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.

[Whakahoatanga]

Originally posted by Mad Doctor:

Originally posted by BuchiTaton:

"The issue with EUROPE as far as I can say is that with the exception of the BYZANTINES, the far south is not that different from the Far North, nor the far East from the Far West and everything in between. The FRANKS 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, Saracen or Japanese bloke that happened upon there. EUROPEANS there and then were not a empire but they were a civilisation and are represented as a civilisation"

Europeans are still know on many asiatic languages as something derived from the word "Frank" because even for Byzantines most of Europe were part of the same umbrella of catholic kingdoms, with shared religions, roman institutions, germanic elites, some degre of celtic base, etc. Even the crusades were a common manifestation of their shared identity.
India is the size of Western Europe, was more populous and rich than Europe on medieval time, was also cultural and political fragmented and was actually more religious diverse with huge Buddist empires like Gupta and Pala, Hindu Chola, Muslim Delhi and Mughals. Not just Indo aryans and Dravidian but also Influence from Iranian, Turkic, Mongolic, Arab, East African, Burmo-Tibetan, Tai and Mon-Khmer peoples.

So in short have just one "Indian" civ is like have just a "Frank" civ instead of Celts, Britons, Franks, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Sicilians, Burgundians, Teutons, Goths and even maybe "Vikings", Magyars, Lithuanians and the western part of "Slavs".


Others possible African civs different but with equivalent historical weight than Ethiopians and Malinese:
- Songhai
- Kanembu
- Nubians
- Somali
- Swahili

How does one even reply to this?
If you want to raise the issue of adding more sub-Indian peoples (thinking of the sub-continent of India), by all means do so. I would love to hear about it and maybe would even join you in asking for it.BUT WHAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO IS INSULT ME OR MY ARGUMENT TO PUSH YOURS, AYE!?
And I would love to have the Tibetans in the game, but by that time they were still a tribal kingdom of raiders and semi-nomads, so I am not sure how they would differ that much from the Huns, Mongols and such. The fun part of Tibet only comes after the Dalai Lama moves there.

And about the list of African possibilities, the Songhai are too closely related to the Mamluks and Mali, but they are an option if a way to adding them is found.
Tell me what makes the Kanembu stand aside from others nations in the world to justify them? Unless someone is filling a SJW list of minorities to shove on the game, it is expected that they have a claim to representation before representation is given, if at all.
Nubians are more noteworthy back when Pharaohs ruled Egypt. They are way past their time.
Somalians are not a terrible choice, but they are dangerously close to being just Muslim Ethiopians from a in-game perspective, no?
Swahili are another one that could be added, but the Yoruba and the Kingdom of Zwi(...) still are more outstanding, in my humble opinion.

Now, do like the French and go study some etiquette, oui mon ami?

He's just showcasing how wrong your argument is. India is very heterogen which is not very surprising considering it's size (roughly Europe) and ethnical/religious/linguistic diversity. You can't put it under the name "Indians" like you can't put Europe under the label "Franks" or Central/South Africa under the label "Bantu".

By the way, why do people get called SJW when they want anything outside of Europe but not when it comes to tiny subfactions within Europe.? Seems like some kind of double standard going on here, just saying. Kanem Bornu is e.g. an African Empire which is neither covered by Malians or Ethiopians at all.

Aside maybe Swiss and Bohemians, and even that is debatable, all the other factions you're suggesting are already covered thoroughly within the game.

[jonoliveira12]

Funny enough, Portugal actually became more tied to Africa and Asia AFTER the Moors were expelled, during the Age of Discovery and the Colonial Period.

The Reconquista actually produced a wave on disgust for anything non-Christian (European), and for centuries both Portuguese and Spanish called non-Christian foreigners "Moors", as a way to negatively apply stereotypes to them, as barbarous, warlike, and generally dangerous and having to be kept on a short leash.

This is why you get expressions like "Moors of the West Indies", "Moors of the Pacific" and so on.

Even to this day, calling someone a "mouro" in Portugal, means a low-down backstabber, weak-spined, murderer, liar, controlling and despicable person.
It is very much an insult, specially from the Northerners towards the Southerners.

[Mad Doctor]

Originally posted by Szaladon:

He's just showcasing how wrong your argument is. India is very heterogen which is not very surprising considering it's size (roughly Europe) and ethnical/religious/linguistic diversity. You can't put it under the name "Indians" like you can't put Europe under the label "Franks" or Central/South Africa under the label "Bantu".

By the way, why do people get called SJW when they want anything outside of Europe but not when it comes to tiny subfactions within Europe.? Seems like some kind of double standard going on here, just saying. Kanem Bornu is e.g. an African Empire which is neither covered by Malians or Ethiopians at all.

Aside maybe Swiss and Bohemians, and even that is debatable, all the other factions you're suggesting are already covered thoroughly within the game.

If anyone bothers to add a understandable list of sub-Indian nations I will wholeheartedly support it if merit is found. Most of my knowledge of India comes from studying mythology and compared religion, so that is why they feel "culturally similar", even if ethnically and politically distinct. So, as long as someone add something CONSTRUCTIVE not much I can say other than show me the data.

About the SJW bit, it is mostly about hypocrisy and artificial forced "equality". To me at least. Adding civilisations or such that have never done that is extraordinary enough to earn them a spotlight in the game (with limited civilisations, do mind) feels hypocritical and artificially forced.

