In the original version more than today. In the DE, the authors have changed the interface, and it now shows the Biscione of Milan instead. In addition, the campaign concerns the Sforza family, the future lords of Milan. Just something Venetian is missing, since by the way Pavese originated in Tuscany before spreading throughout Italy. But at least that is the direction.
1 Like
I perfectly know what they are supposed to represent, but it doesnât prevent me from interpreting.
To be honest, I am not sure the Burgundians had the best reception ever. Both because of their similarities to the Franks and because their major difference (the Flemish revolution) was completely foreign to the mechanics of aoe2.
I think adding a unique unit and/or tech representing Venice would already be enough to cover the Venetians. The two unique tech for the Italians donât really have the best names either. The Pavise is just the Genoese crossbowman shield and âsilk roadâ is too generic.
Iâve been saying it for years. Lords of the West was a mistake.
Wonky civs both conceptually and especially designwise.
5 Likes
Agreed on this, whether calling them that or maybe Moors, and having them replace the Saracens in the El Cid campaign too. This is the one Saracen split item I think reaches the level of a need personally.
Iâve never been super bullish on a Venetian civ but its been the only one iâve been willing to consider, but this is a good point, maybe just a tweak or two to reference Venice should be good.
Iâll be honest I donât think Burgundians would have been added if it wasnât for the Joan of Arc campaign. I think the storytelling they are used for in campaigns is solid, but beyond that iâm not a huge fan of the civ. And yeah them having Burgundians double as the representation for the Low CountriesâŠwas an odd choice.
2 Likes
Well said. The âBohemian realmâ. Remember what I told you previously?
Thank you for pointing that out yourself.
No. In the game they are not. This is why you have Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian civs. Separate civs. Romans were already a controversial civ to begin with because of the timeline, remember itâs release? The West Romans didnât exist in the dark age. The game is supposed to take place in the middle ages.
According to your logic they should be a celtic tribe if one goes for naming only. But nope. The civ ingame represents both Bohemia and Moravia. Look at the compendium:
The resulting power vacuum was soon filled by the rising empire of Great Moravia. Striving for legitimacy, its early rulers opened relations with the Byzantine Empire, inviting Orthodox missionaries into their lands. This brief trend was reversed under Svatopluk I (c. 840-894), who ascended to power by allying himself with the Franks and deposing his uncle Rastislav. A shrewd politician and able commander, Svatopluk used his reign to expand his empire from Moravia and Bohemia into Poland and Pannonia, eventually dying as he livedâin war.
And now letâs see one AI leader name of this civ that appears during skirmishes:
Svatopluk I: A ruler of Great Moravia, which attained its maximum territorial expansion during his reign (870â871, 871â894).
QED.
Actually funny how you feel to debate something which could be resolved by just reading the gameâs own history section for 2 minutes.
So the Romans donât represent the latin civs? The barbarians just started learning and speaking latin through Duolingo or what? They randomly felt like building colosseums and aqueducts next to their mudhuts? You clearly donât believe your own implications.
The game starts as the roman empire declines. Hence the Attila campaign is part of the original expansion. The game is supposed to take place exactly from there on. Or youâre playing a different gameâŠ
1 Like
Itâs kind of not worth it. There are more important things to do.
I laughed more than I should have
At this point Iâd be happy if Slavs got renamed to Ruthenians and then they only added Vlachs, Muscovites or Serbs/Croats. Then rename the Italians to Genoese and add the Venetians. All in one DLC
The Slavs and Italians as it is fall in a lesser problem as the old Indians civ, where because they are civs added in The Forgotten, theyâre supposed to represent a large swathe of ethnicities and cultures due to the fact it they originated from a mod where the purpose was to include as many prominent civs as they can into the base game which shouldâve been there in at launch or in an expansion.
Hence diversifying them in this way is necessary in my opinion, since AoE2 by definition does not add Civs in this manner anymore. Civs will become more and more like what happened to the Indians or the Persians in the near future.
Main problem is the campaign is based on Milan,it wont affect the gameplay but might be immersion breaking for some.
We already have the Italians, Sicilians, Romans, Byzantines, Goths and to some extent the Teutons. Do we really need more civs for Italy?
Maybe I could get behind adding the Lombards/Longobards to some extent (and that is pushing it), but the Venetians would be very similar to the current Italian civ ( which I donât t think it should be renamed to Genoese either). Then what? Should we add the Tuscans? The Piadmontese? The Milanese?
At least I can understand adding something to the Balkans, but donât see the point with Italy.
3 Likes
Venetians, Genoese are both Italians with the same culture. Waste of civ slots.
