I’ve thought Saracens need the split treatment for awhile now, and I think Slavs do as well; I think Serbs, Rus’, and Muscovy (Rus being earlier Middle Ages E. Slavs, Muscovy being later Middle Ages E. Slavs) and then throwing Vlachs in there as well, not Slavs but a good spot to fit them.
I can see people’s arguments for Celts rework or even a split, but I dunno, I think give them back the dark age Militia bonus they used to have and leave 'em. But I wouldn’t be mad if they wanted to split them into Irish and Scots or something. I think Saracens and Slavs are higher priority though.
Honestly all the rest of them I think are fine as-is. I think E. Asia needs some attention but I think that’s in the form of adding other civs around Koreans/Japanese/Chinese, not changing those civs.
Now if we’re including architecture changes as well…i’d love to see a Barbarian pack for Goths, Huns, and a couple new “barbarian” civs like Vandals, and i’d love to see a nomad pack for Mongols, Cumans…and maybe put Huns here. Which I suppose count as attention for old civs but in some ways I count it as something different.
Yeah, I suppose that brings up the question what degree of work/modifications are we talking about. Because you’re right those are fairly major gameplay changes. I guess the main thing on my mind is the concepts of the civs themselves which is why what I mainly brought up was splitting civs as opposed to just adding a bonus or two to some civs, and that may be moreso what people are looking for/thinking of.
Vandals would be an awesome civ with camels, steppe lancers, good infantry and navy. Very flavorful! You would also see late Roman Africa in a Gaiseric campaign (btw Romans get camels when?)
And of course a Roman campaign in the same pack along with another dark age civ to pick from alemanni, suebi, Lombards, Saxons, Picts, hepthalithes… Man I just love that time period.
On a related note I think the African kingdoms DLC feels a bit outdated as well. Despite being better designed civs than say Slavs or Indians, Ethiopians should be split because they currently incorporate Nubians (archer bonus) and axumites (good siege?) And Malians as well.
Also Portuguese and Berbers are not very good designed. Portuguese received some changes but still not too flavourful (maybe in a future Iberian DLC) but most of all Berbers… I mean look at their bonuses and tell me they’re creative or that they capture well the civ.
In my opinion there are a lot of big and small things that feel outdated or wrong.
For example a unique technology that allows to train your unique unit outside of the castle doesn’t make much sense anymore now that we have other civilisations that just have that as a normal civilisation feature.
If we can just train the Shrivamsha Rider in the Stable why can’t we do the same with the Tarkan?
“Sorry but I bought this game because the Franks were OP so that I can only play Franks and only train Knights all the time, now Franks are not OP anymore, I want my money back!”
There would be a lot more other games that changed a lot more though.
Especially critical if some asset is changed that people did buy as a microtransaction.
Like if people buy an OP weapon/vehicle/character because it’s OP but then it gets balanced.
From a gameplay standpoint yes, but thematically all of those civilisations have some big issues.
Celts are bad at what they are supposed to represent. It’s hard to tell what they even supposed to represent.
Ancient Celts? Scots? Irish?
Vikings, well are ok besides their name and the looks and name of their unique unit. It’s based on completely outdated stereotypes.
Saracenes are one of the civilisations that probably should be split because they represent too many different civilisations at once.
Koreans are also historically bad. Their unique unit makes little sense and they kinda miss what Korea is actually famous for. Also kinda strange that they have bonuses for the Mangonel Line.
Slavs are also one of the civilisations that need to be split.
We already have 2.5 other Slavic civilisations in the game so the name doesn’t even make sense anymore.
That’s the hard question.
It’s hard to cover some time frames like this since other ones overshadow them.
AoE has always mixed some where incompatible time frames together leading to a lot of strange things like 6th century civilisations with gunpowder, Early Bronze Age civilisations with Iron weapons.
I thought about adding that too but I had to draw a line somewhere.
Maybe I should have just included all civilisations before the Definitive Edition tbh.
Edit:
I added a third poll for HD civilisations.
tbh. they all need a little more love.
Like why do Indians have 3 Elephant units but they only get 1 (2 for Khmer)?
I picked Chinese, Britons, Celts, Vikings, Spanish and Italians.
