They Wasted A Perfectly Good Plot / Age of Empires II

Age of Empires II is based on an expansive period of history. As such, it features several historical figures, battles, empires, and other details as part of its canon. Even so, with how endless medieval history is, there are naturally a ton of golden opportunities that were either sorely missed or have yet to appear in the game and remain highly requested.

Stuff that has already been implemented can be found in the franchise-wide Refitted For Sequel subpage.

Back to the main page.

---

Civilizations

• Among the civilizations that will never be added to Age of Empires II, the Swiss are often cited as being missed out. They would have made for an excellent Central European civilization, especially since the Teutons are the only one that the Central European architecture fits (due to Viking architecture being more wood/thatched based and the Goths and Huns being raider cultures from Late Antiquity and the early Dark Age). Additionally, the Swiss Pikeman would have made for an excellent unique unit; it was already available in the Nintendo DS version of Age of Empires II and appears as a mercenary in Age of Empires III and would have complimented the Incan Kamayuk, the only pike infantry unique unit in the game. Notably, Ensemble Studios was originally considering adding the Swiss in The Conquerors, but ultimately scrapped them because they wanted an Attila the Hun campaign.
• The African Kingdoms would have been a perfectly reasonable opportunity to incorporate the Vandals (one of the most notable Germanic enemies of the Romans, other than the Goths) into the game, seeing as they had ruled the North African kingdom of Carthage for a time, and they sacked Rome during that period.
• In addition to the Vandals, a lot of people were disappointed that there wasn't a Bantu civilization in The African Kingdoms (i.e., the Kongolese, Zimbabweans, or Swahili). Instead, the Bantu are represented as Malians, Ethiopians, and Saracens in the Francisco de Almeida campaign, which centers around a civilization not even based in Africa aside from its colonies.
• Many people note the conspicuous absence of the Thai/Siamese from Rise of the Rajas. The Khmer may cover them, since they controlled a majority of modern Thailand at their height^note Thailand is represented as Khmer in the Bayinnaung campaign, but the subsequent Thai kingdoms of Sukhothai and Ayutthaya could have been a great basis for an independent, non-Cambodian Thai/Siamese civilization. Most likely, the developers were simply more interested in the campaign potential for the four other new civilizations, but the expansion still would have felt much more complete with the Thai/Siamese as the fourth Southeast Asian civilization (with the Vietnamese being East Asian, like they eventually became in Definitive Edition).
• Several times, the devs have eschewed the introduction of the Tibetans as a playable civilization (another long-requested civilization from the fanbase, which was hinted a few times by the developers). Although never officially stated, some speculated this is because the developers do not want potentially risk having the game Banned in China (since II has a large competitive scene in mainland China). Even so, the presence of the Mongols, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, and especially Tatars (which, as a Turkic Asian Steppe civilization, represent the Uighurs in the first Genghis Khan scenario) makes some people skeptical that including the Tibetans would really result in this, anyway. As medieval Tibet was historically known to have deployed cavalry troops wearing heavy armor, the civilization would have been an another opportunity to add an East Asian civilization or a Southeast Asian civilization (because of their architecture) with Paladins. At best, the Tibetans are represented by the Burmese, whose linguistic origin is heavily related to the Tibetans and whose Monk and cavalry-centric tech tree fits the Tibetan Empire, or the Chinese, who came into control of Tibet before the end of the Middle Ages.
