A little late, they would be better for AoE 3 with the Tatars and the Uzbeks…
We already have tatars so is it too late?
They were already around by the mid 15th century, and the game has campaigns scenarios and historical battles taking place as far as 150 years later. The Crimean Khanate started three years after the Inca Empire, should we remove the Incas from the game? And the Uzbeks are extremely relevant in Babur and Ismail’s campaign.
AoE2 and 3 have a lot of civs in common, I don’t see why it should stop especially fir civs that were already present and powerful before Constantinople fell to the Ottomans.
1 Like
No, the Tatars are fine because Tamburlaine’s campaign starts in 1370 (14th century) and Babur is his great-grandson… I am referring to the Crimean Tatars who lasted until the end of the 18th century…
That’s true…just as between 400 and 800 CE AoE 1 and AoE 2 share the same period, between 1400 and 1600 is the period that AoE 2/AoE 4 and AoE 3 share at the same time…
They too are tatars right so fall under the tatar umbrella ingame.
1 Like
To be fair Incas kinda represent basically all Andes civilizations right now, Moche, Chimú, Wari, Tiwanaku, Nazca, Chan Chan, etc. The name Incas was just chosen because it’s the most recognizable one
Even if they add the Chimú or Moche, those will represent the north Andean region and the Inca will still represent the middle/southern ones (Like Tiwanaku)
1 Like
Yes, I know but I’m referring to the Tatars of the early modern age…the Tatars of AoE 2 go from 1370 to 1501…those of the early modern age would go from 1444 to 1783…
Pretty much every civ in this poll can be covered by an umbrella, so I guess you should vote “none” if being covered by the most nonsensical umbrella in game is a deal breaker.
1 Like
Byzantines in aoe3 when???
*It pointed towards the Kingdom of Greece…
Actually no, they are Cuman descendants. Europeans just chucked the name “Tatar” around a lot as a “wastebasket taxon” for any Central Asian peoples for a while and a bunch of different people got thrown in.
3 Likes
To be fair, actual Tatars are closer to Cumans than they are to some of the people and empires they represent in game.
1 Like
Tbh the way I see it (imo Tatars are the post-Mongols steppe turks) I think Tatars should explicitly include Crimean Tatars and I think they are a fairly good umbrella.
The issue I have with the Tatars is that they overlap majorly with the Mongols and Cumans.
I think the diferences are clear enough. Cumans are pre Mongol western Turks, Tatars are Mongolised, Persianized Turks, Mongols are Mongols
1 Like
This game has celts britons normans aka sicilians and franks overlapping each other so anything goes I guess.
Might as well add saxons to complete the set.
I think thats an unfair comparison
None of those civs is really needed I think. If anyone, then Göktürks although I think West Asia is fine by now.
Yes, but the Crimean Tatars last longer after the death of Timur; in the 16th century they served as a buffer state between the expansion of the Duchy of Moscow and that of the Ottoman Empire… and then in AoE 3, in the 17th century, they remained in the middle between the fights of the Russians and the Polish Cossacks with the Ottomans and finally they are the last khanate that the Russians conquer in 1783…
The Cumans represent Central Asia before the Mongol conquests, the Tatars represent Central Asia after the dissolution of the Mongol empire:
Cumans (10th-12th centuries)
Mongols (12th-14th centuries)
Tatars (14th-16th centuries)
2 Likes
Khitans are definitely the one civ i most look forward to at the moment
1 Like