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 😉
It is hard to balance game by adding excessive civs, I recommend that adding some new ways of playing in order to attract more new players for AOE2
my fancy idea: can you add a technique called Epidemic in the post-imperial age, which will decrease the opponent’s units with 1hp/min? the requiement would be similar to treason
so aoe2 civs always have broad generalizing names, right? and i get the purpose of that, it’s so that larger areas and timespans can be represented.
With that in mind, I’m trying to imagine the broad terms that could be used to describe African civs… I guess “Abyssinians” would be a good catch-all term that could describe Aksum as well as later Ethiopian kingdoms and dynasties.
What are some similar terms? like how would you describe Mali and Songhai if you were talking broadly about west-African empires?
Good question
“Ethiopian” is more inclusive than “Abyssinian”, as the latter technically only refers to Semitic speakers (Amhara, Tigray, etc.) which excludes groups like the Oromo, Afar, Sindamo, etc. “Ethiopian” can reasonably be stretched to include the Somali. It may be OK to use the “Nubians” to represent Nilotic peoples, the Kanuri, and other eastern Saharan peoples. “Mandé” encompasses the Soninke (Ghana), Mandinka (Mali). I guess the Songhay could be put here as well as they controlled much of the same area despite being culturally, linguistically, and organizationally different. While not totally accurate, “Fulani” can be stretched to include the Wolof and… Read more »
Interesting points you bring up but I dont think the term Nubian fits the time zone of AOK
How would you describe the kingdoms of Makuria, Alodia, and Nobatia other than “Nubian”?
I’m not sure Ethiopian would be favored over Abyssinian, aside from the fact that the later is more accurate from an ethnical standpoint (even though I’d rather liker “Habesha”), it also sounds more medieval. Even though I can’t imagine this mod without Ethiopians/Abyssinians, Nubians or Mandé/Mandinka, I’m not sure we will see Fulani in the game. From what I heard, they were quite peaceful in this time frame and mostly reacted to invasions by migrating (which isn’t a bad thing, but doesn’t qualify them as eligible for a wargame). By the way, I noticed you didn’t mention any civilisation Southern… Read more »
If AOE 2 have Khmer civ then it must have Vietnamese too
And the Norman was Viking already
Eventhough they are played as Franks in the Battle of Hastings. But that’s in 1066, about 150 years after Normandy was given to Rollo by king Charles of France.
#1 thing I’m hoping to see for current Civs: Less clashes between unique and standard units. And by that I mean, apart from training restrictions due to buildings, what REAL incentive do e.g Chinese/Italians/Goths/Japanese/Saracens players have to train Archers/Champions/Camels over their respective UU counterparts? #2, Although this is more of a personal pet-peeve thing I guess, to solve the ‘self-defeating Civ/TeamBonuses’ e.g Byzantine buildings have greater HP, but cannot Tech Masonry/Architecture; or Celts having better Infantry Movement and Lumberjacks, but no access to Squires/3rdTierLumber tech; Chinese TB gives +45 food to farms, but they themselves don’t have Crop Rotation.
As an algerian berber I would absolutely LOVE if we were put in the game. That would be sick!
I have lots of family that descend from the area that was called Muslim Spain, or Al-Andalus. And while we share some traits with middle easterners, we have our own culture and history unique to us
In addition we deserve our own civ. As said before, we aren’t saracens, 99% of algerians and morrocans are berber by origin. The only arab ones are the ones outside the city of Fez, and a few bedouins in the desert.
Yeah, we did expell a lot of people with a different religion on a frequent basis, even if they were actually ethnic Iberians. Then we just make people from the North live on the places you previously had. Sorry about that :p
But yes, having Berbers as a new civ is well deserved and a great addition!
#1 Thing I’d like to see for current Civs, is to give more incentive for certain races to train certain units over others. Apart from Production Buildings, what other real incentive do Chinese/Goths/Japanese/Saracens/Turks players have to train Arbalests/Champions/HCamels/Cannoneers over their UU variants?
