About Celts, Franks, Teutons and such

[Mad Doctor]

(Request: no idea if the developers read those things. If they do not, could someone please repost it where it could be seen?)

Ever since playing the game in the 90's it always bothered me that the game takes place from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Era (Renaissance) and some civilisations are poorly represented due to a generic amalgamation of centuries of History being compressed in a oversimplified stereotype.
The Franks that invaded Rome and the ones that lived under the Merovingians and Caroleans houses were quite not the same, and the French peoples that came after were not the same as them at all. That applied to some of the oldest and newest civilisations raises the question of why are there Goths representing early Iberian kingdoms and the Spanish/Portuguese representing the nation of around the time houses of Avis and Trástamara. And again, the Portuguese under Don Alfonso Enriques and the ones under Don Joâo II were not the same, the earlier being a lot more "Germanic" than the latter.

Long story short, I think there are not enough civilisations. I know AoE is not Europa Universalis or Civilization, but nonetheless I thought of a few that could maybe be added as a way to give the different periods a better context than just saying "oh, Feudal England is like this, but in the campaign we play that in the Imperial Age" and such.

Speaking of Europa Universalis and Civilization, "Lords of the West" feels underwhelming for a expansion. I swear, if Microsoft Games start with Paradox' asinine DLC policy, the game is doomed. Just saying.


Anyhow,

Franks could be divided in:
- Franks (the Germanic tribes with francisca throwers)
- Romanic Gauls (a weird mix of Byzantines, Italians and Celts maybe?)
- Normans (the link between Sicilians, Vikings, Britons and Franks)
- Bretons (quasi-Celtic Cavalry/Trade people)
- French (Cavalry oriented feudal lords of Europe)
- Gascons (Archer and Cavalry with no Horse Archers?)
- the Cartars and the Languedoc folks could be made into something, but not sure of how and what the Occitans would add to the game

Celts could be divided in:
- Scottish (mainly the Highlander clans and towns, since the Lowlanders were either attuned with them or the English at times)
- Welsh (Castle and fast cavalry)
- Irish (Monk and Castle economy)
- Saxons (depending on the intention, can be the settled and prosperous people under Aethelstan and Saint Edward/Edith of Wessex, or the raiders that Vortigern invited in according to Arthurian Legend) *not sure of what to do with the continental Saxons
- Picts (Skirmisher and light cavalry)
- Celts (basically as they are already, but weaker)

The Britons are not a terrible representation of the English between the Norman conquest and the Tudor Era,

Teutons could be divided in:
- Alemanni (to add something to the Celts, Goths and Franks)
- Austrians (economy/gunpowder oriented cavalry)
- Swiss (Trade and Pikemen)
- Bohemians (Cavalry and University or Monks, I guess)
- Teutons (representing the Regnum Teutonicum of the Ottonian dynasty onwards)
- (maybe the orders, see below)

Byzantines could be divided in:
- Byzantines
- Crusader States (mainly the kingdom of Jerusalem and the stubborn folks in Cyprus, just to have a civilisation that is in between Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Islamic word in its tech. tree; basically the Italians with heavier-than-heavy cavalry)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Spanish are meant to represented the united Iberia of the Montezuma campaign, but for the purposes of the el-Cid campaign and immersion, maybe splitting them in Aragon, Castille and Léon, despite they being more kingdoms than civilisations. This one may not be practical unless the traditional Four Ages were reworked.

One final thing, having the Teutonic Knight as the unit of the Teutons feels weird because while they are part of the German foundational (aye, that is a real word) mythology and identity, they went North relatively late and were less involved in the inner shenanigans of the Holy Roman Empire than their over-presence hints at, so I never really liked that since the first time I played the Barbarossa and Saladin campaigns when I was 16 or so, and that made me think that maybe the main military orders of the day could be made into playable civilisations, albeit much weaker ones as they were not nations in their own right. That would be not easy to make and would place the Templar Knights in a bigger disadvantage, because while the Hospitallers held Rhodes and Malta and the Teutonic/Livonian Orders held lands in the North, the Templars were always a "inner feature" of other realms. Nonetheless, I mentioning it in case it may be made into something.

