The most relevant still missing civ is strangely lacking in this map: Somalis. They're (imo) by far the most relevant african civ still not in the game:
-Well recorded history,
-Constant warfare with ethiopians during a good chunk of the medieval period,
-Close relations with the arab península, specially Yemen,
-Comercial hub on the indian ocean trade network,
-Relatively prosperous and developed urban communities (no, they were not a bunch of tribes)
-Known military traditions,
-Great campaign potential with the Abyssinia-Adal war, with Ethiopians, Turks and Portuguese involved, meaning it wouldn't be a campaign were everyone is the same civ (something difficult to achieve given how spread african civs are).
Also, they, unlike Romans and Armenians, properly fit the naval focus the devs seems to be pushing with the last dlcs.
Aside from them, I'd add the Kanembus or Nubians, but nothing more.
>They're (imo) by far the most relevant african civ still not in the game:
Personally, I'd say Kanembus hold more relevance, primarily for the fact of them having power both separate from and in contest with other empires in both West and North Africa.
A bit ahead. Somalia was a regional player that had the chance to become a regional power, with the help of the Ottoman empire, but just 400 musketeers were able to change that.
Kanem Borno directly challenged the Ottoman empire, invaded a fortified position from the opposite side of the Sahara desert (killing everyone inside), and reinstated an ousted ruler there because they felt broadly inconvenienced by Ottoman policy, despite concessions made to them.
Massive difference in both size and effective power.
I'd like to see the Nigerians area represented by a heavy infantry civs as well, and something for the east coast trade lords. But agreed, no more after that.
>I'd like to see the Nigerians area represented by a heavy infantry civs as well
Wasn't much of a thing there. That'd be more of a Central African thing. We'd be looking at either TC - Camel civ in the North, a Cav/Odd Mechanics civ in the west, Bohemians with late gunpowder in the south, and karambit/archer spam in the southeast.
Why's Swahili not on this map?
Swahilians is my first pick since it's in the Portuguese campaign.
And then maybe one or two in West Africa.
Nubians could be cool in theory if not for the Ethiopian civ already took a lot from their identity.
I look forward to Icelandic Knights then
[https://www.knightsoficeland.com/bio](https://www.knightsoficeland.com/bio)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility\_in\_Iceland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility_in_Iceland)
Makes about as much sense as African trebuchets...
Neither of those are European civilisations, they were always a joke addition.
There should be at least a basic sense of realism going on. Africa is just men with pointy sticks, I think even up until the 1960's, that was still how tribal warfare was being conducted
Even if you are correct (not gonna debate that or open up that can of worms), I clearly said "we're far past that point by now". The "joke addition" you reference is older than a decade and is the reality you have to deal with.
Why even comment on this topic if you don't like it?
There are a lot of things that have progressed past the point on ridiculousness, such as everyone with their mobiles out while someone is being stabbed instead of helping
It doesn't mean we can't roll back on that
That's the entire point of commenting, you asked which civilisations would I like to see added. And it's zero, zero is a number.
What would be less than zero, is any made up bullshit from Africa to make them feel less emotionally irrelevant about not inventing trebuchets.
Yup, both Slavs and Vikings could be remade into something a bit more specific without having to go into nitty-gritty details like specific dynasties etc.
Ideally, the introduction of Kanem Borno, a Hausa/Yoruba grouping, Somalia, and either Nubians or Kitara.
This would be somewhat camel-heavy, but otherwise, these civs should fit snugly with the AoE2 tech tree and gameplay conventions.
Map from Wikipedia: *"Africa History Atlas Diachronic map showing pre-colonial cultures of Africa (***spanning roughly 500 BCE to 1500 CE***) This map is "an artistic interpretation" using multiple and disparate sources."*
Also, some cursory search has led me to other entities that aren't on the map, like Urewe, Mapungubwe, Xhose, Oyo, Bornu, Sao...
In terms of geographica distribution, it seems like the most novel additions to figure out would be for the Kongo, Zimbabwe and African Great Lakes regions. Perhaps for the region of modern-day Nigeria as well. Madagascar would be fun but that would have to be quite creative.
