We’ve got another expansion to make, so where to start! We’re all joyously filled with crazy, weird ideas, bouncing them off the wall and eachother. But we’ll have to squeeze those ideas into a proper game. So where to start? Just like last time, it starts with the core of the new content, the new civilizations.
A Theme
In Age of Empires II HD: The Forgotten, we were presented with a rather obvious civ choice. Ensemble Studios had left hints behind on which civs they would’ve loved to add to the game. Some were nations that appeared in campaigns but were never turned into a proper, playable civ. Those were the easy choices, but now that we’ve used the most obvious ones, where do we go next? Over the last year(s), we’ve received a lot of feedback from players on possible new civilizations. Ranging from Medieval powerhouses like the Normans and the Khmers to less obvious or specific suggestions such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Principality of Pannonia. But unlike our broader approach to AoF, we’ve decided to build out more of a thematic flair and pay a visit to a continent south of Europe with a rich history: Africa. We’ll be covering civilizations both born within the content, as well empires that held great power in the region – including one that has been requested many, many, many times by the fans.
But to keep things a bit exciting, they will all be revealed over the coming weeks, so feel free to speculate 😉
Oh except for the first one!
The Berbers
The Berbers (~700 AD) are the first African civilization to be seen in the new expansion pack. We caught a glimpse of them in the original El Cid campaigns in “The Conquerors”, where they are portrayed in a more generic term as Saracens. Berbers, however, are more than worthy of becoming an Age of Empires civilization. With dynasties across Northern Africa, the ancient Berbers will primarily be a Cavalry & Naval civilization. They’ll have 2 unique units and will also feature a unique technology that affects the entire team.
Since we’re early in development, we don’t have a lot of screenshots yet, but the Camel Archer is already properly functional in the game and looking good. As if it has always been hopping around in the Age of Empires II universe. It was of course teased with the overall expansion announcement.
And last but not least, the Berbers will have their own campaign, but we’ll share more on that later as well.
So this will be it for the first dev blog, it’s more of a tease than a proper “dev” blog, but we’ll certainly dig a bit deeper in the next episodes. We’re hoping to do these monthly, make sure you don’t miss out 😉
I’ve waiting so much time for this, finally!!
I agree
Hi, what about Polish civ? I know, I know – Slavs. But, really, Slavs are totally like Russian, while Poland was strong and totally different than Slavs. Unique unit Pancerny (from XIV century), cavalry oriented civilization, something between French and Magyars. Yeah, I know, we’ve got many civs from central Europe, asking for another one is maybe too much, but Poland was too much important kingdom from that period to be simply forgotten. The second thing I don’t like in AoE (but you guys are doing great in this pattern) is lack of diversity in terms of units. Every civilisation… Read more »
Russia mainly originated from the Vikings, you know? so Poland is in a sense more Slavic than Russia. and no, Poland is not much different from in-game Slavs, they have an incredably strong Infantry, good siege and they have Huzzar Cavalry, the most Iconic Polish Unit, used all the way til WW2, charging German panzers with horses and lances XD but, if they were to make a Polish civ, there would be equal chanses of them making Irish, Swedish, Danish etc.. civs too, but there isn’t much point as they all originate from Viking & Celt cultures of which, the… Read more »
You know, this is a centered expansion, so, um, Polish don’t make connection to Africa, you may want to expect the Portuguese, you know, because they discovered it
I hope someone on the dev team reads this – The term “Berber” is considered offensive by many North Africans, “Amazigh/Imazighen” is the more appropriate term. I can understand why you might want to use the term (the same reason you’d use terms like “Teuton” and “Saracen” , bc it’s meant to be antiquated), but i just wanted to let you know
“Berber” is the term used by English-speakers. There’s nothing in the Wikipedia article “Berbers” to suggest it’s offensive. It’s not meant in an offensive way, so finding it offensive is kind of silly. it’s just a name.
This is directly from the wikipedia article:
“The name Berber derives from the Latin barbarus (meaning barbarian). A history by a Roman consul in Africa made the first reference of the term “barbarian” to describe Numidia. The use of the term Berber spread in the period following the arrival of the Vandals during their major invasions.”
Do you see how calling a group of people “barbarians” might be considered offensive? most English speakers wouldnt refer to Hungarians as “Magyars,” but that’s in the game isn’t it?
but barbarian used to mean “no Roman” in the past
ok, what does it mean now? I’m not North African, I’m guessing you aren’t either; Actual People who have been called “Berber” in the past view it as offensive. Are we the ones that get to decide what is and isnt offensive for them?
