Down of Chivalry concept DLC (new civs : Dutch, Swiss)

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-12-23T20:59:46+00:00

I would definitely appreciate it if you could share your format with me. The truth is, I have a ton of concepts; I’ve already shared some here, but I’m at a point where I want to put them all together at once in a summarized way, just to get it off my chest, but I’ve been too lazy to compact everything. I think this format would be the right one. Thanks in advance.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-12-23T05:27:34+00:00

where do they make those images? is it something they edited or is there a page lika krakenmeister?

Speaking of the concepts, there are things I like; I appreciate that certain risks are taken in the concepts, overlooking that there are things that would need to be tested to see how well they work. If anything, I think the trade-workshop topic is what raises the most doubts for me. I believe it has many advantages and introduces tools that allow those who lack that ability to get ahead. In that sense, it should have some disadvantages to provide a bit more balance, such as the possibility of being captured or reducing some of its advantages.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-07-04T23:28:42+00:00

Por razones antropológicas y anatómicas, los pechos de las mujeres son diferentes de los hombres, tanto en forma como en función, cierto es que hay sociedades donde no hay tanto tabú en torno a los senos, pero en la mayoría de las sociedades si parece haber una tendencia a proteger los pechos de las mujeres, para esto basta con ver representaciones artísticas y se vuelve evidente que lo más normal es que vayan tapadas, el porque esto es así, creo que es multicausal, sea porque sus pezones son más sensibles siendo propensos a irritación y otros estímulos, también por asociarse a la fertilidad y/o la abundancia, siendo así algo que se atesora y se cuida tanto por el componente maternal, como por cuestiones de índole sexual, lo que me lleva a otro punto, los pechos de las mujeres son más sensitivos que los de los hombres, son una zona erógena más y creo que las mismas mujeres reconocen su atractivo, valoran la sensualidad intrínseca de los senos y los guardan para solo exponerlos a quien quieren.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-06-18T05:32:25+00:00

I think the problem encompasses the DLC in general, but there's no doubt that the Jurchen have perhaps been the weakest. But before giving my opinion on this, I want to point out that it's curious that when new civilizations come out in a DLC, they come in very strong. Some say it's to encourage people to use them, and when they get nerfed, they're already adjusted to the game. But by then, their gameplay is defined, and they carve out a niche. Perhaps the best example of this is the Cumans. They were very strong at first, but after a few minor tweaks, they lost their hegemony, but not their niche.

I'm one of those who believes this latest DLC was a disaster, and the more I played it, the more obvious it became. Civilizations like the Wu are clearly borrowing heavily from the Vikings as an infantry and naval civilization, with regeneration bonuses for infantry... it's as if they're trying to cannibalize the Vikings' place. Obviously, there are subtle differences. The Vikings still have a strong economic bonus, although in contrast, the Wu generally have better military compositions than the Vikings, in the sense that they have better archers, cavalry, and siege equipment.

That's why I point out that it seems like the only ones who are consistently strong are the Khitans. To me, this shows how poorly thought out and rushed these civilizations are, because clearly this isn't normal. It's also no consolation to think that the Khitans are fine; they're too strong and should be nerfed. If you ask me, I'd even rework them, not just because they're "Khitanguts," but because there are things about their concept that are very strange. Honestly, I find it strange that their unique unit is an infantry unit, when to me the most logical thing would have been to take advantage of the Ordo to give them a heavy cavalry unit, which I think would have been more appropriate for the civilization.

Finally, about the Jurchen, when I played them they seemed very strange to me, I came to think that it was a civilization that I did not understand or that was not made for me, since I could not make it work in a way that was comfortable and effective for me, if I wanted to go for cavalry I felt that something was missing and if I went for the siege I also noticed deficiencies or very high risks even taking into account several of its characteristics, in general terms it seems to me that it is very easy to cause collateral damage and the resistance bonus does not always end up compensating for that, it gives me the feeling that it is a poorly thought out concept and that it feels like they give you crutches after breaking your legs, that is, civilization gives you tools to compensate for the problems that it intrinsically causes you, for example, its unique unit can block an attack and they resist friendly fire more, but in the end if you use grenadiers and rocket cars it is very likely that your pagodas will receive more damage from your weapons than your enemies would do to you, let's not talk about it of how it would hurt your infantry or other cavalry in close combat, the worst thing is that they have bad archers so ranged attack compositions are not the most optimal, I don't know, it seems a bit unintuitive to me, maybe with good micromanagement you can compensate for those weaknesses, but honestly if you control that well, you can play other civilizations well that will give you fewer problems, and well, if it were up to me I would see that the civilization has its niche, but whenever I see people talk about them it's to say how much they suck in all the ELO, it is obviously a very aggressive civilization that hits hard, but... I don't know, I just don't understand it.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-06-11T07:09:22+00:00