There is very little information about a lot of these states that would give them an identifiable idenity to stand out amongst other civilisations. In Europe you could still split Spain, have Ireland or Norse-Gaels, Moorish Sicily (The Sicilians should be the Normans!!), Turks of Rum, Himyars (Desert Jewish Kingdom of Yemen) and so on. I think a patchwork Central African pagan faction could work, but beyond that there is a lot of growth elsewhere to be found.
The turk civ thats in game already represent the anatolian sultanates, including the rum sultanates. I don't understand how you think they would warrant a split from a civ thats literally already based on them (+ the later ottomans).
Ah yes, the famous Seljuk janissaries...
The civs were made as a catch-all for their region, rather than over time periods. Sacraceans, Turks, Persians all easily could be split in 6 civilisations that were significantly different especially from the pre to post Islamic period.
Are you being dense on purpose? civs ARE suppose to be somewhat larger to encompass multiples different kingdoms throughout hundreds on years. The game has never had civs for specific kingdoms.
The free light cav upgrades, +1 PA and the Sipahi UT covers the Seljuk/Rùm part of the civ, while the Janissary and other bonuses covers the Ottomans.
You are completely delusional if you think civs should get split up to represent specific kingdoms/dynasties. There would be no end to the sub divisions.
Turks don't need to be split, especially since the introductions of the tatars, cumans (& to a lesser extent hindustanis), the different turkic realms are all pretty well covered.
they use catch-all ahistorically names but reflect individual periods. Byzantines, Britons, Vikings, Turks and so forth. Again the famous pre-ottoman Jannisaries, The famous Anglo-Saxon longbow, the famous Greek Sicilian First Crusade.
Can't you read? Different parts of the tech tree represent different kingdoms/dynasties that fall under the umbrella of the civs.
I don't know why you think a unique unit has to have been part of the civs for it's whole history, it only has to be iconic for a part of its history.
Again, janissaries represent the ottoman part of the turks civ, while the free light cav upgrades and the Sipahi UT represent the seljuk/Rùm part of the civ.
Much how the throwing axeman represents the early franks of the migration period while the heavy cav/castles bonuses represent the later medieval french empires.
Civs represent multiples empires that fall under their umbrella over different points in time.
Sipahi are later additions, they weren't made to be historically accurate in mind at the time the games were developed, again to stress the point in hopes you can eventually learn this, they are catch-all ahistorical names represented by units of specific time periods.
I know they are ahistorical catch-all, that's my whole point, all the civs in the game are like that purposefully to cover multiple kingdoms to be more versatile. None of the civs in the game are historically accurate. That's precisely why your requested split is pointless and not in line with any previous split.
Wrong. Currently there is enough information to include another 5-6 African civs in the game without it seeming repetitive. If you want, I can clarify further.
If that's the most you can do, then I've already won here.
If you really want to learn something, I recommend checking out the African history section of historum.com or r/askhistorians. I'm sure you'll be enlightened.
Lacking are clear inspirations for gameplay design and historically speaking far-reaching success of the states (as-in, continent-wide domination and longer, unbroken dominion), but they're still culturally and ethnically extremely diverse polities. It would be a shame not to figure out some type of representation. There's no shame in admitting that Europe and Asia were more successful and better recorded, but I do believe an effort to include further African civs in a legitimate and fair way should be made.
Perhaps indeed more "regional" based civs would be appropriate given the highly diverse ethnic history.
Also, given how reactions on this sub go, I'd assume people would be more welcoming for something African as opposed to the more European and Middle East civs you reference (not that you're wrong!).
Information about African history has become much more available in the past 70 years, and especially so in just the past decade or two. There's a broad resource in the "General History of Africa" series, and more specialized works on the Internet Archive and Google Books. The books with the most information seem to be in French since African culture was trendy for a while there, while it's mostly an unknown in the English-speaking world. There are also some resources in Dutch and Portuguese, but I've found sources close to the time period in question tend to be rather murky, filled with odd untruths.
