I know this migh be a controversial topic to start, but I wanted to say just my opinion on that subject matter.
We already have Balkan civs in the form of Magyars, Teutons (Austrians), Turks, Byzantines, Italians, Cumans, Bulgarians
We’ve seen already a lot of European civs lately and there’s a lot of other regions which have been waiting for quite some time already for new civs in Asia, Africa and the Americas. East Asia seems to be the most popular option right now, with Africa and America following closely from what I’ve seen. East Asia would give us the opportunity to add (real) Japanese, Koreans and Chinese campaigns, while the reasons for why I and some other’s want more African/American civs don’t have to be laid out again as I think it’s clear by now.
All the sets which they would fit in have been already been used a lot and there’s not a single sign that there’s going to be a new architecture set soon. They’d be civs using the Eastern European and Mediterranean set, that’s for sure, sets which even people who want more European civs agree with are overused
It’s impossible to pick 2 civs which wouldn’t lead to possibly interested costumers not being angry between the from what I’ve seen suggested Vlachs, Serbians, Croatians, Albanians, Bosnians and Venetians which have about the same importance in the region and in terms of market size are roughly similar. I don’t see them adding 3, much less more. To be honest, if I were Croatian or Bosnian, I’d feel rightly pissed why Serbians are in the game but my country not, as I’ve seen some Serbians here deny the history of their neighbours like they wouldn’t have had their own kingdoms in their region. Tvrtko the First might be not a name for everybody, but it’s definitely a name for Bosnians e.g. Or Tomislav for the Croats. Or Skanderbeg for the Albanians. It’s just going to go out of control if not all of them are going to be added, which I think is not going to happen. Nothing against Serbians, but this attitude is the exact reason why I think a Balkan DLC is a bad idea. I mention Serbians as this is what I’ve seen the most so far here, but I think this counts also the other way round.
I imagine it being a relatively small market right now. Who are you going to sell it to? People which want more European civs which, as we’ve seen in previous polls are definitely not the majority. A minority which can’t even agree with which civs they want, as it ranges from Spanish splits to Slavs splits, basically just being splits of civs which alreay have partially representation as far as I can see.
There’s not a single one, I repeat, a single civ in Europe which comes even close to being culturally differentiated, populous as Indians which would justify a rework like the Indians had. I’d argue that a Balkan DLC would be the equivalent of doing a Dravidian rework. One can do it, but some would say that a Dravidian rework is unnecessary. So you see, it’s a matter of perspective.
May they do one day a Balkan DLC? Maybe, especially with one of their devs having origins from there. Do I think it’s a good idea? Definitely not, but to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me anymore.
This is just my opinion and you can disagree with and keep posting Balkan DLC civ suggestions. I just wanted to get that out.
Which in return means, that it will be basically impossible to add any combination of these cultures in the game (or one single one) as it would be seen as impropriate for some states.
Microsoft won’t risk the game being banned in some countries just because of a simple dlc.
The only civ I see could be addes without issues is the vlachs/romanians. But that wouldn’t be a full Balkan DLC, just one civ there - and the quetsion which oter civ should come with it? Cause as I see all civs they interacted with militarily are already in the game (outside of the Balkan). Ofc we could see this paired with Rus or something as an “east europe” expansion, but the interactions are very limited.
It’s a bit sad, but for me this cultural mess is the main Reason we won’t see a Balkan DLC.
And there’s literally no reason to argue in any way with relevance or cultural destinction or whatever.
They added Spanish 25 years ago but Basque are not angry it seems.
If in 2024 you’re Serbian and get angry cause they added Albanians and not you or the other way you must be some kind of… Unacknowledged genius.
Yes, I wouldn’t mind getting other regions first. Content is content.
Yes, and this is sad. Everyone on the forums and on Steam needs to send the devs requests for new architecture, making it clear that we want it, and that reusing existing sets is totally unacceptable.
Then don’t pick 2. Pick 4. If the civs I chose were the ones, only the Bosnians would be left out, and they might prefer that they aren’t in the game to be conquered by Serbians.