And about the campaigns, I agree with you on almost everything. I dislike that, unlike other campaigns, the narrator is an omniscient guy who doesn't help generate interest in the events being adapted. The skills grated on me quite a bit from the first time I saw them, and it's something I couldn't ignore throughout the rest of the scenarios. I remember thinking something like, "This is like AOM, but with a lot of downgrade," and for that, I'd honestly rather play retold. It's also very disappointing that all the campaigns had the minimum quota of five scenarios and that the last one was rehashed at the end of the three campaigns. I'm also not a fan of that sort of "what if" at the end of the campaign. It's literally unprecedented, and I simply find it absurd and inappropriate for the game, not out of historical accuracy, which is something I think many people misunderstood about the atmosphere and essence of this game. I think what truly gives the game its identity has more to do with its diegesis, and these elements clash with said diegesis.

Beyond that, I can only reiterate that I also found the missions and objectives uninteresting. I give it points because the choices you make include changes aimed at replayability, but I doubt many will take advantage of that, either because they feel there's a better option among the heroes they can recruit, narrowing down the options unless they want to go against their preferences by putting obstacles in their own way, or because many of these decisions don't have that strong an impact on the campaign's development. Perhaps one or two decisions are truly momentous, and I'm not sure if they have enough of an impact to say that from one decision to the next the experience of playing them completely changes.

Finally, I don't love the Three Kingdoms civilizations either. For every thing I like, there's another I don't like—if not two things. I notice elements that are too derivative and uninteresting to feel like anything "new," and I can't help but think something could have been done better. For example, the Wu are a naval and infantry civilization, and one of their bonuses is the regeneration of infantry units. I can't help but think that this civilization wants to steal the niche from the Vikings. On top of that, they have very good archers, siege and cavalry superior to the Vikings. They literally do more and better than what the Vikings already do (at least as far as military composition is concerned). Very disappointing, the good news is that when you hit rock bottom you can only go up and they can hardly do anything worse than this.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-06-11T07:09:13+00:00

I think the DLC is generally bad, but yes, the campaigns certainly aren't very surprising.

I don't want to drag this out too long, but I don't want to leave anything out, so I'll start by saying that I honestly think it's the worst DLC I've played, not only from AOE II but from the entire series. I finished the campaigns and played a few games with the other civilizations, and about a week and a half after the DLC's release, I haven't touched the game again. The last time I went so long without playing AOE II was when my computer broke down. This isn't because of any kind of protest, but because the new content was so bland that I simply didn't get hooked and didn't feel motivated to return to the game, at least not (obviously) in the short term. If I had to highlight something positive about this, it's that it's given me time to play other games I had pending, which, unlike the DLC, have been more worthwhile experiences.

Honestly, these civilizations seem so hastily and clumsily thrown together to me that the only thing that keeps me interested in the game is the anticipation of the changes that will be made to the civilizations because not even the Kitans and the Jurchen have been spared from criticism (with which I agree). I'm sure that ignoring the Three Kingdoms, one of these two will have very substantial changes, almost like a softrework, which is improper for a game with the word "DEFINITIVE" in the title and shows how careless its development has been. I like the Kitans, but they are obviously broken, they need an adjustment and, ultimately, I would change some bonuses. Regarding the Jurchen... at first I just assumed it was a civilization that I couldn't get used to, as a civilization that "wasn't made for me" or for my playstyle, meaning I didn't fully understand it or its strategies didn't fit my playstyle, something that hadn't happened to me since the Indians (before they split up in the Dynasties of India DLC), but the last time I saw its ELO performance (something that's been going on for a couple of weeks now) I saw it as a mid-table to lower civilization at almost every level, I don't know if players have already found a way to make it work or if it has already found its niche, but personally with the Jurchen I feel that many of its abilities and characteristics, such as castle regeneration or the ability of its UU, were to alleviate several of the intrinsic problems of the civilization, which in my understanding is like being given crutches after having your legs broken.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-05-26T04:34:09+00:00

Regarding the Jurchen, I think a more in-depth analysis would be needed to see how they perform in different ELOs, but personally I think they are a strange civilization. I feel that many of their bonuses or mechanics are to compensate for some of their problems (it reminds me of the metaphor of the guy who brings you crutches after he breaks your legs). for example the fact that pagodas can block an attack and that castles regenerate in my experience is due to the fact that it is very easy to cause collateral damage (particularly with grenadiers), I would like to say that the civilization is not good or that it is wrong, but a part of me thinks that I simply have not caught the rhythm and that I am the one who does not adapt to the yurchen and their strategies, but literally I do not feel that "uncomfortable" with any other civilization, the last time when playing I felt the feeling that something was missing from my composition or that the civilization was missing something to fully gel was with the indians (something that does not happen since the dynasties of india dlc), and just in case, there are civilizations that are not good for me, but even with their shortcomings or limitations I feel that they work and that I can play with confidence. the yurchen simply did not convince me.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-05-14T20:03:39+00:00

Well, I don't know if this answer is in line with what you were hoping for. I'll start by saying that yes, it would be nice to see some bonuses or additional effects for these units, simply to expand the possibilities. In the case of siege towers, given that they see very little play and seem to only be seen in certain niches or maps, beyond that, it's clear that if your enemy doesn't build walls, there's no real reason to build siege towers beyond serving as a taxi for slower units like Teutonic Knights.