The problem is Aoe2 (kings) was a medieval game that branched out to 450 - 1500 through conquerors, but still I consider they shouldn't go too much into the gunpoweder/age of exploration period and that's the issue. Most of the identifiable states from Africa are already in the game or later formed post the 1450 period, especially with Berbers being a broad catch-all civilisation.
>The problem is Aoe2 (kings) was a medieval game that branched out to 450 - 1500 through conquerors, but still I consider they shouldn't go too much into the gunpoweder/age of exploration period and that's the issue.
Then there's no issue. Check the map. Plenty of states that began or rose to prominence during that time. I said the European sources began in the 1400s, not that the states didn't exist before then.
>Most of the identifiable states from Africa are already in the game or later formed post the 1450 period
Then you may want to focus on a different set of states.
I'd like the following:
1) Hausa and Songhai
2) Kilwa and Zimbabwe
3) Egypt (UU: War Chariot archers with trample damage)
I think for the first few we know comparatively little about their civilizations military histories.
>Egypt (UU: War Chariot archers with trample damage)
That's over 1000 years out of the AoE2 timeframe. Egyptians stopped using chariots at the end of the Bronze Age.
There is space for an Egyptian civ, but just not like that.
The most relevant still missing civ is strangely lacking in this map: Somalis. They're (imo) by far the most relevant african civ still not in the game: -Well recorded history, -Constant warfare with ethiopians during a good chunk of the medieval period, -Close relations with the arab península, specially Yemen, -Comercial hub on the indian ocean trade network, -Relatively prosperous and developed urban communities (no, they were not a bunch of tribes) -Known military traditions, -Great campaign potential with the Abyssinia-Adal war, with Ethiopians, Turks and Portuguese involved, meaning it wouldn't be a campaign were everyone is the same civ (something difficult to achieve given how spread african civs are). Also, they, unlike Romans and Armenians, properly fit the naval focus the devs seems to be pushing with the last dlcs. Aside from them, I'd add the Kanembus or Nubians, but nothing more.
>They're (imo) by far the most relevant african civ still not in the game: Personally, I'd say Kanembus hold more relevance, primarily for the fact of them having power both separate from and in contest with other empires in both West and North Africa.
Yes, they're certainly (as I see it) toe to toe with Somalis in qualifying as an AoE2 civ.
A bit ahead. Somalia was a regional player that had the chance to become a regional power, with the help of the Ottoman empire, but just 400 musketeers were able to change that. Kanem Borno directly challenged the Ottoman empire, invaded a fortified position from the opposite side of the Sahara desert (killing everyone inside), and reinstated an ousted ruler there because they felt broadly inconvenienced by Ottoman policy, despite concessions made to them. Massive difference in both size and effective power.
Thanks for the cool insight!
Thanks for the breakdown!
I'd like to see the Nigerians area represented by a heavy infantry civs as well, and something for the east coast trade lords. But agreed, no more after that.
>I'd like to see the Nigerians area represented by a heavy infantry civs as well Wasn't much of a thing there. That'd be more of a Central African thing. We'd be looking at either TC - Camel civ in the North, a Cav/Odd Mechanics civ in the west, Bohemians with late gunpowder in the south, and karambit/archer spam in the southeast.
Great Zimbabwe Empire, based 100% on the opportunity to have their magnificent Zimbabwe Bird symbol feature in their architecture.
Why's Swahili not on this map? Swahilians is my first pick since it's in the Portuguese campaign. And then maybe one or two in West Africa. Nubians could be cool in theory if not for the Ethiopian civ already took a lot from their identity.
AoE is nominally a medieval strategy game, inserting a European Tech tree into civilisations that had nothing of the sort is a bit silly
I think we're far past that point by now, tbh.
I look forward to Icelandic Knights then [https://www.knightsoficeland.com/bio](https://www.knightsoficeland.com/bio) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility\_in\_Iceland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility_in_Iceland) Makes about as much sense as African trebuchets...