- Teutonic Knights (Teutons, but cavalry oriented; would made the Teutonic knight similar to the Konig unit, the knight fights on if dismounted, but losing the free Heresy research)

- Livonian Brothers of the Sword (mix between Slavs and Lithuanians, their unique unit could be replaced by a unique building [stronger towers/walls or monasteries maybe?] or the slowest cavalry in existence, as to represent the whole Nevsky situation)

- Order of the Temple (strong navy, trade and cavalry, but weaker archers, the Templar Knight could be made a heavily armoured light cavalry maybe, to counter the Camels and such)

- Knights Hospitaller (Teutons with strong navy and fastest healers, but expensive farms and slowest hunters/lumberers and maybe taking away conversion potential to balance the healing [thinking of Malta in particular]; obviously can also be reversed engineered from AoE III; would give them either mounted monk-knights that can heal or warships that can trade, depending if thinking about their time in the Levant or in Rhodes and Malta)

The same could be applied to other religious militant groups that are represented by Saracens and the non-Samurai Japanese and what not, but not my expertise. Just think the Teutons are too ahistorical and it has always bothered me since always and always and always.

So, thank you for pretending to having read the whole thing anyhow.

[Akos]

All of them are waste of civilization slots expect Bohemians

[Whakahoatanga]

You said it yourself, this game is not Europa Universalis.

Age of Empires II always took the umbrella approach with civs, so most of the civs you're suggesting are already covered.

I'd rather see less explored world regions as new civs than a subfaction of a civ we already have.

India e.g. was for most of the time frame of AOE2 never unified under one banner. And India is huge:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoDG3MU8AAz86D.jpg

Same case with Africa:

https://static.scientificamerican.com/blogs/assets/observations/File/Africa.jpg

[Mad Doctor]

Originally posted by Ákos:

All of them are waste of civilization slots expect Bohemians

I would like to extend to you my most sincere gratitude for your insightful input. The complexity of your argument is awe-inspiring and I am truly humbled by it.

Also, say that to the Irish. I dare you.

[escachaunovo]

Very interesting your post.

I think a medieval game must be european focused. Middle age can not be applied to other civilizations as India or China, at least in the same time lapse. But the differences between those european empires or kingdoms are few, specially in the artistic part (architectures, animals, music...). I think the game is better with all the diversity that includes. Maybe that could be solved adding it anyway and making some unplayable cultures. Idk, for me it is ok now. Including all cultures of the world or even just the european ones, makes no sense for me. Selecting them thinking in modern countries is a better option but could be a problem too. Maybe many people (as me who I am historian) do not see a clear difference between Algeria or Tunez or between Norway or Sweden but I bet the people in those countries do. And we have a lot of countries in the world, any of them with its own history and sure to be a true nation. In fact they exist more nations than official countries.

Talking just about History, wich I guess is interesting for people who likes that game, i agree with you. Franks, Goths, Britons and even Vikings belong to the barbarian invasions. In the game is Dark Ages and you can not build or recruit barely anything. I do not know what are exactly Teutonic if it is not the Teutonic Order. In the game is more like german speaking areas. In other hand Italy was not a political unit until barely the XX century. If you are going to include Sicily maybe Venetia should be too. Spain were the Spains at least until 1700. The Spain who fought trough Europe (in the XVI and XVII centuries) were a collection of kingdoms from Hispania (Castilla, Navarra, Aragón and Portugal between 1580 and 1668) and many others in modern France, Italy, Switzerland and the BENELUX. The Spain in the game (El Cid and Moctezuma) is Castilla. A young kingdom in Cid´s Age with León and Galicia. Most of contemporary Spain (including inside León, Castilla, Galicia and the Moors´s territories) in Moctezumas. People from Aragón are not allowed to move to America as people from Amberes, Milano or Naples neither. Castilla and Aragón at least were not just kingdoms but empires. Aragón was a Mediterranean empire such as Venetia, Genoa, Pisa, France or the Otomans. Castilla was a land empire wich became one of the first modern countries such as France or England conquering most of the old Hispania (Galia, Britania) and then America and even the Philipinnes.

