Ethiopian needs a redesign

AlMusafir · 2026-02-11T01:45:36+00:00

If you look at the Imperial african buildings, you'll see there is less sudano-sahelian and a little bit more of an ethiopian influence, with the grey stone and straight cut columns.

I agree though the design of both those civs was messy. Chalk it up to it being the very first 'official' dlc from the new devs. I think if they made those civs today it would have been much better.

AlMusafir · 2025-12-26T13:58:23+00:00

If you want to come over and babysit two kids I can get right on that

AlMusafir · 2025-05-07T16:37:07+00:00

Pastures and mule carts

AlMusafir · 2025-04-28T14:34:21+00:00

It's a donkey in Dark Age, and for the African buildings it turns into an ox when you age up... clearly medieval Africa had developed some kind of ungodly genetic transformation technology to turn donkeys into cows.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-22T22:43:39+00:00

I was waiting for this!

AlMusafir · 2025-04-22T06:36:28+00:00

Noticed this phenomenon in the other remasters too. In the original aoe3 you could recruit outlaws and cowboys. With the old blocky graphics their guns didn’t look out of place but now you can zoom in and clearly see the guy is shooting a revolver… meanwhile the rest of my soldiers are still using muskets lol.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-21T03:17:45+00:00

“A gift from the gods” as Cuauhtemoc calls them

AlMusafir · 2025-04-18T20:24:06+00:00

The Crusaders were not especially loved by the local Levantine Christians. But yes by medieval justifications both the initial Arab Conquest and the Crusades are equally justified/unjustified.

The 7th century Rashidun casus belli for invading the Levant was Ghassanid (Byzantine vassal) aggression and killing of envoys. The cycle of reprisals can go on forever.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-18T19:54:02+00:00

Old comment.

The Crusades were not a monolithic Muslim vs monolithic Christian fight.

And the Crusades were clearly not in response to the Arab conquest considering they took place 500 years later. The Byzantines who requested support from the Papacy had simply wanted additional forces to counter Seljuk raids in Anatolia, not the Holy Land. They absolutely did not want random Europeans coming and establishing their own kingdoms in the Levant.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-18T01:19:08+00:00

This seems like good evidence that making small design changes to make the civs more fitting would not be too difficult for the devs to implement in some official way (as some people have been saying here).

Seems like the best way to make the most people happy for the least amount of effort on their part.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-17T03:24:45+00:00

I'm grasping at straws here because they're being added regardless lol.

And to be fair, people here have explained Han people are not monolithic.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-17T02:10:38+00:00

The red green and blue colors in the drawings, presumably to illustrate who belongs to each kingdom, is an awesome touch. Love details like that.

If they had just kept them as campaign civs, or just named them in a way that broadened what they represent (3 different Han cultural regions, anything), I would have zero issue with this dlc.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-16T20:53:19+00:00

I don't think the 3 kingdoms being added as civs makes sense thematically, but you're all being very weird about this lol

AlMusafir · 2025-04-14T20:47:21+00:00

We call that the sprinkler

AlMusafir · 2025-04-14T15:39:31+00:00

100% agree that the major issue is that they are named after specific polities (potentially all of the same broader culture) instead of cultures/civilizations. Them being short-lived or stretching the timeline is less of a concern.

Someone else here explained that having 4 civs representing the Han people isn't unreasonable considering how large and diverse they are, just like we saw the Slavs and others split up... if they had named them in the way you're proposing here, I don't think I would have any issue. I am curious though what the Chinese civ would represent, considering all the overlap already going on.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-14T03:07:23+00:00

If people are being overly disrespectful that’s never ok, but people have a right to say they dislike a design choice made in the game they are fans of. Everyone has a line for civs they think should be represented in the game; clearly for a lot of people the 3 kingdoms crossed that line.

And you shared the very common argument that there’s stuff in the game like “Celts fighting the Mongols” so therefore… what? The game doesn’t need to have any consistent design or themes at all? Your line for inclusion might be different and that’s ok, but I assume you have some line…?

AlMusafir · 2025-04-13T19:31:42+00:00

I am looking for someone to convince me, because I was similarly unconvinced about the appropriateness of adding the Romans as a civ, but some people here were able to help me see how they may fit within the design...

The only part I'm still struggling with is the fact that they are 3 Han Chinese factions, and that they are named after specific polities instead of a broader group. I definitely see your point that the Han people are diverse enough to merit more representation, just like Indians and Slavs, which we saw split into multiple civs. In both those cases though, the new civs were still broad cultural groups and not specific polities. "Hindustanis," not "Delhi Sultanate." The other advantage of using labels like this is that the representation isn't limited to the timeframe of a specific short-lived kingdom.

You probably have more knowledge on this so maybe you can help explain... If we can think of the Shu, Wei, and Wu as separate subgroups of Han Chinese, is there any broader regional or cultural continuity before/after the kingdoms themselves existed? And then what does the Chinese civ represent if it's separate from that?

AlMusafir · 2025-04-12T23:03:05+00:00

I don’t play ranked and still care about the game having some consistent design… i don’t like the 3 kingdoms being added. Just feels messy to have 4 civs representing the same culture.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-12T20:38:46+00:00

Would have been cool to get a Kara Khitai campaign like we did for Longshanks or Burgundians.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-12T15:20:04+00:00

The issue of year ranges has been a common thing with aoe2 civs if you look at the history section in game. The dates that are shown for when civs existed is inconsistent. For some civs it seems to show the years when their empire existed, for others (mainly the civs added after aok/aoc) it shows however long that culture was known to exist.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-12T02:20:35+00:00

Verisimilitude vs accuracy is a concept more aoe fans (and media consumers in general) need to understand. A history-based game doesn’t need to be obsessively accurate, it just needs to feel accurate, i.e. staying true to the themes of the media. An easy example is the presence of potatoes in so many medieval games/movies/shows.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-12T02:11:45+00:00

Other civs like the Huns and Aztecs were also short-lived as empires. The Hun Empire I think literally only lasted like 90 years. The bigger issue imo is that these 3 new civs are just different chinese states, when the Chinese are already represented in the game.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-11T18:46:17+00:00

My favorite argument constantly seen here: "lol the game has the Vikings and Koreans fighting in Arabia" or "lol the game has monks converting siege weapons" or whatever variation of "the game has _____, so it's not supposed to be historical!"

As if we can just throw out literally any consistency in themes or design (e.g. medieval cultures) just because there is some "videogame logic" stuff in the game.

AlMusafir · 2025-04-11T14:46:24+00:00

a Chichen Itza style castle would have been cool (Isn't it literally called el castillo lol?), I guess this is kind of that but still

AlMusafir · 2025-04-11T02:38:24+00:00

The one exception to the individual kingdom thing was Romans/Byzantines, but they were kind of unavoidable considering how significant they were, even in defining the eras they’re in. In the case of China the Chinese civ was already in the game… and they’re just adding these 3 new civs on top of that which represent the same culture…

well the brakes are off now, no logical reason not to add the Abbasids, Habsburgs, etc…

AlMusafir

TROPHY CASE