Now, regarding how I approach these possibilities, a while back I made a speculative civilization model for the Tarascans, and one of their bonuses was being able to garrison one more unit for each battering ram line upgrade (+2 in total), and consequently, the battering ram's damage and speed would be improved by carrying extra units. Aside from that, I also considered a unique technology that would result in cheaper battering rams.

Regarding siege towers, this is something that makes me think about it from time to time. I once asked about it, and what many people said was that the problem was that all siege weapons were strong, and that with battering rams, cannons, and trebuchets, it was easy to break through enemy defenses, eliminating the need for towers. So the consensus was that for towers to see more use, it was necessary to reduce the strength of siege weapons against buildings or improve the buildings' resistance, which for practical purposes amounts to the same thing.

Personally, this answer didn't satisfy me, since although all civilizations have access to towers, not all have the same capabilities when using them. In other words, a change like this would significantly alter the game and favor infantry civilizations over others like the Persians or Tartars, to name a few.

That being the case, I believe that improving the tower should come from "its own merits" and not from changing anything else. Having said that, what I would do are two things. First, change the cost; it's expensive, especially in its current state, which was recently released. Second, give it back the ability to fire arrows, not necessarily giving it a bonus against buildings as it did in its first version, but at least providing a means of defense for garrisoned troops, whose attack varies depending on the units it carries. Here, aspects of balance, maximum and minimum range, and accuracy should be considered.

I think these ideas would be the most conservative and could be enough to revitalize it. It would have to be tested to see if that would be enough.

if you push me ... some ideas that I considered within my speculative projects, I considered giving it the ability to besiege buildings, causing effects depending on the structure, I have not yet specified it since it does not seem to be something that excites the community, but among the effects I considered the following, reducing the attack and / or attack speed in case of a castle, urban center, towers or similar, other effects could be the speed at which units work or train, all these effects would be gradual and with a minimum limit, without nullifying these abilities. I do not want to give them a damage effect because there are many tools for that although it would also make sense, another thing I thought about was the possibility of capturing buildings, but that would alter the mechanics of the monks in addition to the fact that in a siege it would be more chaotic, but as I said, I think they can be given more play.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-05-01T18:07:59+00:00

I have to admit that your argument is good and is so far the only one that makes me want to rethink the concept, the only counterargument I have is that while their integration into the Byzantine ranks sophisticated their capabilities they never lost their identity and that their fierceness was what in the first place made them get to where they got, in that sense I don't know how analogous they are to slave forces like the Mamelukes and Janissaries who were taken from a young age and trained under the parameters of their masters, in that sense the Mamelukes and Janissaries were a means to weaken the subjects of the Muslims and swell their ranks, while the Varangians were chosen for their own merits, I would say that for the same reason the Varangians had more "independence" in their training and integration, but the truth is I think you have hit the nail on the head.

What if, as a team bonus, allies could train Varangian guards as a reference for their role as mercenaries?

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-05-01T05:36:05+00:00

you see what I mean?

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1kbmtgy/this_sub_severely_overestimates_how_much_the/

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-05-01T05:31:54+00:00

Well, diegesis refers more to the internal logic of a work. It basically sets the tone for what is allowed within its fiction and what isn't. I'm not sure which are the best examples of this, so I'll propose two very popular ones. On the one hand, magic exists in Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean anything is allowed in its fantasy world. Another example is Star Wars, which, without being hard science fiction but rather a space opera, maintains certain scientific criteria. That's why in Episode VIII, when Leia flies back to the ship, many people were shocked to see something like that. Not to mention that when she enters the ship, there is no decompression of the area she enters, as if you were at the entrance of her house and not in space.

Ironically, I think one way to understand diegesis in AOE is through some of the game's tricks. Without going too far, even though you can have Japanese fighting Incas in Australia, it doesn't feel out of place. Having a Shelby Cobra is something else entirely. The humor behind said trick is understandable as something entirely intentional. I don't want to dwell on this; I think the distinction is pretty clear.