Side note: The negative relationship among Balkan nations is exaggerated. From what I’ve read, they actually get along pretty well nowadays.
How about people like me who buy every expansion, no matter the quality and price, as long as they add new civs (that’s right, I’m a filthy pay-to-winner)?
I have nothing to say about the last point as it’s actually a good point. I’ll just say that as someone with predominantly European heritage, I find the European civs and campaigns most compelling, as they are relatable. Most of the campaigns I did first were European. A Balkan DLC would grant the opportunity to have truly interconnected and lifelike campaigns in the vein of Dawn of the Dukes (which has the best campaigns in the game for that reason). It’s harder to have that interconnectivity for regions of the world with historically isolated civs (let’s just say that Pachacuti will probably be the last campaign I do). To me, campaigns help history to come alive, so it’s important to pick civs that can introduce good ones.
I have created three themes for this: Concepts of Central/East Asian DLCs, Campaign DLC Concept for Japanese and Korean, and Concepts of new African DLCs.
The first one had the most echoes, the second one had much less, and the third one had meaningful echoes from only one man. Unfortunately, all the three tend to have less echoes than a random European civ concept, even though those European concpets are considered by the majority of people here as not urgently needed.
This is a problem faced by almost all regions. For example, East Asia now has five civs.
It can be a DLC with as few as 1 new civ but more than 3 new campaigns.
The Vlachs as the only new civ, and new campaigns for Vlachs (Dracula remake), Magyars, Slavs and Turks.
As a result, in Europe only the Romans and Vikings would not have campaigns. Maybe this DLC can also include the Viking campaign, or make the V&V provide Viking campaign as a kind of remedy. The Roman campaign can be introduced alongside potential new RoR content (possibly including Vandals for AoE2).
Out of the 7 listed civs. Only 3 are arguably balkans (Byzantine & Turkish territory was mostly outside the Balkans), and only 1 Bulgarians is really balkan.
We have seen a lot of Western & Eastern European civs, not balkans. There are 13 Western European civs, and 7 Eastern European civs. Out of the 7 Eastern European civs, only 1 is Balkan.
Having Indians as only 1 civ was enough of an issue to make a DLC to split the indians into 3.
Bohemians were Central European in Architecture so they should be moved there.
Bulgarians, Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians were under the Byzantine Empire at some point, so their buildings style were influenced by the Byzantines. NEW: Byzantine set.
The same is true for Africa, Asia and America. Everybody asks for different civs.
But from what I’ve seen in Balkans civ discussions the top seems to be:
Slavs renamed to Ruthenians
Romanians
Serbs
Croats
Of course it’s a “small market” when some of the pro-Africa, pro-Asia are more anti-Europe than pro-Africa, pro-Asia. I have never seen pro-Europe coming to hate on pro-Africa and pro-Asia topics. But I have seen plenty of pro-Africa and pro-Asia coming to hate on pro-Europe topic. To the point where the mods even banned some of the topics because of the conflict there. This was not balkan civ 1 vs balkan civ 2. This was pro-Balkan civ vs Balkan civ hater for some reason.
I never understood this, I don’t like regional skins. But never in my life went to a regional skins topic to say “regional skins suck”. Disagreement is fine, hate is not.
So yes the pro-Balkan people feel a bit discriminated because of the behavior of some people from the pro-Africa and pro-Asia camps.
Here Balkans were 5th place:
Caucasus (Georgians, Armenians, Azeri…) 25%
Central/South Africa (Swahili, Congelese, Shona…) 22%
Here 43% of forum users said they want “more than 50%” European civs.
43% More than 50%
30% Around 50%
27% Less than 50%
125/254 votes said yes for new European civs.
82 said no for new Euroepean civs.
42 said maybe.
When it comes to the regions:
125 said Balkans.
62 said Central Europe
62 said Western Europe.
There are more topics like these.
Do you want to see Mounted Archers like the Mongols and European Knights with Venetian Armor in the same army and civilization? there’s a civ that used both indiscriminately because was right at the breaking point between East and West, and had equal influences from both.
Likely the only civ where having Cavalry Archers, Paladin and Steppe Lancer in the same civ would be historically accurate. Because yes they used all 3.