Musvoites, Novgorod, Kievan Rus are all Ruthenians, waste of civ slots again. They are all represented by Slavs.
1 Like
Those could be used for a Chronicles DLC on Charlemagne
No.
Slavs in aoe2 only represent Rus, Ruthenians or whatever you want to call them. East Slavs.
So all three Kievan Rus, Novgorod and Moscow.
There are actually already a few scenarios on some campaigns, like Bari and the Hautevilles, that already feature the Lombard.
Exactly, since they only represent East Slavs now, the name of the civ should be Rus or Ruthenians (which I personally prefer).
You are factually wrong and idk why you try to gaslight me.
From the official compendium:
AoE 2 DE history compendium
Mass fifth century migrations caused by the Hunnic invasions left northeastern Europe an area open for settlement and, starting circa 500 AD, the Slavs became the regionâs dominant civilization. Although archaeological evidence indicates that the Slavs had already settled Europe in prior centuries, possibly in the areas of present-day Ukraine and Belarus, the historical record first makes mention of them through Byzantine writings describing the large numbers of Slavs massing near their borders. Upon settling down, the Slavs established several competing states throughout Eastern Europe, falling into either the Byzantine or Holy Roman spheres of influence.
The first great Slavic state, the Bulgarian Empire, formed in 681 AD. This nation was founded by the Bulgars, a Turkic people that settled in the Eastern Balkans (north of the Byzantine Empire). However, the Bulgarian Empire expanded into most of the Balkans, which was by then mainly Slavic, and by the tenth century the state was effectively Slavicized. The Bulgarian Empire played an important role in the consolidation of Slavic civilization, with its language becoming a lingua franca for the spread for Christianity and literacy in Eastern Europe.
Another important medieval Slavic state, Great Moravia, formed in Central Europe after the union of the Principalities of Nitra and Moravia in 833. Although Great Moravia never achieved a dominant position, it played a crucial role in the balance of power between the Franks, Bulgarians, and Byzantines. When King Rastislav of Great Moravia asked the Byzantines for help in translating Christian texts into Slavic, the Byzantine missionaries entrusted with the task, Cyril and Methodius, successfully developed the first Slavic alphabet and wrote down the oldest text in Slavic literature (a translation of the Christian Gospel) in 863.
Perhaps the last great medieval Slavic state was formed around Kiev, in present-day Ukraine, in 882 AD. This Kievan Rusâ kingdom, although mostly populated by Slavs, was led by Scandinavians (called Rusâ) who took power in the area by defeating the ruling Turkic Khazars. The liberation of this and several other Slavic cities allowed them to focus more on internal development rather than on serving foreign lands. The region benefited economically from its geography, as it was located in the middle of the Europe-Asia trade route and close to the Byzantines and Persians. Under the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, the Kievan state not only became the largest of its time, but also achieved a high literacy rate, provided property rights to women, and punishments under law generally did not involve death sentences. However, the death of Yaroslav led to the gradual disintegration of the state, which finally fell to the Mongols by 1240 AD.
During the Middle Ages, Slavic governments followed a feudal system, but in contradiction to other parts of Europe the power of the kings was constrained by that of high-ranking aristocrats called boyars. Boyars not only were powerful landowners with several serfs under their command, but they also were generally leaders of the military and government agencies. The alliance and competition among these aristocrats shaped the economic development of the Slavic states, improving the vitality of their domains but weakening the central governments. By the Late Middle Ages, the rise of absolute monarchs led to the downfall of the boyars.
So clearly the compendium talks about one slavic civilization, stretching over central Europe, also within the Balkans, eventually forming the Bulgarian Empire, great Moravia and the Rus. These first two are not east slavs as you understand them.
Boyars arenât exclusively eastern slav.
Orthodoxy isnât either.
The castle isnât eastern slav.
The whole civ identity of siege infantry doesnât fit the east, who were most prominent at defending against mongols, not sieging their what? yurts?
Siege was maybe done around the Byzantine and Balkan south
Draculaâs slav campaign is closer to Balkans
And so on and so forth
1 Like
Iâm factually right. Slavs used to cover all Slavs. But ever since Bulgarians, Poles and Bohemians got added, they only represent Rus/Ruthenians.
They donât have to be exclusive. Composite Bowman wasnât not exclusive to Armenians. Cataphracts werenât exclusive to Byzantines. Steppe Husbandry wasnât exclusive to Cumans. Forced Levy wasnât exclusive to Malay etc.
Whatâs the problem here? 6 civs share the same castle, of course, it will fit some better than others.
Dracula isnât even a campaign for Slavs only wdym? Itâs shared between Slavs, Magyars (40-40%) and Turks. (20%)