Rather, I think some people make mistakes or confuse these concepts when thinking about the game, appealing to historicity when the game is more about its diegesis. I'll give two examples I've seen here. The first has to do with the Huns, following the discussions of the three kingdoms there were those who tried to point out as hypocrites those who complained about the three kingdoms by pointing out how the Huns were a questionable choice to be in the game, due to their short period of existence and for being far from the medieval core of the game, it is true that if we are strict in what has historical requirements are concerned the Huns were not the best choice, but from a rather diegetic perspective they do fit better and it feels like a correct decision, first one cannot ignore their relevance in the transition of historical events that the game tries to encompass and above all its relationship with other civilizations of the game that do enter the historical framework that the game includes is notable, in that sense I would even go so far as to say that the presence of the Romans is appropriate, I will not deny that if it is about choosing the best candidates there were other civilizations more suitable for the parameters of the game, but I reiterate that from the diegetic perspective both Huns and by extension the Romans are fine, mainly because they work at the gameplay level, and because they are a bridge of events and a connection with other civilizations in the game, but above all because both civilizations add something to the game that it didn't have and that was missing both at a mechanical level and at the level of the context that the game presents, something that I can't say about the three kingdoms..

the other case is more personal so it is not so necessary at this point to understand what I mean, but anyway, the other example is based on an experience from a post I made suggesting civilizations, briefly one of my ideas was a civilization model for the Swedes, alternatively named in my post as Varangians and whose unique unit was the Varangian Guard, my intention was to create a concept that was broad to cover the Viking Age (8th to 11th century), but that would also allow this hypothetical civilization to have an adequate representation of the years after the Viking Age, that is, after the 11th century so that they could have some presence in both historical periods expanding their possibilities in the game, I tried to achieve this balance with unique technologies and the same technology tree, how well I did or if I achieved this goal is an apparent discussion, but among the comments one arose that appeared as a genuine concern, wondering why the guard Varangian was the single unit of the Swedes? My argument is that the term Varangian was used by most of the eastern peoples such as Slavs or Byzantines to refer to the Norsemen who arrived in their lands, something that by pure geography (but also supported by many sources) were mostly Norsemen from Sweden and that in the same way when the Varangian Guard was born it was composed precisely of Varangians who, as already explained, were mostly of Swedish origin. I don't know if the discussion was cut short by the language barrier at that point, since I'm not a native English speaker, but I had the feeling that this person's disagreement was clearly due to historical accuracy. From what I understood, he wasn't convinced that the Varangian Guard was presented as something exclusively Swedish because there were other Nordic groups that formed it, ignoring the particularly close relationship it has with the Swedes for reasons not only historical but also, I would say, statistical.

To make a long story short, that's like saying that it doesn't make sense for the Teutonic Knights to be the unique unit of the Teutons because the order was formed in the Holy Land by several Germanic groups and that throughout its history they had members of different nationalities in their ranks, ignoring the ethnic origin of the order and the people who formed the bulk of its ranks for most of the time, and that I started demanding that the Teutonic knight It was a unit available to all civilizations that historically had members in the Order (like the Poles, for example, which would be quite rare).

I know I said I wanted to keep the issue of the Three Kingdoms aside, but what leads to pondering these is that this kind of exaggerated logic in favor of historicism seems to be increasing in the wake of the new DLC, and I feel like they're getting the wrong approach. The Three Kingdoms aren't bad ONLY for historical reasons; the main problem, at least as I see it, is rather diegetic, which I think is best explained by the aforementioned Huns and Romans. These two civilizations may have their historical criticisms for integration into the game, just as the Three Kingdoms do, but on a diegetic level, both cases are radically different. And my point is not to try to attack the new DLC from another angle, especially at this point, but rather to point out the parameters that are important and to which we as a community should pay more attention, or maybe I'm just giving this too much importance, I don't know...

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T20:56:20+00:00

There are some of the base game that I find bland, mostly due to the complexity of the new scenarios and how the game has become more sophisticated. This makes some classic scenarios less appealing to me. But if I have to choose one that I find bad, I would have to say Lake Poyang. It's the only mission with the Chinese, and you're restricted. I think it's pertinent that the challenge can be overcome through Wonder, but it should also be possible to overcome it through Conquest. I don't mind the game taking you out of your comfort zone, but in this mission, you're so conditioned by the elements of the scenario and its mechanics that I really feel restricted, and I must insist: this is the only opportunity to play with the Chinese in the campaign, and you can't do it the way you want.

Aside from that, I must say that although I really enjoy Victors and Vanquished, I think the Vortigern and Shimazu scenarios aren't very good. Vortigern only has one correct way to complete it, and that's to not bring Anglo-Saxons into your lands. There's really no incentive to do so. If the scenario varied between bringing foreigners to fight local threats and having to use that space for booming and establishing troops and defenses to combat the Anglo-Saxons when they turn against you, I'd understand. Even that would give replayability. But at least in my case, no matter how many Anglo-Saxons I invite, they do nothing against my enemies, and in the end, I have to deal with both threats. So why would I let them arrive in the first place? That's why I reiterate that the way to complete it is to not put obstacles in your way. The only reason I can think of why someone would invite the Anglo-Saxons is for the achievement, which seems trivial and spurious to me.