• Though less requested than the Poles or Bohemians, the Croats are another Slavic civilization not well-represented by the Slavs or even the Bulgarians, as they were also a Roman Catholic state with more ties to the west than the east. Although the Kingdom of Hungary ruled over Croatia from the beginning of the 12th century through the rest of the Age of Empires II timeframe, Croatia was an independent kingdom in the 10th and 11th centuries that successfully fought major world powers like the Bulgarians, Venetians, and Hungarians. Croatia is a faction in Crusader Kings III, where their leader is Peter Krešimir IV.
• Likewise, the Serbs have been extensively requested, as well. Although they are culturally closer to the base Slavs civilization than the Croats thanks to their Greek Orthodox leanings, they were still a notable power during much of the middle ages, including a prominent principality in the 9th and 10th centuries, as well as a full-fledged empire in the 14th century, shortly before the Ottoman conquests.
• Among civilizations that did appear in the franchise, the Sicilians are advertised as a unique kingdom comprised of diverse ethnicities, yet aside from their architecture and in-game language, their design is overwhelmingly focused on their Norman elements. Even the official Sicilian campaign renames the civilization to Normans in all missions except the last. In particular, that final mission allows you to train Camel Riders at the Stable, reflecting the prominence of Muslims in the Kingdom of Sicily, yet Camel Riders are unavailable to Sicilians in Random Map games. It seems all too obvious that the second new civilization in Lords of the West was originally going to be the Normans but then got changed to the Sicilians at the last minute, by which point the developers didn't have time to balance them with tech tree influences from their Greek and Muslim subjects.
• While there isn't much room left to add new civilizations from Western Europe, one of the most prominent missed opportunities in Lords of the West was the Aragonese. Medieval Spain was an extremely culturally diverse region, but the Spanish civilization is overwhelmingly based on the 16th century conquistadors and barely touches upon Spain's roots (even in the 11th century El Cid campaign, the Spanish are portrayed 500 years ahead of their time). The Portuguese are already a second Iberian civilization, but their tech tree is very similar to the base Spanish, again focusing more on the empire's overseas colonization during the age of gunpowder, rather than the core middle ages. There were in fact many independent Spanish kingdoms that could've made for a worthwhile new civilization to contrast with the Spanish in the same way the Tatars and Cumans were different from the gunpowder-centric Turks civilization, and their independent sense of identity persists even to this day. The Aragonese in particular were a major empire in medieval European history, playing a dominant role in the Mediterranean sea region, and they already appear as an enemy in the Francisco de Almeida campaign, where Queen Isabella is a completely separate rival. The civilization would likely also represent other eastern Spanish kingdoms such as Barcelona and Navarre, which were distinct from the more Castilian base Spanish civilization, so Count Berenguer from El Cid would be retroactively changed to the new civilization in the expansion^note He's represented by the Franks instead of the Spanish. Their unique unit would likely be the Almogavar, a light infantry unit with low armor but high movement speed and a ranged attack that's strong against cavalry. The Catalan Company from Bapheus was notably an Almogavar unit, so that faction would likely also be replaced like Berenguer in El Cid and the Aragonese in Francisco de Almeida.
• The Poles and Bohemians were assigned to the already crowded Eastern European set (used by Slavs, Lithuanians, Magyars, and Bulgarians), which was disliked by Polish and Czech players because of its Eastern Orthodox-looking monastery. While they would probably be contented with the older Central European set (though no less crowded, used by Teutons, Goths, Vikings, and Huns), this was also a missed opportunity to make a completely new set for the Poles, Bohemians, Magyars, and Lithuanians. Or barring that, to give new civilizations unique monasteries, rather than or in addition to, unique castles.