I think the historical focus should be in the two final ages of the game, when you can use unic units. This could be about XIII-XV centuries. Here if you include France and Burgundy, you should add Aragón, Castilla and Portugal. Same for England, Scotland and Ireland. And the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Serbia, Genoa, Venetia...

I do not really care, the game is very good now (when they fixed it I mean). Just for talking xD.

[Mad Doctor]

Originally posted by Szaladon:

You said it yourself, this game is not Europa Universalis.

Age of Empires II always took the umbrella approach with civs, so most of the civs you're suggesting are already covered.

I'd rather see less explored world regions as new civs than a subfaction of a civ we already have.

India e.g. was for most of the time frame of AOE2 never unified under one banner. And India is huge:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMoDG3MU8AAz86D.jpg

Same case with Africa:

https://static.scientificamerican.com/blogs/assets/observations/File/Africa.jpg

Aye. The umbrella approach leaves a bit to be desired, so as long as they can balance and assorted in-game issues, I see no reason to not expand on it. They added the bloody Sicily of all places after all.

And about the India/Africa,I can read a map, you know. And I assume at some point they would reverse engineer the tribes from AoE III to AoE II, with the possible exception of the Jesuits (the Spanish have the missionaries that are them pretty much) and maybe the Shaolin (a military monastic order, mind).
The issue with India as far as I can say is that with the exception of the Mughals, the far south is not that different from the Far North, nor the far East from the Far West and everything in between. The Indians were not, for the most part, a unified realm under a flag and a lord, but they shared enough common identity that someone from one corner would identify with someone from the other extreme more than with a Aztec, Norse/Viking or Japanese bloke that happened upon there. Indians there and then were not a empire but they were a civilisation and are represented as a civilisation.
Thee issue about Africa is that despite it already having 4 out of 37 civilizations (6 if you count the Portuguese and Sicilians as quasi-African) the majority of the (few) ones can fit or was enough under their influence to be passable. Unless they are planning to add the Kingdom of Zimbabwe and maybe the Yoruba, not that much is missing that could be added naturally overtime, alongside a less fast food Europe.

For crying out loud, the game is infamous for its historical absurdities, but there is only so much one can overlook before it turns into a issue.
Sometimes I want to create a (single player) game pretending the Romans are fighting the Germanic invaders and such, and it is painful to see they having canons and what not, meanwhile I can not limit the Age progression because otherwise someone will lack a technology or unit that fits.
A History-friendly mode, or History-friendly game in general would be nice. And can be done without turning it in a grand strategy game, if you ask me.

[Sscral]

Originally posted by Mad Doctor:

Sometimes I want to create a (single player) game pretending the Romans are fighting the Germanic invaders and such, and it is painful to see they having canons and what not, meanwhile I can not limit the Age progression because otherwise someone will lack a technology or unit that fits.
A History-friendly mode, or History-friendly game in general would be nice. And can be done without turning it in a grand strategy game, if you ask me.

Off-topic but you can achieve this if you want with the scenario editor - there is the ability to disable specific technologies while not preventing reaching imperial age

[escachaunovo]

"Indians there and then were not a empire but they were a civilisation and are represented as a civilisation." As european/west christianity. A swedish and a portuguese will think the same in Japan. At least the japanese do.

[escachaunovo]

"the Portuguese and Sicilians as quasi-African"

What?

[jonoliveira12]

Lol, people calling Portuguese and Sicilians African, when portuguese still are mostly ethnic Visigoth and Celtiberian, and Sicilians are mostly Greek.

I guess we get to be "African" because we expanded there, instead of participating in the border-gore in Europe.

I guess the English are "Indian" too, by the same measure.

[Ser Pounce]

"This game is not Europa Universalis"

And then proceeds to divide 3 civilisations into a lot of different others with no regard at all for the game it's in.

Alright then.

[Ser Pounce]

Originally posted by Mad Doctor:

For crying out loud, the game is infamous for its historical absurdities, but there is only so much one can overlook before it turns into a issue.
Sometimes I want to create a (single player) game pretending the Romans are fighting the Germanic invaders and such, and it is painful to see they having canons and what not, meanwhile I can not limit the Age progression because otherwise someone will lack a technology or unit that fits.

