last missing European civs?

[Valarante]

With the upcoming eastern-european themed DLC, I figured it would be interesting to discuss if there are still crucial civilizations of medieval Europe missing?

Most expect the new expansion to cover Poles and Bohemians or Moravians, and possibly another Ruthenian faction.

Beyond that I'd like to see Khazars, Armenians, Georgians and Swiss which all played important parts in medieval history and would certainly bring exciting campaigns and new gameplay options.

With that, will we be reaching a point where there are enough civs, especially after Asia gets another DLC too?
Could Europe be wrapped up with these civs or did I forget any?

[BuchiTaton]

Actually is natural to have more content about 16th century than about 5th century, because on gameplay terms even if you can sometimes win on early eras the objetive is the Imperial age, most elements are designed for the more diverse ways of the last two ages.

The first age on any AoE game you have the less of militar options possible, being supposed to upgrade to a more complex way of war on the later eras, that is why the Attila campaing fell so out of place with the 14th-15th century looking units.

We must remember that Huns were likely supposed to be the Magyars but devs changed to a better know Huns as a more appealing name. While at least Goths have the Crimean Goths as a justification for "Imperial Age" representatives. Huns are just there a short period at the very start of the time line to dont see them again as something identifiable.

[BuchiTaton]

Thor II eredeti hozzászólása:

This is a problem of AOE I, it is AOE I that has to launch some DLC with the civs that are missing, among them Celts, Picts, Kush, Hicsos, various Germanic civs of Late Antiquity that helped defeat the Roman empire (among them Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc.), Indian civs, Civs of the Arabian Desert (like the one that built Petra).

I would love if we could have DLCs for AoE1 (plus some regional unit skins).
We can have a couple of good European DLCs:
OLD EUROPE: Etruscans, Iberians, Dacians, Gauls and Picts.
BARBARIAN INVASIONS: Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Franks and Huns.

[Draoza]

BuchiTaton eredeti hozzászólása:

Thor II eredeti hozzászólása:

This is a problem of AOE I, it is AOE I that has to launch some DLC with the civs that are missing, among them Celts, Picts, Kush, Hicsos, various Germanic civs of Late Antiquity that helped defeat the Roman empire (among them Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc.), Indian civs, Civs of the Arabian Desert (like the one that built Petra).

I would love if we could have DLCs for AoE1 (plus some regional unit skins).
We can have a couple of good European DLCs:
OLD EUROPE: Etruscans, Iberians, Dacians, Gauls and Picts.
BARBARIAN INVASIONS: Goths, Vandals, Saxons, Franks and Huns.

Sadly it seems their targeting what is the most popular.
AOE 1 by using players stats on steam is the lowest in terms of players with AOM.

Then we have 5K-6K for AOE3 and AOE 2 HD and around 11K AOE2 DE which makes 16-17K versus 5-6K AOE3 and 1K AOE1 and AOM each.

That's why AOE 4 will be in medieval era. I'm really scared about this game.
It will be a copy of AOE and just will spread people into 3 copy games or they will try something new and it might failed.

I would have prefer a modern AOE even if it's risky.

[Thor II]

In defense of AOE I, AOE II and III DE were very well made, gained new material, new civs, campaigns, DLCs, were released directly on Steam. AOE I was a big mistake from the beginning, was released in the Microsoft Store and only long after on Steam, has not gained absolutely any new material except a few improvements of QoL (some of them very recent), no new civ, campaign, map, DLC, absolutely nothing, still has no formations, and to make matters worse the Pathfinding remains as bad as ever , the only thing modified were the graphics.

It's not the fault of the players not liking the AOE I DE, it doesn't have much to like, Microsoft has made no effort to improve the game.

The AOM in turn cannot enter this contest since it has not won its DE yet (some say, it will be an AOM 2 instead), and its Extended Edition was terrible, Chinese mythology was not a good choice. Babylonian, Persian, India, Japanese, Celtic mythology, just to name a few that would have been infinitely better than the Chinese.