Do you want to see powerful Halberdiers? There’s a civ who had 2 armies: large host (professional army, the ones mentioned above) and small host (peasant army), but this was no simple peasant army, every peasant forced by law to be trained by his lord once a month, was required by law to carry a weapon with him all the time, even when working in the field, and those that refused were put to death.
You think bandits are attacking that village? good luck plundering a village of armed and trained once a month men.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg, one can only attribute this “the balkans were not culturally different from the rest of Europe” to lack of knowledge on the Balkans.
In conclusion:
Only 1 of the 7 civs you mentioned is Balkan. (I don’t even know how you made the Teutons and Italians balkan?! that’s like saying the Koreans are Indians)
We’ve seen a lot of Western Europe and Eastern Europe lately, not Balkans. And those were some of the best DLCs if we are looking at sales.
You can always add a new architecture set.
Only seems like this from the outside, the list from people who want Balkans is pretty clear: 1. Slavs renamed to Ruthenians; 2. Romanians; 3. Serbs; 4. Croats. And again, say you want to add Africa or Asia, will there not be discussions which civs to add? most of the hate on the Balkans come from people who don’t want Balkans, rather than the people who want balkans but “can’t decide on the civs” quote unquote.
There is no small market, see the given topic as examples. What there really is, is some pro-Africa and pro-Asia players coming on balkan topics to hate on the balkans, I have never seen the reverse.
I just listed a few differences in their armies, there is more. Of course is looks like a copy of western europe and eastern europe when one doesn’t know anything about the balkans. China is a copy of Japan if one doesn’t know anything about China.
The Moldavians. And Wallachians to a lesser extent.
Here are some of their units:
Viteji (medium cavalry melee sword & ranged bow: goal - beats heavy cavalry in range, beats light cavalry/horse archers in melee) → Part of the Large Host. Literally “Brave Ones”. they are soldiers who gained lands and property through bravery in warfare. The viteji are therefore, as expected, among the most resolute and brave warriors a ruler could ask for. Like many elements of Romanian cavalry, the Viteji show influences both from the East and West, and their style of warfare imitates that of Cuman or Tatar armored horse archers.
By their nature they are very versatile cavalry. In battle, the voievod would use these troops to counter the enemy’s cavalry flanks, either by engaging light cavalry in melee or harassing and exhausting heavy cavalry, then providing the decisive charge into the enemy’s flanks.
Budget Viteji, Calarasi (light cavalry, same as Viteji in armament) → Part of the Small Host. Literally “Riders”. These soldiers were peasants who were given land in exchange for military service, and retained their land so long as they remained as a readily-available force for the voievod. They are lightly armored compared to the Viteji, but this also allowed them to be faster.
They were a very successful military instrument, remaining a significant part of the Wallachian army up until 1600, and form a potent counter to other horse archers on melee.
Nemesi (heavy cavalry with lances and shields) → Large Host. These were soldiers who reached a rank of low nobility through bravery in warfare.
Curteni (light cavalry with lances and shields) → Large Host. Literally “Men of the Court”. They are not as armored as the Viteji, nor as fast as the Calarasi, but given the tradition of light cavalry in Romanian armies, they are form a versatile screen for the Calarasi. Their lances with low armor allows them to harass enemy units.
Their armor is very light, though this aids in their speed. They wield a spear or a lance in battle, omitting the benefit of a ranged weapon in favor of a large shield. They can perform devastating charges repeatedly due to their light equipment, but should not be expected to hold off a well-armed opponent.
Princely Bodyguards (Most armored, Lance and shield, the best of the best, Paladin Lancers) → Large Host. These were the bodyguards of the noblemen or of the voivod.
These men are equipped with the finest arms and armor money can buy, often with platemail bought from Venice or other Italian cities. It was even said in a chronicle that the Wallachian voievod Vladislav-Vlaicu bought 10,000 suits of Venetian plate armor in anticipation of warfare against the Hungarians. These form the elite of Wallachian heavy cavalry.
