Which umbrella civs do you think should be split first? (AoE2 only)

I never said anything against that.

Here I want the opposite.

The civs which added by the developers from Forgotten are not from Ensemble Studios yes. But I still look at them as full content and try to improve on what makes sense.

Renaming the Slavs does not remove the civ himself and there are no gameplay changes involved.

If you want to improve a game, you have respect for the game itself, otherwise we would not want to improve it. This mainly refers to how the presentation of the game is.

They were natives of Iberia.

Malians are part of the “Mandé” people who are like Slavs or Dravidians. “Mandé” includes Soninke and Mandinka (Malians)

I agree

1 Like

It’s not. It’s currently at 8% of the votes, which I find surprisingly low but I guess not many people are interested in this region…
And in case you’d think I edited the poll to add it, I didn’t, all previous votes would have disappeared.

1 Like

Oops, didn’t notice, it’s there.

I’m not against renaming the Slavs, as long as the new name is appropriate.

Removing or significantly changing civs from the original release of the game is not improvement. We should leave the original civs intact or make an Age of Empires II: The Second One.

Please stop accusing me of things that I have never said. I never wrote, that we should remove a civilization from the game. A significantly changing of a game can be an improvement sure.

I do not think so. Just play the original version from 1999, then it is good for you.

Dramatically changing a civ is considered the same as removing it. The Indians are considered to be removed because they became the Hindustanis, Bengalis, Dravidians, and Gurjaras.

Then I wouldn’t have all the actual necessary improvements that DE brought.

1 Like

No definitely not. The civs are still present after changes, apart from that mostly concern it of technical things and not cosmetic things that would be noticeable.

Also wrong, the Indians are now the Hindustanis, the name is different but the graphics and units are the same as before.

Just let people have their ideas to improve the game. You do not owner of the game, you can just play it.

This isn’t an authoritative source, but the wiki considers the Indians to be removed, and that’s good enough for me.

I know. I just want to make sure people actually respect the civs from the original game and leave them mostly intact.

I think so. The game shows what you see, and that is, how it is.

The wiki can also be incorrectly described. The fact is that the Indians continue to exist also if their vernacular name has been changed.

Even you give me right in this question.

You can respect a civilization, if you want to improve it but having respect also means leaving civilization largely intact. Both are appropriate.

I disagree, some civs cover too many, often unrelated, groups of people

Only true in the case of Slaws. But you can just rename them (what isn’t necessary imo), you don’t have to change them regarding gameplay.

And what would happen to the current Vikings civ?

Nothing. The time of Vikings was between 800 and 1100. Sweden was a great power between 1611 and 1721. The Vikings also contained more than just Swedes like Norwegians and Danes, and not all Swedish were Vikings.

It is necessary imo, with the amount of Slavic civs in the game by now

As I said before, it’d be as if one of the DOI civs was still called Indians

It is necessary imo, with the amount of Slavic civs in the game by now

As I said before, it’d be as if one of the DOI civs was still called Indians

It wouldn’t be so bad imo. Once you start to change names, you get into the habit of changing it, and it may never end. But it is important that people can still recognize the civs they know. So what the name of a civ is and should be is more a question of the history of Age of Empires than real history.

One thing I as a german find a bit wrong, is that Franks are called Franks even tough they are supposed to be French. For my understanding Franks are a subgroup of the german and dutch people, from northern Bavaria to Holland. But the French see themselves as Franks successors, and even Charles the Great as a french emperor. However we should not start to rename civs. Franks in AoE2 are known as Franks, and it is important that people don’t get confused.

1 Like

I have a crippling renaming addiction, how did you know?

1 Like

Franks in the game represent both Franks and French, though imo they are actually better at representing Franks because of the throwing axeman and op paladins. To be exact, I think they are best at representing the early Carolingian Empire.

1 Like

Sinhalese, in the game, are actually represented under Dravidians Civ, not Bengalis. Please edit the respective poll options if you can.

I can’t do that without losing all votes. I also know how they are represented in campaigns, but I took some liberties to have three new civs for each (though one if the Bengalis options, the Odias or Kalingans, was censored for some reason…) The Sinhalese are often seen as part of the Bengali umbrella because they speak an Eastern Indo Aryan language rather than a Dravidian one.

In fact, the Sinhalese are more closely related to the Bengalis than to the Dravidians. Both Bengalis and Sinhalese are Indo-Aryan peoples.

In the game, however, they are represented by the Dravidians.

One dravidian AI ruler name is a sinhaleese king,ironically he is the one who drove off the cholas.

Vijayabahu (born Prince Keerthi ) (ruled 1055–1110): also known as Vijayabahu the Great , was a medieval king of Sri Lanka. Born to a royal bloodline, Vijayabahu grew up under Chola occupation. He assumed rulership of the Ruhuna principality in the southern parts of the country in 1055. Following a seventeen-year-long campaign, he successfully drove the Cholas out of the island in 1070, reuniting the country for the first time in over a century. During his reign, he re-established Buddhism in Sri Lanka and repaired much of the damage caused to infrastructure during the wars

1 Like