[Draoza]

Thor II eredeti hozzászólása:

In defense of AOE I, AOE II and III DE were very well made, gained new material, new civs, campaigns, DLCs, were released directly on Steam. AOE I was a big mistake from the beginning, was released in the Microsoft Store and only long after on Steam, has not gained absolutely any new material except a few improvements of QoL (some of them very recent), no new civ, campaign, map, DLC, absolutely nothing, still has no formations, and to make matters worse the Pathfinding remains as bad as ever , the only thing modified were the graphics.

It's not the fault of the players not liking the AOE I DE, it doesn't have much to like, Microsoft has made no effort to improve the game.

The AOM in turn cannot enter this contest since it has not won its DE yet (some say, it will be an AOM 2 instead), and its Extended Edition was terrible, Chinese mythology was not a good choice. Babylonian, Persian, India, Japanese, Celtic mythology, just to name a few that would have been infinitely better than the Chinese.

Indeed AOE 1 offer no serious competitive or multi challenges.
I mean compared to AOE2 you feel empty like the game missing something.

AOM is better as each civs are unique and the campaigns god the campaigns but yeah chinese mythology isn't bad but so many others civs to bring into the game.

[jonoliveira12]

Civs being unique literally does nothing for a game, as the most played AoE game, is also the most homogenous: AoE2.

[Whakahoatanga]

jonoliveira12 eredeti hozzászólása:

Civs being unique literally does nothing for a game, as the most played AoE game, is also the most homogenous: AoE2.

This is not true. In terms of asymmetry of civs so far AOE1<AOE2<AOE3=(?)AOE4.

[Mad Doctor]

Paladins were Charlemagne's elite knights. Technically older than knighthood as we now understand it, but later than the period when King Arthur lived.

Aye, King Arthur was a historical person. Vortigern and some others were too.

[jonoliveira12]

Mad Doctor eredeti hozzászólása:

Paladins were Charlemagne's elite knights. Technically older than knighthood as we now understand it, but later than the period when King Arthur lived.

Aye, King Arthur was a historical person. Vortigern and some others were too.

The chieftain King Arthur was based on, was a Romano-Breton from the time after the Romans abandoned the British Isles, which is pre-Medieval.
He apparently made a cohese society out of Celtic, Breton and Roman elements, and resisted the Saxon invasion for a bit, before his kingdom was overrun aswel.

[Mad Doctor]

jonoliveira12 eredeti hozzászólása:

The chieftain King Arthur was based on, was a Romano-Breton from the time after the Romans abandoned the British Isles, which is pre-Medieval.
He apparently made a cohese society out of Celtic, Breton and Roman elements, and resisted the Saxon invasion for a bit, before his kingdom was overrun aswel.

Name and quote your sources, dear.

[jonoliveira12]

Mad Doctor eredeti hozzászólása:

jonoliveira12 eredeti hozzászólása:

The chieftain King Arthur was based on, was a Romano-Breton from the time after the Romans abandoned the British Isles, which is pre-Medieval.
He apparently made a cohese society out of Celtic, Breton and Roman elements, and resisted the Saxon invasion for a bit, before his kingdom was overrun aswel.

Name and quote your sources, dear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

"The historical basis for King Arthur was long debated by scholars. One school of thought, citing entries in the Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals), saw Arthur as a genuine historical figure, a Romano-British leader who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons some time in the late 5th to early 6th century."

Also, next time, search it yourself, this is not 2010 anymore, and you also have an Internet connection to be posting here.

[Mad Doctor]

...Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA?!

Are you still in school, lad? Otherwise, I just can not take you seriously no more.

[jonoliveira12]

Mad Doctor eredeti hozzászólása:

...Wikipedia? WIKIPEDIA?!

Are you still in school, lad? Otherwise, I just can not take you seriously no more.

I am a 32 years old man that has a much better grasp of actual History than you do.

[Mad Doctor]

jonoliveira12 eredeti hozzászólása:

I am a 32 years old man that has a much better grasp of actual History than you do.

And I am 33, so respect your elders.

[jonoliveira12]

Mad Doctor eredeti hozzászólása:

jonoliveira12 eredeti hozzászólása:

I am a 32 years old man that has a much better grasp of actual History than you do.

And I am 33, so respect your elders.

You are no one's elder.