“Saracen” is another term that was used by the Greeks and Romans, but then it just meant “Easterner,” in the AoE2 period of history it was synonymous with “Arab” or “Muslim.” There isn’t much of an outcry against that because the term isn’t considered offensive (just antiquated).
I think the issue with the term is not because the ‘berbers’ term derived from barbarian. Lot of people who live in the Magreb specially in Libia and Tunis consider them self as Arabic and rejects their Berbers origins, Mostly because in the middle ages after the Arabs conquer the Magreb, the Arabs considered the converted berbers as second class citizens. The problem with the terms ‘Amazigh’ or ‘Imazighen’ is that it represents these peoples only before the Arabic conquest and the other term which could be used ‘Moors’ only represent them after (and who’s) were converted to islam. I… Read more »
I’m not North African, I’m guessing you aren’t either. We’re not the ones who get to decide what they should and shouldnt consider offensive.
To answer your question; no, we don’t consider it offensive
cool, i was just speaking rhetorically. i think op is the one who’d be more interested in hearing from someone whos actually in that community
You could make that argument with a lot of words. Even though the word “Berber” is derived from the same word “barbarian” is derived from, it no longer has that meaning nor does it hold any barbarian connotations. Nothing in the Wikipedia article suggests that they find it offensive. The name “Barbara” is also derived from “barbarus”. The difference with the Magyars is that “Magyar” is still a common term in history. But choosing a name only known by a very small number of people because the English name if found offensive to a very small number of people would… Read more »
sure – and I wouldn’t care about this at all if actual Berber people didn’t mind.
I don’t know how many of them find the term offensive, idk how you know that it’s a “small number of people” who find it offensive, but if you’re right, i’ve got nothing against it.
Just to refute you, the Indians never called themselves so. The Europeans called them Indians. So, as they say, what’s in a name ? More than reference, there is nothing offensive to it.
more specifically, it was Arabs who introduced terms like “Hindu” and “India,” meaning anyone east of the Indus River.
The difference is that the term “Berber” was used specifically to demonize them and separate North Africans from other groups (First Romans, then Europeans generally). “India” was just a geographical term used by outsiders, it doesnt carry any stigma or negative connotations like “Berber” does
Amazigh or imazigen would be preferrable but it’s not a big deal. Most of my family couldn’t give two shits
How about the mixe civilization?
Im going to go on a bit of a rant soo yeah 😀 Its so annoying how you used the ”Slavs” to cover basically every single country from eastern Europe… Even though today those countries are not really as powerfull, eastern Europe had some badass empires during the middle ages. Also how did the Hungarians (Magyars) get their own unique civ but not Bulgaria for example? Even though modern Bulgaria is not a factor in Europe, it had a very powerful empire during the middle ages especially during Simeon the Great’s rule where the empire matched the strenght of powers… Read more »
Pointing at Hungary is not a wise idea in this case 🙂 Unless you’d like to question the implementation of mongols, huns or turks, as hungarians had basically the same role from the perspective of Europe: they came and conquered. And raped and plundered. The only difference is that Hungary didn’t lose it’s relevance after they failed with their raids, they could settle in Europe and didn’t seize to exist as a country ever since, which means more than a 1000 years of continous European history, while on the other hand Bulgaria (fun fact: who actually did beat hungarians in… Read more »
I didnt say it to diminish the importance of Hungary. Hungary and its history are also veeeery interesting. I simply believe that Bulgaria has an equally complex and interesting past that deserves acknowledgement :). And yeah Bulgaria did colapse but the Balkans mainly fell not due to the brilliance of the Ottomans but the fact that decades of fighting between Serbs, Bulgarians, Byzantines and even Hungarians led to a massive weakening of the area. Also the mistrust was faaar to much, there was an effort to join Serbian and Bulgarian armies but it was far too late. (It just goes… Read more »
What can be decided as the unique unit and unique techs for Bulgarians
THIS IS AN AFRICAN-CENTERED EXPANSION, DO NOT EXPECT BULGARIA
Kudos for using Blender!
One of the best Free and Open Source Software tools out there. I can’t wait for the expansion to come.
idk if you guys read what it says above, but the theme for the expansion is going to be African. I’m gonna copy-paste the post i made on steam: ” 12 of the 23 available civs in AoE2HD are European – sorry, but I think that’s more than enough. This is especially the case when you consider that Europe is a relatively small part of the world (the Indian Subcontinent has just as many cultures and languages as Europe, but it wasn’t even included in the original game, and is represented by only one civilization in the expansion). Many of… Read more »
“Eurocentrism” isn’t a bad thing – do recall that most of significant history features Europeans – particularly in the periods the game represents.