But again, spam Eastern History and explain why and how, and then I can change opinions.

A pity the Sikh are too far in the future, because otherwise.

[escachaunovo]

No faults here, just opinions. Disagreing is the begining of any debate, and debating the only way to wisdom.

For my part just bored waiting until they fix the game.

[mickeyjim2]

Originally posted by Mad Doctor:

Reply to @mickeyjin2

-"Franks (the Germanic tribes with francisca throwers) - so the Franks' Throwing Axemen then?"
Francisca = the axe they throw

-"Romanic Gauls (a weird mix of Byzantines, Italians and Celts maybe?) - why? What's wrong with the Celts"
Nothing. It is just that the "Celts" both in History and in game represent a bunch of different peoples, cultures and nations. With a shared heritage, aye, but not the same. It could be expanded upon for game purposes.

-"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."

Was not aware of that.

-"Bretons - aren't they the ones with 25% magic resistance?"

Because Talos said so, Imperial milk drinker!

-"French (Cavalry oriented feudal lords of Europe) - so the Franks then..."
Franks and French are not the same people!

-"The Gascons, Cartars and the Languedoc folks - the who? Really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Having a campaign about the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars and the whole Holy Grail conspiracy sounds fun to me. The Gascons are more because Cyrano de Bergerac is my childhood hero, to be honest...


- "Scottish - what's wrong with the Celts civ?"
Scottish = Picts + Celts + Vikings + English

- "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."
I think the Longbow came from Wales to England, if I recall correctly, but it was more about the Hobilar and their influence in the wars against France and Scotland. The Siege of Caen in particular.

-"Irish (Monk and Castle economy) - really not a niche that needs filling"
That is an opinion.

- Saxons - so the Britons then? The term Anglo-Saxon is still used today to describe people of British descent.
Anglo-Saxon and Saxon means mostly the same thing, however, Saxon, Briton, British and English, may or may not upon context. In the context of before, during and shortly after the Norman conquest, they most certainly not.

- "Picts (Skirmisher and light cavalry) - so you want early Scots and late Scots? Again, why?"
Because the game spawns more than a thousand years?

-"Celts (basically as they are already, but weaker) - so a good civ but worse and broken up into tiny pieces?"
...you know, you should really go into sales or politics.


"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..."
Thank you for noting! Your noting has been noted!

- "Austrians (economy/gunpowder oriented cavalry) - maybe, still feels redundant since the Teutons have all the gunpowder units plus strong knights"
But no Landsknecht.

- "Swiss (Trade and Pikemen) - Teutonic Halbs with +2 armour? Again a very niche inclusion that sort of already covered anyway"
...and?

-"Bohemians (Cavalry and University or Monks, I guess) - maybe"
At least that one seems popular. AT LEAST THAT ONE.


"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...?"
Because it is more options to play with? This one is more about mixing Europe and Islam and seeing if something useful comes out of it.


"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"
Agreed. It was just something I thought of in while pondering how strange it is the Pope (Italians) can not research Heresy. So I added it, but not the most important bit on here.


"- 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"

Why were the Livonians left out? But anyhow, the Teutons as they are should not exist in the first place and it feels weird, feels weird since the 90's, and that is why I thought of adding those.
As I said, they are not nations properly, but having the option of playing as the Templars would be nice, and I can not believe I am the only one to think so.

Look the long story short of the point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of the suggestions are breaking down existing civs into smaller niches that don't need to be filled, from a gameplay perspective or historical perspective. It took over 20 years for AoE2 to work its way up to 37 civs, and now people want to double that figure by retreading old ground.

I could probably take one more European civ, probably the Bohemians since they seem the most interesting and have the greatest potential to carve out a niche of their own. After that, personally I would like to see the Swahili since there are only 2 sub saharan African civs, and then perhaps the Armenians/Georgians, the Siamese/Thai, and the Tibetans, and yeah maybe a southern India civ since the current Indian civ is the Rajputs in all but name. Give us a battle elephant focused Indian civ so people will finally shut up about the Indians not having battle elephants in the forums.

Btw I'm glad you got my Skyrim reference :p

[Mad Doctor]

Originally posted by mickeyjim2:

Look the long story short of the point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of the suggestions are breaking down existing civs into smaller niches that don't need to be filled, from a gameplay perspective or historical perspective. It took over 20 years for AoE2 to work its way up to 37 civs, and now people want to double that figure by retreading old ground.

I could probably take one more European civ, probably the Bohemians since they seem the most interesting and have the greatest potential to carve out a niche of their own. After that, personally I would like to see the Swahili since there are only 2 sub saharan African civs, and then perhaps the Armenians/Georgians, the Siamese/Thai, and the Tibetans, and yeah maybe a southern India civ since the current Indian civ is the Rajputs in all but name. Give us a battle elephant focused Indian civ so people will finally shut up about the Indians not having battle elephants in the forums.

Btw I'm glad you got my Skyrim reference :p

I am starting to suspect people are worried due to the Nostalgia the game is/has/gives.
Time will tell, I suppose.

[2GenL]

Isn't aoe4 going to be another medieval game but doing more on making each faction unique (probably not to this extent though)?

[Muñeco]

sese terrible

[Mad Doctor]

Originally posted by MüÑec0:

sese terrible

Hello Sese Terrible. I am dad.