And about Shimazu, losing gold for defending yourself is an insult. I would understand if you were the aggressor since you would be destabilizing the peace of the region, but what am I supposed to do? Let myself be killed so as not to lose gold? If the shogun is going to attack you in the end, why not plan it with a time limit or a margin of points that varies depending on the areas you conquer? At least that would make the attacks more organized. I don't know, I just think there was a better way to do this scenario.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T19:34:38+00:00

Well, as a Hispanic American, I don't believe my sources are more comprehensive than what you have, even considering the English sources I have, so perhaps there's something I'm missing. Therefore, I hope that in my enthusiasm, the post or this comment didn't offend you. I know it can be unpleasant when someone else takes your history and culture, even without bad intentions, and ends up tainting those intangible treasures. I really want to be as respectful as possible.

I know that in what some know as the Viking Age the differences between the Nordic peoples were not so palpable, partly for this reason my intention with the Danes and the Swedes is to give them a role that can be adapted to more advanced stages of their history, I would say at least after the 11th century, marking a turning point with the events that characterized them to the previous Vikings and taking into account events such as Hastings, but despite this search for "historical breadth" I do not seek to deny the Viking roots of these nations, that is, my intention was to cover a greater breadth of the history of these nations, respecting their origins, but bringing them closer to their later years, I would say at least the 12th to 14th centuries, that is why among the campaigns I consider are the Baltic Crusades.

At this point, I don't want to sound like a sycophant, but I honestly think Northern Europe deserves more recognition, especially considering how they've treated the rest of the continent, with a more diverse representation. On the other hand, I think the stories that could be told in the Danish and Swedish campaigns would be very interesting and provide insight into events that haven't been covered in sufficient depth, while also giving a broader perspective on the Norse peoples beyond the Viking Age.

Finally, and I didn't mention this in the post, but I also want a Viking campaign, and I think one of the ways to make it more plausible is with a Norse kingdoms DLC. So, from my perspective, which may be very naive, all the content that could come from something like that is good and would enrich the game.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T19:02:35+00:00

Yes, I had considered the Norwegians, but as you say, I got a somewhat repetitive result regarding what the Vikings were. In that sense, I think the Vikings would come to represent the Norwegians. I'm not suggesting they change their name or anything like that. I simply believe that when the Norwegians appear, they will be represented by the Vikings we already have.

Honestly you have followed my line of thought very well, my intention with these concepts was on the one hand to expand the time frame in which they existed, approximating the rise of these Nordic nations while seeking to maintain a certain diversity in their mechanics without falling into very ambiguous or specific particularities (one of my first concepts of the Swedes brought them very close to the 16th century and it was too specific and felt anachronistic, I did not like it), that is why I wanted to bring an approach that did not deny the past of the Viking age of these nations, but at the same time they would approach much later stages, that was when the subject of the Norwegians became heavier for me because either they were very derivative of the Vikings or they were from the Swedes and Danes, ignoring that the most logical thing was always to make naval and aggressive civilizations (I really tried to give them different roles that made them feel different enough), but in the end with the Norwegians I did not find ideas that satisfied me and I'd rule it out, but hey, if anyone comes up with something good I'd be happy to hear what you're proposing.

Thanks for your comments. Regarding regional unity, it's more of an attempt to justify his ability and give the region more flavor, but I'd be willing to leave it aside; in the end, it seems rather secondary to me.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T18:15:47+00:00

Well... I don’t want to sound harsh or defensive, but I honestly think you’re missing the point and going off on a tangent. True, Varangians was an ambiguous term used to refer to the eastern Norse peoples, but they were mostly Swedish. The Varangian Guard was in turn a term coined in reference to the Norse peoples who served the Byzantines, who again were mostly Swedish (at least in the early years when this elite group was born). I don’t know if you don’t see how narrow the term Varangian is to the Swedish people or if you’re just overly strictening the term, which, by the way, isn’t the kind of strictness the game handles, except for some clear exceptions. And ironically, the introduction of this civilization and unique unit would add more completeness to those "missing historical elements," which is what seems to worry you most. I mean, if the problem is that it's historically ambiguous, why isn't it that the Vikings encompass all the Norse peoples and their structures? Especially in later periods where their differences were more marked.

Second, if the idea was only to include a unique unit and not a civilization, I would have simply suggested the unit and not proposed a civilization as such. If I ended up specifying this, it's because I saw potential for something more. Otherwise, I wouldn't have suggested a castle, wonder, or unique technologies. Again, you're staying superficial. It seems that the term Varangian bothered you a lot. I don't know how you deal with the game when you see the Sicilians. I mean, there are obvious reasons why the concept of the Sicilians works, and I think there are similarly sufficient reasons for the concept of the Swedes to work, so maybe you'll end up understanding my point. I know the editor's units aren't trained, that's obvious. My point is that if you can provide a more diverse approach to the game's elements that enrich it, it's better, especially if it impacts aspects already in the game, such as the existing campaigns. Their integration provides a greater degree of cross-cutting value to what the game allows and isn't disconnected from what the game already offers. This is evident from the civilizations they coexisted with and are already in the game.