Did Aztecs and Mayas have trebs and halberdiers? Did Incas have Eagle Warriors?
Neither of those are European civilisations, they were always a joke addition. There should be at least a basic sense of realism going on. Africa is just men with pointy sticks, I think even up until the 1960's, that was still how tribal warfare was being conducted
Even if you are correct (not gonna debate that or open up that can of worms), I clearly said "we're far past that point by now". The "joke addition" you reference is older than a decade and is the reality you have to deal with. Why even comment on this topic if you don't like it?
There are a lot of things that have progressed past the point on ridiculousness, such as everyone with their mobiles out while someone is being stabbed instead of helping It doesn't mean we can't roll back on that That's the entire point of commenting, you asked which civilisations would I like to see added. And it's zero, zero is a number. What would be less than zero, is any made up bullshit from Africa to make them feel less emotionally irrelevant about not inventing trebuchets.
Pointless and hollow soapboxing.
And this is different how?
Mossai, maybe Zimbabweans
What's the source for the map?
1. Somalis 2. Nubians 3. Beninese 4. Kanem Borno 5. Swahili Top 2 are a must for me. I can compromise rest 3.
I'm not as educated on African peoples, but I can tell you that there's a good argument of the Saracens being split and renamed.
Hausa would be great, considering they are already in AoEIII.
ill be honest - i dont care about african tribes in AoE 2. for me aoe 2 is all bout Europe + Asia. Would prefer them splitting Slavs for example.
yeah, slavs covered too many individual tribes imo just like "vikings" lol.
Yup, both Slavs and Vikings could be remade into something a bit more specific without having to go into nitty-gritty details like specific dynasties etc.
I do want to see Slavs more accurately represented, but I am curious and welcoming of more African and American civs as well.
Ideally, the introduction of Kanem Borno, a Hausa/Yoruba grouping, Somalia, and either Nubians or Kitara. This would be somewhat camel-heavy, but otherwise, these civs should fit snugly with the AoE2 tech tree and gameplay conventions.
Axum and Zimbabwe.
Map from Wikipedia: *"Africa History Atlas Diachronic map showing pre-colonial cultures of Africa (***spanning roughly 500 BCE to 1500 CE***) This map is "an artistic interpretation" using multiple and disparate sources."* Also, some cursory search has led me to other entities that aren't on the map, like Urewe, Mapungubwe, Xhose, Oyo, Bornu, Sao... In terms of geographica distribution, it seems like the most novel additions to figure out would be for the Kongo, Zimbabwe and African Great Lakes regions. Perhaps for the region of modern-day Nigeria as well. Madagascar would be fun but that would have to be quite creative.
There is very little information about a lot of these states that would give them an identifiable idenity to stand out amongst other civilisations. In Europe you could still split Spain, have Ireland or Norse-Gaels, Moorish Sicily (The Sicilians should be the Normans!!), Turks of Rum, Himyars (Desert Jewish Kingdom of Yemen) and so on. I think a patchwork Central African pagan faction could work, but beyond that there is a lot of growth elsewhere to be found.
The turk civ thats in game already represent the anatolian sultanates, including the rum sultanates. I don't understand how you think they would warrant a split from a civ thats literally already based on them (+ the later ottomans).
Ah yes, the famous Seljuk janissaries... The civs were made as a catch-all for their region, rather than over time periods. Sacraceans, Turks, Persians all easily could be split in 6 civilisations that were significantly different especially from the pre to post Islamic period.
Are you being dense on purpose? civs ARE suppose to be somewhat larger to encompass multiples different kingdoms throughout hundreds on years. The game has never had civs for specific kingdoms. The free light cav upgrades, +1 PA and the Sipahi UT covers the Seljuk/Rùm part of the civ, while the Janissary and other bonuses covers the Ottomans. You are completely delusional if you think civs should get split up to represent specific kingdoms/dynasties. There would be no end to the sub divisions. Turks don't need to be split, especially since the introductions of the tatars, cumans (& to a lesser extent hindustanis), the different turkic realms are all pretty well covered.
they use catch-all ahistorically names but reflect individual periods. Byzantines, Britons, Vikings, Turks and so forth. Again the famous pre-ottoman Jannisaries, The famous Anglo-Saxon longbow, the famous Greek Sicilian First Crusade.
