Future New Factions

[Arnoldo Boczelli]

I think that this factions should be added to the game :

Nubians
Kongo
Somalis
Pueblo
Iroquois
Chimu
Muisca
Zapotecs
Chanka
Tanguits
Tibet
Hephthalites
Serbs
Tai
Delhi Sultanate
Wallachia
Moldova
Sorbs (White Serbs)
Switzerland
Venice
Swedes
Tarascans
Mississppians
Vlachs
Papal States
Polynesians
Melanesians
Khazars
Chams
Makurians
Vandals
Old Prussians
Croats
Tlaxcallans
Austria
Republic of Novogorod
Grand Duchy of Moscow

Slavs should be renamed to Kievan Rus

What do you think about this?

[BuchiTaton]

jonoliveira12 a écrit :

It would be very easy to do, since they havev a lot of unused models in the Map Editor, and would only need to add another 1 or 2.

-Give Lancer to Western Europeans as Anti Cavalry unit with more armour but less healthand speed than the Heavy Camel, available only in the Imperial Age.
-Give Heavy Pikeman to Souther European, Japanese and Koreans (because those do not have Camels) as Imperial Age Anti Cavalry Infantry, with good Pierce Armour, costing Wood and Gold, making it so that they do not replace the Halberdier, but also representing the long life of the Pike ion Battlefields worldwide.
-Give Maceman (new unit) to Eastern European civs, as good Anti Siege Infantry with a lot of Melee and Pierce Armour, but slow and expensive.
-Give Poleaxeman to Germanic/North European civs, as cheap but frail Anti Infantry Infantry, with trample damage.

And Voila! We would get more unique cultural differenciation in the game.

I like the idea of Maceman as Anti Siege Infantry. Seems more circumstantial, so less ballance breaker.

Personally I would not have problem with any big additions to current civs, but multiplayer ballance and the "meta" is so important that devs cant do any significant change without get a huge riot.

[VithaR]

Soully a écrit :

Temujin a écrit :

another round of balkan nationalism? in fact it was the vlachs who were the newcommers who 'moved around', or more specifically moved into territories then inhabited by slavs and cumans. before the end of the second bulgarian empire, vlachs are not mentioned in any sources north of the danube before the 13th century. the ethnogenesis of the romanians started at this time and no earlier. claims that romanians inhabited the area since roman times are chauvinistic fabrications.

That's not the correct use of Chuavinistic.

Romanians did not inhabit the area since Roman times, but their ancestors, the Pastores Romanos, along with Illyrian Refugees, did. They came to the Danube and displaced the already local populations.

By the 9th Century the Vlachs were already a people, and they had a nasty reputation (much like the Magyars) of being raiders.

They really expanded around the 10th century however as a subject people of the Byzantines, as well as the 11th. (With both an invasion and a revolt n what is then North Byzantium)

Then in the 12th century is when things get crazy. Assault on the Slavs of Transylvania, battle with the Magyars, and the Formation of the Kingdom of Vlachs and Bulgars, which was led by a Bulgarian king but a big portion of the place was Vlachs. Every Century after this, the Vlachs are a major player in Balkan politics.

The Vlachs existed independently starting with the Dridu culture in 800, and would remain so until they were conquered by the Mongols. It was after the Mongols that Moldavia and Wallachia formed from former Bulgaria, Byzantium, and Mongolian Danubia, but this was a continuation of a culture that already existed.

There was no ''Kingdom of Vlachs and Bulgarians'' , this is pop-culture Romanian Propaganda.
Only real thing was 2nd Bulgarian empire.

[Soully]

VithaR a écrit :

Soully a écrit :

That's not the correct use of Chuavinistic.

Romanians did not inhabit the area since Roman times, but their ancestors, the Pastores Romanos, along with Illyrian Refugees, did. They came to the Danube and displaced the already local populations.

By the 9th Century the Vlachs were already a people, and they had a nasty reputation (much like the Magyars) of being raiders.

They really expanded around the 10th century however as a subject people of the Byzantines, as well as the 11th. (With both an invasion and a revolt n what is then North Byzantium)

Then in the 12th century is when things get crazy. Assault on the Slavs of Transylvania, battle with the Magyars, and the Formation of the Kingdom of Vlachs and Bulgars, which was led by a Bulgarian king but a big portion of the place was Vlachs. Every Century after this, the Vlachs are a major player in Balkan politics.

The Vlachs existed independently starting with the Dridu culture in 800, and would remain so until they were conquered by the Mongols. It was after the Mongols that Moldavia and Wallachia formed from former Bulgaria, Byzantium, and Mongolian Danubia, but this was a continuation of a culture that already existed.

There was no ''Kingdom of Vlachs and Bulgarians'' , this is pop-culture Romanian Propaganda.
Only real thing was 2nd Bulgarian empire.