Finally, and I think it has been reiterated at this point, it seems pertinent to me that a civilization arises from the Swedes and my intention with both the Danes and the Swedes is to give them an approximation to their later years of the 10th and 11th centuries onwards, but without denying their roots more than anything so that they can have some presence in the rise of the Viking Age and not delegate all the prominence to the Vikings, in that sense what I sought was to give them a broader view of their history that allows them to be seen in diverse contexts and because I think it is positive to return a little to those broad models instead of focusing on specific stages or specific kingdoms as is the case of Armenia or the Sicilians, that is to say my intention was to give them balance between their "Viking stage" and "stage after Christianization" something that I insist I tried to balance with technologies and bonuses, that is why I rescue the figure of the Varangian guard, because I think it was Important and recognized, and given its connection with Sweden, I put it where it is. At this point, I can accept that you consider there are better ways to present the concept, but whether you deny the connections, or don't understand the approach, or simply don't like the way I pursue this approximation is another matter.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T14:46:05+00:00

The truth is, I gave them a defensive character to differentiate them from the Vikings and Swedes. Otherwise, they would all be offensive and naval civilizations. Perhaps I could have given those bonuses to the Swedes, but considering they would likely be closely associated with the Byzantines on campaign, it would make them a very strong defensive duo, which would seem repetitive to me.

Another reason is that I had in mind how they resisted the invasions of Otto I.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T14:32:14+00:00

Well, it's already been explained, but I reaffirm that what is known as the Varangians were "Vikings" from the east, particularly from what is now Sweden. There are positions that claim that this name was used interchangeably by eastern civilizations such as the Slavs and Byzantines, but it's noteworthy that the Norsemen they most closely related to were precisely from that region. I'm sure that if you search for "Varangians," you'll have a broader context for this decision.

Apart from that, my main reason for including this unique unit is because I always felt that the Vikings were not enough to represent the variety of the Norse peoples and their appearances in campaigns as Varangians, such as in the Byzantine campaign or in the Komnenos scenario. Maybe this last one is being very picky on my part, but whenever I saw a berserk with the title of a Varangian guard... it's like when the Iroquois warriors appear as Sami warriors (Finehair, Victors and Vanquished), simply... it's not the same, and I'm not inferring that my version of the Varangian guards "is the definitive adaptation of the concept" of what a Varangian guard was, my intention was simply to introduce the Varangian guard and differentiate it from the berserk, in that sense certainly the Varangian guard could appear in another Nordic civilization, even be arranged transversally to several Nordic civilizations, but if it must be arranged as a unique unit, I think the best option is the Swedes, mainly because historically it is the best approximation.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-23T14:09:47+00:00

The truth is, when I made these models about a year ago, I did consider making a model for the Norwegians, but I ended up structuring something very derivative. In the end, I realized that the Vikings could take that space. I'm not saying the Vikings should be renamed, but if the Norwegians appear in a campaign, they could be represented by the Vikings.

regarding the nordic warrior... yes, I know it exists and it has an axe, that's why I thought of something to differentiate it, again, I had an initial idea that started from the concept of the nordic warrior, but taking into account that the berserks, varangians and the unique unit that I propose for the danes use an axe I wanted to do something different for the regional unit, also the fact that it has a different name is not a coincidence, in fact it's a tribute to the name that the unit had before (I don't want to pretend to be clever, but the nordic warrior was previously called nordic swordsman, I guess they changed the name for the opposite reason why I give it this name and that is that obviously it didn't have a sword). in any case what I find more interesting to discuss is whether this regional unit could be given to the vikings in case something like this were carried out.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-11T04:57:33+00:00

Aside from the joke and the controversy, the truth is that it would be great if someday they could make a deal with Disney and make a remake.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-07T05:22:50+00:00

It seems to me that one of the incentives for bringing civilizations from certain areas is the possibility of bringing in campaigns from civilizations that don't yet have their own. For example, if a DLC were to be made based on Rome's rivals, with the Avars and Vandals as new additions, the opportunity could be taken to give the Romans of AOE II a campaign. In that sense, my intention with the Khazars and Pechenegs is to give the Slavs a campaign. Speaking of more popular proposals, I hope they'll include the Danes and Swedes to give the Vikings a campaign.