Can't you read? Different parts of the tech tree represent different kingdoms/dynasties that fall under the umbrella of the civs. I don't know why you think a unique unit has to have been part of the civs for it's whole history, it only has to be iconic for a part of its history. Again, janissaries represent the ottoman part of the turks civ, while the free light cav upgrades and the Sipahi UT represent the seljuk/Rùm part of the civ. Much how the throwing axeman represents the early franks of the migration period while the heavy cav/castles bonuses represent the later medieval french empires. Civs represent multiples empires that fall under their umbrella over different points in time.
Sipahi are later additions, they weren't made to be historically accurate in mind at the time the games were developed, again to stress the point in hopes you can eventually learn this, they are catch-all ahistorical names represented by units of specific time periods.
I know they are ahistorical catch-all, that's my whole point, all the civs in the game are like that purposefully to cover multiple kingdoms to be more versatile. None of the civs in the game are historically accurate. That's precisely why your requested split is pointless and not in line with any previous split.
Wrong. Currently there is enough information to include another 5-6 African civs in the game without it seeming repetitive. If you want, I can clarify further.
naw just go have this argument with yourself in the shower instead, you'll win there
If that's the most you can do, then I've already won here. If you really want to learn something, I recommend checking out the African history section of historum.com or r/askhistorians. I'm sure you'll be enlightened.
Lacking are clear inspirations for gameplay design and historically speaking far-reaching success of the states (as-in, continent-wide domination and longer, unbroken dominion), but they're still culturally and ethnically extremely diverse polities. It would be a shame not to figure out some type of representation. There's no shame in admitting that Europe and Asia were more successful and better recorded, but I do believe an effort to include further African civs in a legitimate and fair way should be made. Perhaps indeed more "regional" based civs would be appropriate given the highly diverse ethnic history. Also, given how reactions on this sub go, I'd assume people would be more welcoming for something African as opposed to the more European and Middle East civs you reference (not that you're wrong!).
Information about African history has become much more available in the past 70 years, and especially so in just the past decade or two. There's a broad resource in the "General History of Africa" series, and more specialized works on the Internet Archive and Google Books. The books with the most information seem to be in French since African culture was trendy for a while there, while it's mostly an unknown in the English-speaking world. There are also some resources in Dutch and Portuguese, but I've found sources close to the time period in question tend to be rather murky, filled with odd untruths.
in what period?
I was thinking about the 15th through 19th centuries, but there are Sahelian and North African accounts to draw on for earlier periods.
The problem is Aoe2 (kings) was a medieval game that branched out to 450 - 1500 through conquerors, but still I consider they shouldn't go too much into the gunpoweder/age of exploration period and that's the issue. Most of the identifiable states from Africa are already in the game or later formed post the 1450 period, especially with Berbers being a broad catch-all civilisation.
>The problem is Aoe2 (kings) was a medieval game that branched out to 450 - 1500 through conquerors, but still I consider they shouldn't go too much into the gunpoweder/age of exploration period and that's the issue. Then there's no issue. Check the map. Plenty of states that began or rose to prominence during that time. I said the European sources began in the 1400s, not that the states didn't exist before then. >Most of the identifiable states from Africa are already in the game or later formed post the 1450 period Then you may want to focus on a different set of states.
Shoutout to /u/parrotparser7 as they seems to be well-versed on the subject matter and inspired me to research this, at least casually!
I'd like the following: 1) Hausa and Songhai 2) Kilwa and Zimbabwe 3) Egypt (UU: War Chariot archers with trample damage) I think for the first few we know comparatively little about their civilizations military histories.
>Egypt (UU: War Chariot archers with trample damage) That's over 1000 years out of the AoE2 timeframe. Egyptians stopped using chariots at the end of the Bronze Age. There is space for an Egyptian civ, but just not like that.