civs: Sardinians, Sicilians, other Southern Italians (Neapolitans, etc.), Tuscans (which would include Florentines, Sienese, etc.), Central Italians (Rome and nearby cities), Gallo-Italians (Milan and other northern cities), and Veneti (Venice and nearby cities).
Or you could say that Italians represent the entire part of Italy under the Holy Roman Empire (plus Venice), and Sicilians the rest of the peninsula, which seems more than enough to me
1 Like
So first one is sicilians Tuscans would be a new civi central part romans gallo italians current italians? Veneti new civi.2 civi dlc isnt so bad even tho id rather prefer genoese venitians milanese florintines.
I wouldn’t mind seeing a Chronicles-like DLC set during the Guelph-Ghibelline Wars. After all, that conflict dominated much of the Italian Middle Ages.
2 Likes
Genuine questions (probably for @KHANATTILA as well): does having an Italians civ make less sense than Sumerians or Greeks (in AoE1) or Maya? They were also divided into city states rather than being politically united. If so, what makes Sumerians, Greeks and Maya reasonable as civilisations that doesn’t apply to Italians?
(Of course, I realise you might not think Sumerians, Greeks and Maya are reasonable either and might believe they should be split too.)
1 Like
Since I recently complained about the situation of the Burmese, their UU (Arambai) is actually Meitei. But apparently, nobody cares.
Sure, I understand that the Venetians have a certain interest on the part of the community, but it doesn’t seem all that pressing to me.
1 Like
Guys I don’t want to split the Vikings or Italian or Saracens or Persians. Cant we just… get new civs that have first and foremost interesting gameplay potential and then worry if it deserves to be remembered by history or forgotten forever?
6 Likes
You could still have Danes from the Kalmar Union (1397-1523) you know?…it would be the same as Poland-Lithuania but before the Lublin Union…the campaign could be Margaret I…
1 Like
Indeed. Individual entities, like Ireland, Denmark or Venice could be represented by using SP-only units, like “Irish warrior/longswordsman/whatever”. They should instead add actual variety, like African civs, campaings for (non-3K) Chinese, Koreans etc. And regional skins.
7 Likes