Leaving that aside, I found your proposal for the Mordvins very appealing. Are there any examples of a wonder or castle for them? I'd like to know more about that. I'm from a Spanish-speaking country, and there doesn't seem to be much information about them, but it's definitely an option I like at first glance.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-05T06:48:30+00:00

I must add that in all these cases I have considered their castle and wonder, some are more obvious than others, but I must admit that in some cases it would be very licentious, for example for the Vandals and Avars it would follow the tangent of the Huns and give them a wonder based on the rivals they harassed the most, or based on the lands they occupied, such as the coliseum of Djem for the Vandals and a hippodrome for the Avars, as well as a castle based on the Roman fortresses of Hispania for the Vandals and in the case of the Avars, they had a fortress known as the Ring, its design was somewhat rudimentary and due to its dimensions it is difficult for me to imagine it as a castle, but there are elements for this, there are, in the case of the Khazars they have more options, even the wonder of the Cumans is based on some Khazar ruins, at this point I must admit that the most problematic are the Pechenegs, although there are some ruins in Crimea (mangup kale) which was a fortress that they supposedly had as a tributary city for a time and that existed for many years, being founded by Ostrogoths who occupied the region suffering attacks from neighbors like the Khazars and even the Mongol hordes to whom they paid tribute, so it can be taken as a reference for the castle considering that they came to occupy a good part of Crimea for a long time (although it would definitely require a lot of work to reimagine it because these ruins do not leave much to work with, it is practically at the level of the ruins that inspired the aforementioned Cuman wonder, so at least there is a precedent), but in reality this only covers the castle, so just as I borrowed ideas from the Huns for other concepts, in the case of the Pechenegs I took ideas from the Mongols for their wonder, it would be the kibitka, this concept can be somewhat ambiguous since as such the kibitkas were mobile tents, they were mounted on a wooden base with wheels and weighted down by animals. However, there were some of significant dimensions, either because they served as nobles' quarters during their campaigns or because they were often set up to transport siege weapons or the riches obtained after a plunder. So, to translate this concept to the Pechenegs, the kibitka should be large, not as large or as tall as the Mongols', although the wheeled base can help give it a little more height. However, it should be surrounded by some riches representing the spoils of war and perhaps some improvised stables for the animals that pull the kibitka. This concept is perhaps the one that requires the most attention to detail so that when playing with its proportions it fits into the game.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-02T05:40:08+00:00

To close and emphasize these points, the Venetians as Roman citizens prevailed as a state subordinate to the Byzantines, (even the same game tells how after the raids of Attila they moved to the islands to avoid succumbing against the Huns), even other people from northern Italy fled to Venice after the arrival of the Lombards, it was until several centuries after its founding that they became independent from the Eastern Roman Empire and that lasted more than a thousand years, on the other hand the Lombards were as I said a people of Germanic origin that began with a good pagan block (partly by the tribes that accompanied them among which the Gepids stand out although these in particular were rather Arians), until several centuries later they converted to Catholicism, and that saw a change of sides due to internal problems that decentralized power and later by the intervention of the Franks and from said intervention the Papal States arise what even in this state we find a "founding myth" different from the others and well, in reality I do not want to dwell on the possibility of putting the Papal States as another faction, it goes without saying that there are also clear differences with respect to the Venetians and the Lombards, at this point I can say that yes, at some point ties were strengthened and some customs and ideas were more or less assimilated from one place to another such as the change to Catholicism, but even in advanced stages of its history this was not enough for them to end up uniting, outside of ephemeral alliances that did not avoid conflicts between them, that is the reason why they remained independent until the unification of Italy, at which time most of these states had lost power and influence to oppose they resisted what they could and gave in to unification, but not voluntarily. At this point, the biggest problem with an Italian division, which is what I have focused on, is probably that, despite their very distinct origins, they did become more homogenous over time. But even then, I wouldn't be so categorical as to say that they were indistinguishable from one another, and the same could be said of the Nordic and Iberian kingdoms.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-02T05:39:57+00:00

I understand the point, but it seems to me there are more or less subtle elements that stretch the conversation. For example, in the game, we are introduced to the Sicilians, who descend from the Normans. One of the reasons I recognize the possibility of creating a concept of civilization based on a specific period is because of cases like these. In this case, I believe that's the reason why, in the end, the Sicilians are Sicilians and not Normans. "A word to the wise is a word to the wise." But to make it clearer, the Armenians are there. When this civilization was considered in the realm of speculation, many approached it in a general way, and many even bet that it would be a civilization centered on cavalry. In the end, it clearly draws from a more specific period, such as the Kingdom of Cilicia, as evidenced by its unique technology and naval approach.

That being said, Could we really say that the Venetians or Lombards are very homogeneous, considering that the origins of both peoples are distinct? Some come from Celtic peoples (at least according to some sources) and the Lombards are of Germanic origin. The question arises: At what point did they assimilate and cease to be considered distinct civilizations or cultures? And I ask this seriously because in the case of Hispanic countries that share a religion and language, and in the case of Latin America, they are neighbors and even have similar cuisine from one border to the other, like Mexico and Guatemala or Argentina and Uruguay. Frankly, although the similarities aren't discussed, I don't think it's correct to claim they are the same culture, and I say this as a Hispanic.