How do you reason? It's not like the Romanians weren't there. Even if it wasn't named this the Vlachs were very much a part of the Second Bulgarian.

[B8B3B]

vlachs aren't romanians. romanians are slavs and cumans and a vlach minority which merged to become romanians who speak a heavily slavicized romance language. there are still vlach minorities in greece and other balkan countries today.

[Medve]

How about a crusader civ? Knights templar? Hospitaller knights? Or even better a topic for new UU for the scenario editor.

[hbarudi]

The problem with this crusade related stuff is that we already have those campaigns and those new units would need to edit the original campaigns especially saladin, ghenghis khan, and barbarossa campaigns.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Hey guys, you didn't think I'd entirely miss the party, did you?

I've been monitoring forgottenempires.net regularly this last year, and saw today that they announced the DE a month ago.


Taking in all the news... please let me breathe for a moment...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . .


Okay, first of all the graphics look good, as far as we can tell from the screenshots. The art style hasn't really been changed, some of the sets seem to have been reworked a bit, good so far.

. . . . .

Now to the civ announcements ...

You are aware that the devs probably won't add any more civs after 35, right? Here's the recent interview:

https://www.pcgamesn.com/age-of-empires-2-definitive-edition/new-civs

pcgamesn a écrit :

We’ve covered so much of the world now in terms of that period that, after a lot of discussions, we finally fell on to telling the stories of the fallout of the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ empire, which is what The Last Khans is all about.

Well, technically we've proven in our thread that this statement is wrong, because there are quite some stories left to tell, but okay, let's leave this statement at that.


Moving on...

If there really has to be a stop at 35 civs, they could have done something reasonable like this:

1. Tamils (representing the Dravidian group)
2. Manchus / Jurchens AND/OR Tibetans
3. Turcomans
4. Balts

Preferably both Manchus and Tibetans, so that we could arrive at 36 civs.

Georgians would have been a nice touch, too, but if we have to prioritize here, the small countries have to go. Balts are just so super important for the late Middle Ages, that they are higher on the list than Georgians IMO.

Plus, you may notice that my main point of criticism has always been that the super-large civs "Indians", "Chinese", "Turks" and "Slavs", which are far too large-stretched umbrellas, needed more representatives. That is just what I did here:

- "Indians" got the Dravidians added.

- "Chinese" got the Manchus AND/OR Tibetans added, which really need to be separated from Han China.

- "Turks" got the more nomadic eastern fraction added, the Turcomans.

- "Slavs" got at least a neighbouring civ added, the Balts.



----------------

But I got a suspicion that the devs will royally screw it up and give us "Turcomans" only, under the name "Tatars", while the other civs that should reasonably be added will not be there.

I mean, I might be wrong and the devs could add exactly the civs that I proposed:

- Turcomans: for self-explanatory reasons

- Balts: They could in theory be fitted into the "Last Khans" theme. The time frame fits and there were actual fights of the Balts against the "Khans".

- Manchus or Tibetans: Err I don't know. Sure the Mongols conquered Tibet, but that would not fall into the "Late Khans" period, but into an earlier one. Fits into the theme with a lot of fantasy, I suppose?

- Dravidians: Nope, doesn't fit into the theme at all.



But hey, I still got the last hope that they use the theme in a very lose fashion. I mean, "The Conquerors" brought us Koreans, who didn't fit into the theme at all, right?

Why not do the same here and give us Dravidians, although they don't really fit.

But that is probably wishful thinking.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What do you think?

At this point, the devs could still save it. But I fear that they don't see the same URGENCY to add important civs like Tamils and another China-related civ, but that they really feel that the civ pool is "pretty much finished" and see nothing wrong with China and India having only one civ each.

Let me just point this out for everyone to take note:

There is a lot wrong with having only one Indian and Chinese civ in the game, respectively. It doesn't reflect the real power distribution during the Middle Ages at all, if you condense these peoples into just one civ each (among 35).

Please devs, get reasonable here. The civ pool can still be saved.

And yes, I am a studied historian, got a Master's degree. I was hoping that the AoE2 devs would keep developing the civ pool towards representing the whole world somewhat proportionately to where the real political and military power was.

[B8B3B]

welcome back.

to bring you up to date: lithuanians will be added which cover the baltic civs plus on the screenshots you can see they will get a polish winged hussar unit too. yes, everyone can ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stop suggesting the poles, please?!

"tatars" are really timurids. odd naming choice but ok. the other two civs are bulgars and cumans. nothign much yet to say about them.

completely agree that georgians/armenians and tibetans still missing. also indians should be split in further civs. also on board with tabgach/khitans/jurchens/tanguts. much of this has been discussed here already.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

Well that's at least 2 out of 4.


If those are the civs, my criticism is only hardened, though:

The devs feel we need 5 Turkic-Mongolic civs (Huns, Mongols, Bulgars, Cumans, Tatars) while at the same time we got 1 civ for India and 1 for China.