Britons and Chinese are self-explanatory: Archers into treb civs with decent economy. No real difference if you go arbalester or UU. Warwolf trebs are just too cheesy and Chinese got nothing unique going for them. Celts? To make use of their wood cutting, you need to go siege. Infantry still isn’t on great spot. Vikings? Should be split into multiple civilizations with future DLC, or have more unique units such as Shield Maiden. Berserks just ain’t that different to Champions. Italians? Genoese are just awkward arbalester that forces enemy off any cavalry comp. Spanish? Castle drop much? Has anyone played this civ traditionally?
A lot of AoK UUs are very similar to generic units.
Longbows, Berserks or Woad Raider play very similar to the generic unit.
Janissary, Mangudai and Samurai have a little special bonus damage (or in the case of the Janissary the opposite) to make them play a little different then the generic unit.
But why train Longbows if you can get a unit with almost the same range and damage in the Archery Range?
You still gonna outrange anyone anyway.
yeah, i don’t expect aoe2 to be the target of that, but I think something like that will happen soonish. Depending on the outcome if will be a huge shakeup of the industry
I don’t think that has a high chance at getting far.
Usually the TOS are clear about that and it’s also common for online services to shut down.
But It would be nice if customers would get a right to be able to get old version of single player games.
Because there are some single player games that get balance changes that might ruin the enjoyment of some people. Those people should have the right to either use an old version or have the capabilities to get a mod that restores the old stats (AoE2DE has datamodding so it’s fine).
They should get Gold or other resources from destroying buildings like the Mongols in AoE4.
That would fit very well thematically. It was a planned feature that got scrapped but made it into the campaign.
The Loot would depend on the kind of buildings. TC should give more then a house of course.
these are exactly the kind of changes that are making me leave the game. Between armour ignoring attacks, aura effects, mule carts, charge attacks, flemish revolution (although at least that’s now so expensive it isn’t worth it) and resource gain on kill I am just not having fun with this game anymore
It’s supposed to represent the hwacha, or at least it’s inspired by it, as said by its creator himself:
14:23 mark
As I said many times, they should just replace the wagon with a hwacha and rename it. Nothing more. Keep the damage, the projectile, the HP, everything. Just replace the wagon.
On another topic, I think the Vikings’ loot bonus from the UT should become a civ bonus. The number can be adjusted until balanced, but the effect is simple, useful in the early game, and helps immersion a lot.
Considering how much in details they are going with their recent civ additions, the catch all approach for Malians and Ethiopians which catch a lot of design elements from other civs not in the game (Dahomean elements resp. Nubian elements in Malians/Ethiopians), I think a slight rework migh be necessary should the devs plan to add a new African DLC.
We’re also still missing a Maya campaign and some of the voice lines are not unique nor actually authentic like in the case for Italians, Byzantines, Goths and Huns. I wouldn’t really call this rework necessary but it would be nice if it would be updated.
That’s the way the game works however…
Aoe1 starts in the Stone Age (few events or recorded wars happening before the bronze age which helps shorten the amount of material) and ends with the classical age.
Aoe2 starts in late antiquity and ends in early modern era since when the conquerors added Huns and Spanish in the same DLC. You could argue neither of them is a proper medieval civ.
Most people like them though.
The change for the Persians was kinda strange but it fit perfectly to the Vikings.
I’m well aware of that.
They look like Bronze Age Chinese chariots though.
That would make little sense since Hwacha were known for firing many arrows not just a single bolt.
The Nest of Bees replaces the Mangonel for the Chinese in AoE4, so it would make a lot of sense to make the Hwacha a Mangonel replacement, especially because Koreans already have a UT that improves them.
Also the War Wagon is currently a Cavalry Archer, so it would make no sense to reskin it to something that looks even less like a Cavalry Archer.
Reworks make the most sense in a thematically fitting DLC.
The community is already asking for an African DLC for ages.
It’s like that in every AoE, excluding AoE4, that’s the only one that has mostly stayed in 1000-1500 AD.
What do you mean.
Only 5 of the Wonders are currently located in Italy.
Gotta bump that up to 10!
Florence, Genoa, Venice, Milan, Naples all need to be their own civilisations!