You know you can restrict buildings, units and technology in the editor, right ?
If not, well, there you go.

[jonoliveira12]

Also, for Romans, you should be playing AoE1.
Sadly, it has no Celts, Iberians, Germanians, Israelites, Scythians, Nubians, Lybians, Olmecs and Mauryans; all of which it should, but it is still more accurate to the Roman Era.

[🍮]

why are you expecting a video game to be an accurate representation of history? why arent you simply playing the game and having fun? if the game was modeled after real history it wouldnt be balanced or playable in multiplayer. it would be completely unbalanced and basically a trash game. if you want history then you should try reading books. you spent so much time on this elaborate post with suggestions on how to change a game into a history book basically. its a game. why not just play it? what purpose does it serve to suggest all these changes to a game and complain about it not being exactly what you want it to be? is the game not a fun enough representation of multiple armies to play and have fun with? do you need it to be more than a game? im trying to understand what youre hoping to accomplish with all this. maybe you want to make a mod thats something closer to real history? idk. i dont play mods. i just play the game and i like it. i have no issue with whether the teutons are historically accurate or not. if i play them its for the armor bonus they get for example. i dont really think about whether thats historically accurate or not before i que for a game.

[aflashman]

One can over-think these things. This is an RTS game not an historical sim.

Small point of history, Charlemagne, who was recognised by the Pope as Emperor of what later became known as the Holy Roman Empire was the King of the Franks. So there is continuity between the Franks, a tribe who invaded the Western Roman Empire, and the Early Middle Ages kings of what became known as France.

[mickeyjim2]

- Franks (the Germanic tribes with francisca throwers) - so the Franks' Throwing Axemen then?
- Romanic Gauls (a weird mix of Byzantines, Italians and Celts maybe?) - why? What's wrong with the Celts?
- Normans - the Sicilians are the Normans. They even appear in the Edward Longshanks campaign as such. You can use the scenario editor to swap their architecture to the western Europe instead of the Mediterranean set for the purposes of a campaign.
- Bretons - aren't they the ones with 25% magic resistance?
- French (Cavalry oriented feudal lords of Europe) - so the Franks then...
- The Gascons, Cartars and the Languedoc folks - the who? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel.


- Scottish - what's wrong with the Celts civ?
- Welsh (Castle and fast cavalry) - the Welsh served in English armies and also used longbows. Its an unnecessary separation. Wales was and still is a tiny country in the grand scheme of things.
- Irish (Monk and Castle economy) - really not a niche that needs filling
- Saxons - so the Britons then? The term Anglo-Saxon is still used today to describe people of British descent.
- Picts (Skirmisher and light cavalry) - so you want early Scots and late Scots? Again, why?
- Celts (basically as they are already, but weaker) - so a good civ but worse and broken up into tiny pieces?


Teutons could be divided in:
- Alemanni (to add something to the Celts, Goths and Franks) - as if your other civ suggestions weren't doing that already...
- Austrians (economy/gunpowder oriented cavalry) - maybe, still feels redundant since the Teutons have all the gunpowder units plus strong knights
- Swiss (Trade and Pikemen) - Teutonic Halbs with +2 armour? Again a very niche inclusion that sort of already covered anyway
- Bohemians (Cavalry and University or Monks, I guess) - maybe


Byzantines could be divided in:
- Byzantines
- Crusader States - so you want to break up the Teutons into several Crusader groups AND break up the Byzantines because...?


For the purposes of the el-Cid campaign and immersion, maybe splitting them in Aragon, Castille and Léon, despite they being more kingdoms than civilisations. 1. The scenario editor can rework a civ's tech tree and units to an extent. 2. What's wrong with Spanish vs Spanish? It reinforces the 'brother vs brother-esque' fighting that happened between those kingdoms imo


- Teutonic Knights (Teutons, but cavalry oriented) - the Teutons are a solid knight civ these days already

- Order of the Temple (strong navy, trade and cavalry, but weaker archers) - the Teutons already have a decent navy, strong Paladins and sub-par archers

- Knights Hospitaller (Teutons with strong navy and fastest healers) - the Teutons already have a decent navy and a monk healing bonus