I hate to say it, but those are not the real power distributions of the Middle Ages. Not by a long shot.

The Sinophere (larger China) covered 20% of the world population.

The Indian subcontinent also covered 20% of the world population.


Only way to fix the game after this royal screw-up would be to add another expansion and go up to 40 civs. If they really wanted to end it at 35, they should have made very different choices.

[Cats. Just Cats.]

SilverSquid1810 a écrit :

Prosecutor Lurker a écrit :

https://www.pcgamesn.com/age-of-empires-2-definitive-edition/new-civs

No more civs

That's probably not going to stop the discussion. Lots of people will likely still fantasize about new civs, even if they apparently won't be implemented.

Oops, yeah I missed that link was already posted. Will read through the rest of this thread soon.


I guess for a final DLC (bringing the civs up to 40), the title that I proposed a while ago would be suitable:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Lost Empires
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It would be a non-regional theme that allows for adding civs from all around the world, similar to what "The Conquerors" and "The Forgotten" did.

Clearly Central Asia is done with the "Last Khans" DLC, so the chances for Georgians in the future would be nil. If they wanted Georgians, they should have done them. But let's look at what else is left:


=> The 4 core civs that I'd put in there:

- Indosphere: my proposal - Tamils (representing the Dravidian group)

- Sinosphere: my proposal - Manchus / Jurchens

- Africa: my proposal - Swahilis

- America: my proposal - Teotihuacans


I admit that the Teotihuacans are the weakest candidate in this list, but I think that America should get a fourth civ if the whole civ pool is gonna be 40 civs. Otherwise America would be underrepresented. I was considering Mapuche as a candidate, but they would look really weird if they got the same architecture as the others (Aztec-style), which just wouldn't fit them.

Plus with Teotihuacans we can have a true pre-European campaign and move away from that Eurocentric view.


=> Possible candidates for a fifth civ - pick one of these:

- Indosphere: Bengalis

- Sinosphere: Tibetans, OR: Tais / Nanchaos

- Africa: Nubians

- America: add both Mapuche and Muisca, if we cut the Teotihuacans at the same time; Mapuche, Muisca and Incas could then share a new "Andean" architecture


These are pretty much my old proposals from a year ago, adjusted to the new circumstances of the "Last Khans" DLC having come out.

Personally I'd probably pick a civ from the Indosphere or Sinosphere as the fifth civ, because these regions are still too underrepresented.

[Fristi61]

Cats, welcome back.

I don't know if you already saw it, but I'd recommend checking out BuchiTaton's idea: https://steamcommunity.com/app/813780/discussions/0/1638662230369754968/?ctp=2#c1638662230378670912 and I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

[HellHammer]

Is very hard to think that they would add new content since they stated officially that don't.

Also i think that both aoe1 and aoe3 need new content.

[BuchiTaton]

Cats. Just Cats. a écrit :

Hey guys, you didn't think I'd entirely miss the party, did you?

I've been monitoring forgottenempires.net regularly this last year, and saw today that they announced the DE a month ago...

Hi Cats! Nice to see you again.

I liked the idea of made one civ from the broader umbrellas (Slavs, Turks, Indians and Chinese), certainly devs should have did something like this if they where sure about the final group of civs to be added, instead of a regional thematic expansion.

A 5th civs could have been added without problem (to double ES civs, with 18 ES + 18 FE civs). Bantu or some American civ should have been the main options.

Fristi61 a écrit :

Cats, welcome back.

I don't know if you already saw it, but I'd recommend checking out BuchiTaton's idea: https://steamcommunity.com/app/813780/discussions/0/1638662230369754968/?ctp=2#c1638662230378670912 and I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.

Thank you Fristi.
Here is also the link to reddit, where I developed it a little more (also visually):
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/c2s6qk/the_celestial_empires_a_concept_for_a_regional/

HellHammer a écrit :

Is very hard to think that they would add new content since they stated officially that don't.

Also i think that both aoe1 and aoe3 need new content.

I did it few days before devs said that there would not be futher civs. But still hope AoE2:DE could support additional MOD civs.

Certainly AoE1 and AoE3 could have something new. I was surprised by the lack of content after AoE1:DE release, but maybe that was because devs were working on AoE2 and AoE3.

[B8B3B]

can please, once and for all, stop this completely stupid use of "dravidians" for anything that's not related to language? a language group isn't a people...

[Soully]

Temujin a écrit :

can please, once and for all, stop this completely stupid use of "dravidians" for anything that's not related to language? a language group isn't a people...

While a Language Group isn't a people, Language divisions within a group oftentimes specify a cluster of people.

I'm not saying Dravidians is a good idea, but simply because it is IMO too broad (Much like indians), in terms of referring to the darker peoples of lower india it's actually a better therm then, say, Tamils or Cholas that refer to a specific people and then meaning all of them.