Campaigns and Historical Battles

• Despite Alexander Nevsky appearing as a hero unit in the editor since The Conquerors and the introduction of the Slavs in The Forgotten, there has never been a scenario based on the Battle on the Ice (where Alexander defeated a combined Teutonic and Danish army, halting the Teutonic Order's eastern expansion and effectively ending the Northern Crusades). Furthermore, the official "Slavic" campaign Dracula only has the player commanding the Slavs in two scenarios, it's Magyars and Turks in the rest. And the historical subject was not Slavic to begin with.
• The Byzantines may have it worse. Despite a Belisarius hero unit being included since Age of Kings, which could star in a campaign set all over the late ancient Mediterranean and with the most varied enemies (Persians, Saracens, Berbers, Goths, Franks, Slavs, Bulgarians, Huns...), and the Byzantines being possibly the most used enemies after the Saracens, the Byzantine campaign in The Forgotten is instead about a fictional family hanging out in a minor frontier city for three scenarios. The Definitive Edition expands it to five scenarios and shows other localities in southern Italy, but still not much of an empire being built here. Considering Definitive Edition replaced the El Dorado campaign with an entirely new and more befitting Pachacuti campaign made from scratch, the Bari campaign could've easily been replaced with a new campaign, especially since Bari 3 and 4 (which focus on Basil Boioannes and don't tie into the Nautikos family whatsoever aside from introducing the Normans) are blatant filler despite having entirely new maps.
• William Wallace's tutorial campaign ended at the Battle of Falkirk, which the Scots historically lost. To avoid a downer ending, the scenario could have ended with an additional mission detailing Robert the Bruce's victory over the English at the Battle of Bannockburn, where he is revealed to be the Narrator All Along.
• Tariq ibn Ziyad ends with a nice Call-Forward to the Battle of Tours, mentioning Charles Martel is building a counterattack, which can be played in the Tours scenario in Historical Battles. There are several historical instances that would have made very nice calls forward:
  • Joan of Arc's sword was originally Charles Martel's sword (incorrectly stated to have been Charlemagne), who left it as an offering to Saint Catherine de Fierbois after the Battle of Tours and also to be taken up by the next person chosen by God to save France. There could have been a mention in the outro to Tours of Martel leaving his sword at the church of Saint Catherine for the next hero of France (as well as Guy Josselyne correctly identifying the previous owner).
    • For that matter, in Tours Charles Martel is depicted as a Throwing Axeman, rather than a swordsman.
  • Constable Richemont, who appears in the final Joan of Arc mission, previously fought at Agincourt, where he was wounded and captured by the English. His hero unit could have appeared in Agincourt as Arthur de Richemont with an optional side quest to dismount and capture him (through killing the unit), like in several other campaigns where this occurred in history.
  • Tariq ibn Ziyad's own campaign ended on a cliffhanger, and it would have been nice to have a final mission dealing with the Battle of Tours from the Umayyad perspective, or even defeat Charles Martel in an Alternate History scenario.
• Speaking of Joan of Arc, the decision to make her campaign the one following the tutorial in Age of Kings kind of forced devs to make it easier and limit the most advanced weapons like gunpowder to the last scenarios, despite taking place in the Renaissance when they were commonplace. A more accurate version of the battle of Orleans would also have English castles to the west, making getting the supplies in the city more of a challenge, and have both sides using cannons. And regarding call forwards, La Hire was in charge of Orléans when Joan got there; it would have been hilarious to have him be the one calling the player for help, instead of a nameless Villager.
  • Further, "The Siege of Paris" ends with Joan being captured, when she actually escaped and went on several more campaigns, such as besieging a French mercenary who fought for the English and Burgundy, and retaking a town in a single day (for which she and her family was awarded a nobility) before a truce from December 1429 to Easter 1430. It was relieving the Siege of Compiègne, which was a resounding success for France and a stunning loss for Burgundy, where Joan was captured, having stayed outside the wall until everyone else was safely inside; it has been suggested Guillaume de Flavy, governor of Compiègne, knowingly betrayed Joan by raising the drawbridge.
• There were many battles in the 14 and 15th centuries where Slavic nations defeated the Mongols and the Golden Horde, and eventually forced them out of Europe. Surely one of those could have made for an interesting one-off scenario in The Last Khans.