Armas → Large Host. Literally “armored”. Halberdiers. These are the elite infantry. Alongside their military role, they also act as a corps of gendarmes, keeping order in the country and upholding the voievod’s laws. They are armed with halberds or other polearms, and dress in the best armors available. They are possibly the best-supplied footmen in the country.
Budget Armar: Portar, but still more armored than a regular Halbedier → Small Host. Literally “Gatekeeper”. Heavily heavily armored pikemen. The Romanian principalities relied mainly on hit and run tactics with light cavalry and archer units so the Portar will be a valueable anti-rush unit for defense.
These are only a few.
But you can see how different they are from both regular Paladin & infantry with sword and shield from the West. And regular horse riders with only the lightest clothers from the East.
They did not discriminate in terms of military doctrine. If there is a combo of weapons & armor, the Romanians probably tried it.
Small host even had regiments full of peasants with axes and a shield. Or spear & bow in the same unit.
Not to mention the colored eastern-style clothes on an armored western-style unit.
Other Balkan civs also had unique units, but this is already too long. Serbian Hajduks became most popular and romanticized in the 16th century, but they existed as early as the 14th century (well within AoE2’s timeline) and unlike Robin Hood, they were real. There’s also the Caroni with Gunpowder & swords, or the Krajisnici who would camouflage in the woods.
Rename the current slavs to russians and give them a campaign (Nevski, Donskoj, Ivan III or Ivan IV)
Add valachs/romanians because they are a campaign civ.
Add veneti/slavs who can represent the early umbrella slavs with such leaders as eg Niklot 1, make them like celts.
Give the byzantines a new architecture set and make bulgarians, romanians, armenians and georgians share it too.
That’s not my most recent poll on the topic, I realeased another one after tMR and Balkans were far below, possibly because it felt too close to the Caucasus. To my surprise (and to be honest, a little bit of concern), it scored even lower than Italy.
I ended up going with the Dorobanti as the Castle UU, an infantry unit that absorbs 25% of all non-targeted melee damage in a 1.5 tile radius. How it works is that any other unit taking melee damage has the incoming damage reduced by 25%, including bonus damage, if they are within that radius. Then the Dorobanti takes a negligible 1 damage for its trouble. However, that damage reduction doesn’t apply to the damage directly targeting it.
The Viteji is what I chose as the secondary UU. It will be a further upgrade to the Heavy Cavalry Archer.
So? There are other civs in the game that never had empires. As long as they had a sizeable enough military and weren’t conquered without putting up a fight, I’d say they were important enough to include.
That infantry unit that absorbs 25% of all non-targeted melee damage in a 1.5 tile radius is oddly specific and situational. What made you consider such a specific bonus?
Dorobanti as far as I know are a little bit late to the party for AoE2. They work perfectly for AoE3, being founded in 1657, but that’s well after AoE2’s timeline. And even before 1600s, Romanians were never big on Hand Cannoneers.
I don’t want to influence your decision because I really want to see what you will come up with on your own.
But in case you are interested:
I would put as the castle unit either:
Viteji as a melee/range hybrid unit, one that can beat the Hussars in melee but loses to Paladin in melee. And a more or less equal vs Cavalry Archers. Of course they take damage from anti-cavalry and anti-archers alike so watch out with that.
Princely Bodyguards ignores armor as a Lettis but with a Paladins’ stats. The idea is that it will be very good but likely one of the most expensive units in the game. The “trump card” if you have the resources. If you want to use the native name it’s “Ciohodar” or plural “Ciohodari”. It’s of Turkic origin but in Romanian meant “servant of the voivode”.
As for the 2nd unique unit I would make an upgrade from Halebardier to either Portar/Armas. Basically being a nod to the Small Host. Trained peasants > Untrained peasants. This upgrade will not give extra damage against cavalry but will give them more resistance vs other infantry & more armor against archers. Maybe even bonus damage vs buildings. Essentially, making them middle of the road between a Halberdier and a Champion.
The Dorobanți first appeared in the 16th century in the armies of Michael the Brave, being both infantry and cavalry soldiers equipped with firearms.