#2 Although this is more of a personal pet peeve thing: “self-defeating” Civ/Team/UU bonuses. E.g Aztecs/Vikings have +Dmg/+HP Infantry, but cannot train Halberdiers. Byzantines/Celts/Chinese have +BuildingHP/FasterInfantry+Lumberjacks/+Food for Farms, but cannot upgrade Masonry+Architecture/Squires+2ManSaw/CropRotation. You read the bonuses, and think wow, but in the end, you only get a minor +5% bonus in e.g the Celts’ cases.
One thing that would be neat in the new update is if the Mongols could look more Mongolish by having their chinese/japanese style houses replaced with actual yurts, walls reduced to stone walls, and have palisade walls affected by masonry tech since their structures were far less permanant and solid than those of other Asian countries due to their nomadic nature.
And if this weakens their defence too much, they could have an ability called Tribal Feuds which would increase tower attack rate and give outposts a larger sight radius.
Interesting idea, but I think it relies a bit too heavily on one specific time period in mongolian history – factions in aoe2 are meant to be more amorphous. your description might work for the more famous perception of the mongols, but i think it’d be inaccurate to think that they never built regular houses or walls. like… the Timurids were Mongolian… the Yuan Dynasty was Mongolian… neither of those would fit the description of the civ you’re describing. I think things are better the way they are now – right now you can read the mongols as a nomadic… Read more »
What I’d like to see more is to have the Asian buildings set split into two: Japan can keep the old/current one and make a new one for the Mongols, Chinese, and Koreans. It’s weird to see a Chinese or Mongol town with thatched roofs and torii gates.
I think Mongols need their own building set, even though they could share it with Huns and other new nomadic civs from Central and Eastern Asia, such as Jurchens and Tatars.
Given that this expansion is going to be focused on Africa I don’t think there will be new Asian civs this time. The reason I think Mongols sharing a building set with China is ok is coz of the Yuan dynasty. The Jurchens are basically sinicized ex-nomads that ran Northern China so they have even more reason look the same as Chinese. Huns are culturally Eastern European (I think), so they should look different from Mongols.
Mongols were a lot more than yuan dinasty. What about the golden horde in russia or the ilkanato or the kanato of chagatai?
Yes, but the Yuan was dominant, that’s most likely why it has the east Asian set. As for the Huns no one is fully sure where they originated. Whether if they have any connections with the Xiongnu is still a matter of debate.
Well i think yuan dinasty is actually represented by chineese, no mongols. Yuan dinasty was governed by mongols but the people was chinese. Mongols were more than that. Genghis wasn’t chinese.
…In that case would that make the Golden Horde Turk? Most of the Golden Horde’s population were Turks with Mongols as the ruling class, as it was with the Yuan Dynasty. Kublai Khan wasn’t Chinese either but he ruled like a Chinese emperor. The thing with the Mongols is that after their conquests they settled down and assimilated themselves into the cultures of people they conquered, hence why it’s justified to have them build towns. As the Yuan dynasty was the center of power of the Mongol Empire having Asian buildings are IMO the best choice. Besides, making the faction… Read more »
Welll the golden horde was also in russia. So not only turks. I think mongols should have a unique sets with parts of the others.
You have to remember that ancient cultures aren’t defined by modern borders. Yes the Golden Horde had territories in part of what’s now Russia but culturally and ethnically its almost entirely Turk, even the Mongol elites soon adapted to Turkic culture before breaking away from the Mongol empire to become their own separate Turkic Khaganate. Having a mixed building might not look so good and may end up confusing the player.
And huns were a kind of proto-mongols. First they raid china then they moved west to persia and europe
Huns came from Central Asia, so they were probably closer to early Turks. And yes, the Yuan dynasty was Mongol, but so were the Golden Hord or the Timurids.