I’d prefer to see lesser-known European civilizations like Guelders or Burgundy (In fact, just look at Age of Chivalry: Hegemony) than historically insignificant South-African kingdoms.
I think the current development plan is fairly well done, however, it seems like they’re only picking out civilizations that did have significant contact with Europe.
The time period of this game would seem to be 500-1500. Off the top of my head I can name Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Benin, Axum, Makuri, Abyssinia, the Adal Sultanate, Kanem-Bornu, the Hausa city states, Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, and the Swahili city states as considerably more important and interesting from a world history perspective during this time frame than the Duchy of Guelders.
“…’eurocentrism’ isn’t a bad thing – do recall that most of significant history features Europeans…” That is the most inaccurate thing I’ve heard in a while, and frankly it’s racist. Lots of people wanted to see a game along the lines of what you’re describing – one that goes in-depth with European History, and includes every obscure faction that existed. Turns out you already mentioned it, it’s called “Age of Chivalry: Hegemony” and it’s the greatest AoE2 mod out there. If you honestly think that Mali, Abyssinia, and Zimbabwe are “Historically Insignificant,” idk what to say… pick up a history… Read more »
that is ignorance. Those african kingdoms were in fact very important at that age, even more developed than the european factions you mention. Insignificant your opnion on that.
“insignificant”
To be fair, Size doesn’t matter if most of the land mass is sparse
a) neither of these african nations cover land that would be considered ‘sparse.’ the malian empire controlled some arid regions, but almost all the land it comprised was south of the sahara.
b) If you don’t think sheer size is an indicator of significance, i’ll happily give a dozen other reasons.
As a person interested in knowing how good these empires/civilizations really are, please go on with said reasons
Well it’s a pretty broad topic, and a lot if it has been covered in comments from other people… Abyssinians (or ethiopians or whatever term u wanna use) have existed for more than a millenia, and have repelled invaders the whole time. Well into the 19th century, Ethiopia was the only African nation that remained independent of foreign influence. Along with other Medieval East African nations, they controlled much of the economic trade in the Indian ocean world. Also their Christian architecture was something to behold, i think their rock-hewn churches would make an awesome aoe wonder. The Malians were… Read more »
what Unique units and Unique techs can be decided for these African civs? Like farimba for Mali
I’m hoping there’ll be a lot more variety of Unique Units in the upcoming expansion. Most of the original civs either had some variant of Archer, Swordsman, or Heavy Cavalry).
I’d like to see some kind of unique unit that is a variant of the Skirmisher, idk what civ that would be appropriate for.
Again, in the same vein, maybe a unique unit that would go in the category of “light cavalry” – sort of like the magyar huszar.
its pretty hard to decide unique units and unique techs if there are lots of civs~~~ since this is not AOE3, which unique units can replace the regular units. We have to avoid making the unworthy or useless units
Mali Empire had many light cavalry, but how to emphasis the uniqueness of Mali light cavalry than other civs’ counterparts, any ideas?
the forgotten empires team has made an admirable effort to make each new uu stand out – both visually and from a gameplay perspective. The Italians got an ‘anti-cavalry’ archer, the Slavs got an axe-wielding armored cavalry, the Indians basically got mobile watch towers – hey, Berbers are gonna have a camel archer! I hope we get that same effort in the new expansion, and I think that we will. Something I’d like to see is a mounted skirmisher unit. Something like a cavalry archer, except they would throw javelins. The Spanish were originally gonna have something like that in… Read more »
Exactly, AoE is just a game, dont be too puritanical, in history Mamluke never threw their sabre, Chu Ko Nu that could be carried by individuals was for defending home rather than fighting in battlefield. Ok, mounted skirmisher for Mali? what about Zimbabwe, or Ghana, Benin, and other else
Ghana, Benin, and Mali are all in the same general area, so i’d expect them to share one civ. East African civs like Abyssinia had heavy cavalry too, i guess that’s a possibility. Could another Elephant unit be a possibility? We have a ‘heavy cavalry’ elephant unit with the Persians, and a ‘cavalry archer’ elephant unit with the Indians, so what about a ‘light cavalry’ elephant unit? one that has weaker armor but is faster than the Persian elephant. As far as Zimbabwe goes, idk, i don’t know much about them historically, but I’d like another uu that falls into… Read more »
I don’t think african elephants were ever used in war. By the way, african elephants are bigger and heavier than asian, so it would be weird if an african civ used lighter elephants than Indians and Persians. However, we would probably have new elephant units if one day the team works on a South East Asian mod, since they were used by Khmers, Burmeses, and above all Chams, whose armies were centered around them.