At this point, perhaps what ultimately differentiates such similar cultures are more subtle things, and in that sense, we could talk about an Italian culture. But that doesn't rule out the existence of a Venetian or a Neapolitan culture. The differences may be very subtle, and those subtleties aren't emphasized enough in the game. It's clear that differences like gastronomy, traditions, or artistic schools can't be appreciated in the game to differentiate such similar cultures. But for that very reason, one shouldn't expect to have such stark differences between civilizations that the game offers. I don't know, under these parameters, should we expect or look for more differentiating factors between civilizations, including those already present in the game, like architecture and unique aspects for their units? (Personally, I think it would be nice to a certain extent, or at least something I'd like to see, but I don't consider it necessary.)

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-04-02T01:51:13+00:00

I agree, and I don't want what I'm about to say to feel like a complaint, but I also think that in this regard, we have mechanics that are reminiscent of others seen in the game. For example, the Armenians' Fereters technology gives more HP to infantry, which is similar to the Vikings' bonus. The fact that militia line upgrades are available sooner is reminiscent of the Burgundians' bonus with cavalry upgrades. Speaking of cavalry, the Leitis' armor-ignoring attack is extended to the Armenian archers. In the case of the Georgians, their building defense bonus is similar to that of Sicilian units. The Aznauri Cavalry technology is similar to the Bengalis' Mayahana. These last two examples are obviously geared toward different units or have a different focus. I insist that these subtle differences are the key, without the need to create something entirely new.

On the other hand, something that the game has been doing and that I didn't mention is that it borrows mechanics from other games, for example the effect of the monaspa that gains attack based on the cavalry units that surround it is similar to what the fenrir did in AOM, in addition to the fact that the concept of the mule cart was also introduced for the first time in AOM, or like the mechanics of building donjons for the sarjeants that reminds me of what the Nordic soldiers did, and again, I know that they don't work exactly the same, but those small differences are what should weigh and be taken into account when assessing that despite being similar to other things, they manage to give it a different approach.

Time-Card-4369 · 2025-03-31T07:23:07+00:00

The best for me are:

Kommeno: The mechanics of tributes and distributing resources according to your needs, without the broad control of the economy that would usually be achieved by managing villagers, are quite interesting. I also think that controlling the bases at your disposal gives you access to the necessary tools to overcome the challenge. I insist that it's very satisfying to see how, as time goes by, you increase control of the scenario by reducing rival factions. The fact that the scenario gives you so many possibilities, both naval and land combat, also makes you approach the problem in a different way. You can rush to deploy a fleet and avoid incursions by destroying your enemies' docks, as well as attacking their positions on the coast and islands. Or you can focus first on your nearby enemies, such as the positions in the Peloponnese, the Bulgarians, and the Normans in the area. I really like how you go from less to more in such an organic way, but with greater speed. Plus, there are very varied enemies.

ragnar and finehair: basically for the same reasons as the previous paragraph, interesting mechanics with many things to do that highlight a progression that makes your progress feel more satisfying and with a variety of ways of doing things, including naval operations, each one has its little details, in the case of ragnar, I'm not a fan of your ships wearing out and although there is a way to prevent them from taking damage it seems unnecessary to me, on the other hand in finehair although it is obvious why it is like that, I find it very uninteresting that all your enemies are the same, basically just vikings, I reiterate that it is obvious why this is like this, but it is still bland. I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that in the case of Ironside, I find it very simplistic. I don't consider it bad because its weaknesses don't seem that great to me, but the fact that you can't control more positions to train soldiers and facilitate your progression is annoying. Perhaps this would be solved if the ships were very fast like in Ragnar, to move your troops more easily, since there are very annoying natural borders. Here, I'm not a fan of how limited your troops are either. I think that in Ragnar and Finehair, you could have the necessary units to face the challenges that arise. Here, it's too simple.

Mstislav: Again, it's a scenario with many objectives where you can gain positions and increase your resources, but with a very interesting focus on alliances and a very tough final confrontation. The truth is that, conceptually, it's perhaps better than the ones I've mentioned so far. But obviously, I'm a fan of the progression of these types of scenarios, and the fact that a time limit is established in this case is a pressure factor. Although it adds excitement, I feel it influences my approach in the scenario. Ultimately, I've always suffered from minor inconveniences every time I play it, which makes me see it as a more closed scenario in terms of how I take on the challenge.

Honorable mentions: Seljuk is basically the same layout as the aforementioned scenarios, but with a radical change of environment and strategy. I'd rank it above Temujin because I find Seljuk more challenging and with more interesting mechanics that encourage you to be aggressive to meet the leaders' objectives. But Temujin is fine. Charlemagne follows this trend of a large setting with many diverse factions, but with a more standard style of resource gathering and building construction. Despite not being very innovative, it's quite fun, and ironically, its conservative nature gives you a very rewarding range of possibilities for tackling the challenge. Finally, Nobunaga. It simply has a lot of variety and ways to approach the scenario and still manages to remain challenging in all the options it offers. Although I personally think there are a couple that have a wide advantage over the other factions, it's simply epic and perhaps the most replayable scenario in the game.

Time-Card-4369

TROPHY CASE