Michael the Brave ruled in 1599 - 1601, so that’s really the end of the 16th century. That’s when they appeared for the first time as irregulars, but in 1657 were made an official part of the main army.
The 18th century is when the Princely Bodyguards colloquially came to be known as 'Ciohodari’, but by the time that happened the “Paladin Lancers” medieval weaponry was long gone. As they had no official distinct name before that, they were just “Princely Bodyguards”, “Garda Domneasca” (the guard of the ruler) in its literal translation or "Garda Curtii Domnesti’ (the guard of the ruler’s court).
If you wish for an elite non-cavalry unit I think Armas is the best option. Or Portar depending on how armored you want to make them.
Other options would be:
Strajeri Infantry
The word ‘straja’ has slavic origins and stands for ‘guard’. The strajeri are peasants from certain villages which were given the task of guarding the land against raiders. The villages of strajeri were located in the valleys where important rivers came through the mountains, along the important commercial roads. During the times of peace the strajeri acted as the town watch and kept vigil from strategic outposts. During the times of war the task of the strajeri is to ensure that the roads are safe for the passing of the Great Host and scout the enemy positions. The strajeri come from both the ranks of the land owning peasants but also from amongst the serfdom. The commanders of the strajeri are called ‘vatafi’. The strajeri use little armour but their traditional wool clothing and a wooden shield to defend themselves and are armed with spears. Since they are lightly armed and armoured they should not be relied upon too much on the field of battle except to form a sponge against charges by using their shields and spears.
Plaiesi Archers
The Plaiesi are the inhabitants of the villages in the mountainous regions close to the borders of Moldova. Their name comes from the word ‘plai’ meaning mountain plains. The task of the Plaiesi is to guard the mountain passes and man the border fortresses. The obligation of the villagers from these settlements to guard the borders dates from before the foundation of the feudal state when the villages had the knezes as their overlords. This obligation has not changed but instead of the knez the villagers now owe their fealty to the Voivode. The Plaiesi are usually free peasants, however on occasion serf villages from the border regions also have the obligation to join their ranks. For the role in protecting the borders the Plaiesi received fiscal benefits and certain tax cuts, especially being exempt from paying the customs duties. The Plaiesi are not allowed to abandon their guard posts and are severely punished if caught. Since they live close to the border regions and the mountain passes the Plaiesi know the terrain very well and are very mobile being able to use secret passes and less known ways. The main weapon of the Plaiesi is the recurve bow and they are protected by nothing more than their traditional and woolen clothing. They should be placed behind the main lines to support the better armoured units or sent out as scouts, skirmishers or to flank the enemy armies.
########## Handgunners***
The first recorded use of handguns in the Principalities is in the XVth century. The Wallachian Voivode Vlad the Impaler and the Moldavian Voivode Stefan the Great successfully used handheld arquebuses in several battles including the Battle of Valea Alba in 1476 and at the Battle of Vaslui in 1475 when Stefan ordered his artilery, followed by the archers and handgunners to fire on the Ottoman army from three sides. However, the Wallachians and Moldavians themselves refused to use gunpowder until later on because it was associated with brimstone and the devil. As such, in the XVth century the handgunner corps of both Moldova and Wallachia were made up mainly of mercenaries, generally Hungarians, Szekely, Germans, Serbians, Bulgarians and other South Danube nations. The word ######### literally means wage earners as the hangunners served in exchange for wages. By the start of the XVIth century the locals started using the arquebus and joined the ranks of the ######## In Moldova the arquebusiers were known as ‘sânețari’ from the word ‘sâneață’ meaning gun and in Wallachia they were known as ######### with the same meaning. These men are armed with experimental weapons which have more an psychological impact on the enemy. The handguns can not be used in rainy weather and are prone to misfire but if used at the right moment they can break the morale of the enemy and cause them to rout.
I believe ####### would be closest to your original idea of Handgunners like Dorobanți.
##############################################################
Got to love forum censorship feature.
Their name is ##### but with a Le at the start. Like the French “Le” but glued together with the word. So Le plus ############### ##############################################################
Sigh
Right after: “Other troops consisted of professional foot soldiers”