Those are all valid points, but it’s also fair to mention that 100% accuracy isn’t really a driving motivation behind development of the civs (remember that Persians wouldnt’ve used Elephants at all in the time period that AoE2 takes place). There’s also the precedent that was set in aoe1, where lots of the African civs could create Elephant units. There are lots of subspecies of African Elephant that are now extinct, but which have been used in war quite a lot. The Carthaginians famously used African elephants in battle against Rome. There are Instances of Medieval Ethiopians using war elephants… Read more »
I thought the Persians still used elephants when Genghis Khan invaided them, but I may be wrong.
I totally forgot about the Abyssinans, I was focused on Sub-Saharan Africa and missed the North East ^^”
Well, maybe there will be another elephant unit in this mod, wait and see.
(And yes, Southeast Asia is one of the regions of the world AoE still need the most ^^)
It’s not crazy to imagine a medieval Persian army fielding war elephants (Ghaznavyan Dysnasty might’ve used them, but idk anything).
I was basing it off of an old interview on aokheaven where one of the ES devs basically said that they’d been looking for an excuse to get war elephants in the game, bc they had been in aoe1; they ended up giving eles to persia, even though it might not have been the most accurate thing to do (paraphrased).
i would like to reply to ian-olesa(a girl name?) and say the carthaginians used elephants – the extinct sirian one – the largest, as much as i read so far, but the persians, abbasids, samanids, khwarezmians, ghaznavids, ghorids, deli sultanates, timurids and so on all used elephants! so it is not out of place to represent elephants for the persians
good to know 🙂
(and btw it’s Lan-olesa with an L)
Carthage?
Carthage used a nowaday extinct subspecie even shorter than Indian elephants.
Well, I won’t be buying an African expansion because I have no interest in it.
Most people who play Age of Empires are European or of European descent and that is the simple fact why most civilizations in the game are also European.
yep, okay… Sometimes I fell guilty for being overly critical of a person’s comment, but this… this is such a sh!tty point of view that I’m not gonna lose any sleep over anything I say. So let’s take your bullsh!t one step at a time: – “Most people who play Age of Empires are European or of European descent.” ahahaha, wow, I guess I’m just imagining the gigantic following aoe2 has in China and Korea (and Japan, and India, and plenty of other countries). Besides, what does that matter? are Europeans so collectively bigoted that they’re unable to relate to… Read more »
I agree with you, those people that subestimate African civilizations are just fucking and ignorant morons, greetings from México, here in my country and also in other latin american countries there are lots of fans of AoE franchise.
Yep, I am a terrible ignorant racist moron but you still can’t prove the “cultural advancements” of sub-saharan Africa that never took place. 🙂
whatever you say sweetie :)))
The Nok Civilization is considered to be one of the most advanced ancient sub-Saharan civilizations in African history. Beginning some time around 1500 BCE, it was largely concentrated in what is now Nigeria but produced some of the first sub-Saharan iron smelting and terracotta architecture. Mysteriously died out around 200 CE. The Kingdom of Nri (1043–1911) was the West African medieval state of the Nri-Igbo, a subgroup of the Igbo people, and is the oldest kingdom in Nigeria. The Kingdom of Nri was unusual in the history of world government in that its leader exercised no military power over his… Read more »
Yes you are racist and ignorant, there are a lot of age of empires fans that are african descent, just look at the african american comunity, or in latin america ( many latin americans have african descent among it’s native and european roots) where there are fans that really want african factions in the game. there are also communities in many african countries like South africa that play this game. you also don’t know anything about the african kingdoms in the middle ages, Tombuctu for example was a very advanced city at that time even they was a cultural and… Read more »
Algerian berber checking in. Your argument is invalid. Plus lots of arabs would like to play as the amazigh. And I know Aoe has a big arab pop
So I should just have you directing what I think then…having Berbers is nice…hilary
i would like to say that i might find extremly usefull bulgaria and poland, as also a baltic civilisation, but hopefully these will be done sometime in an other expansion regarding the balkan theme. also a caucasian theme would do!
Nice civilization
Waiting for the Portuguese to join to AOE2 World !!
by the way, how is implementation of this going to work? buying the Forgotten was optional, and some people didnt – what if they want to buy this new expansion? what if someone owns both this new expansion and the Forgotten? will there be an option to switch between the 3 different versions?
Inuits
Aborigines
Mauri
American Indians
Zulu