• Lords of the West introduces a campaign focusing on Edward Longshanks, the arch nemesis of William Wallace. The William Wallace learning campaign from the base game infamously portrayed the Battle of Falkirk as a Scottish victory, when it was the English who triumphed, and led to Wallace resigning as Guardian of Scotland. The Longshanks campaign could've so easily featured the same battle, except historically accurate. Instead, however, the Battle of Falkirk is only briefly mentioned during the last mission's prologue, while defeating Wallace merely requires you to slay his easily exposed Hero Unit. He isn't protected by Fortified Walls, and his entire army will abruptly resign as soon as you slay him, leaving Robert the Bruce as your main opponent instead. Even more insulting is that the Longshanks campaign is only five missions long, and the Battle of Falkirk scenario would've fit perfectly between the fourth and fifth.
• Also introduced in Lords of the West, the Grand Dukes of the West campaign is presented as being the story of the rise of the Burgundian state ^note a collection of feudal territories that spanned most of the Netherlands and Eastern France, but the campaign itself largely focuses on conflicts with French nobles and the Hundred Years War, with only two missions actually involving expanding the Burgundian state.
  • The one scenario where the player doesn't fight the French, "The Hook and Cod Wars", casts the Dutch factions as Franks anyway, rather than having a Burgundian on Burgundian war for a change.
• Make no mistake, the Definitive Edition's version of the Alaric campaign is orders of magnitude better than the Official Fan-Submitted Content version in The Forgotten. However, it still has the narrator worrying about being attacked by the Huns, while never having the player fight the Huns. As the campaign is also only five scenarios long instead of six like the classic campaigns, they could have included a first scenario that showed, say, the Goths having to flee the Huns by crossing the Danube, then defeat the Romans at Hadrianople (which is mentioned as background in the first cutscene).
• Another one they can hardly be blamed over is the El Cid campaign, which while based on the legend and very popular to this day, actually falls short of its real-life counterpart, who at one point fought almost simultaneous wars against the Moors, Berenguer, Alfonso, Aragon, and Italian mercenaries from Pisa and Genoa... and won.
• For the Definitive Edition, several campaigns were updated to feature civilizations introduced in later expansions, that fit better with the players featured historically (for example, the Battle of Mohi scenario, which historically pitched Mongols and Magyars, was originally between Mongols and Teutons, but the Teutons are changed to Magyars in DE). However, this didn't happen in some cases:
  • Attila 4 had the Burgundians (originally Franks) changed to Burgundians, but the other Frankish factions remained the same. Historically, Orléans was ruled at the time by Alans (which appeared as Vikings in the following scenario, before being changed to Huns in DE), rather than Franks.
  • Attila 6 features several Italian cities as enemies, which are portrayed by other European civilizations. In DE, only Rome was changed to Italians (Romans in Return of Rome); unfortunately, Rome is just a decorative, completely inactive allied player in this scenario, so the Huns never fight the Italians in the campaign. Italians could have been a formidable final enemy, due to their strong navy and archers with anti-cavalry bonus that the Huns would have trouble countering due to their cavalry-based armies and lackluster navy and siege weapons.
  • Barbarossa 1 changes the Mongol mercenaries to Cumans. This is okay historically, as the Mongols were anachronistic for the area, but it also means trading their very useful anti-siege horse archers (Mangudai) for the Cumans' Kipchaks, who have no anti-siege bonus. Since the area is Hungary, the Mongols could have been changed to Magyars and the Mangudai to Magyar Huszars, who do have an anti-siege bonus.
  • Barbarossa 3, also set in northern Italy, had two landlocked enemies changed to Italians, but the River Guard is still played by Franks. As in the above, Italians would have been more challenging because they have a stronger navy than the Franks. Furthermore, the allied Italian city of Carcano (Cremona in DE) was, and is still played by Teutons, which deprives players of an unique opportunity to recruit mercenary Condottieri as a non-Italian player in the campaigns.
    • For that matter, Henry the Lion took part in the sieges of Crema and Milan and was credited with turning the tide in Barbarossa's favour. Since Carcano/Cremona is already Teutons, replacing them with Henry the Lion would have been an easy change (similarly, he was not The Starscream depicted: he never betrayed Barbarossa in the invasion of Poland, and wasn't even involved in the later wars against the Lombard League, much less joining them, he simply refused to lend troops, but was made a scapegoat for the failure).
• A campaign following the Britons under Alfred the Great, beginning with the Vikings taking over his capital in the opening cutscene and the player having to go from a king and a few villagers hiding on an island and gradually expanding and reclaiming Wessex and then England. Talk about an underdog story.
• Diving into the Historical Battles's main characters often leads to the realization that many could have been the subject of a full-fledged campaign:
  • "Hastings" could have been easily part of a campaign on the Norman conquest of England. This is the case in Age of Empires IV.
  • "York" is based on the invasion of Britain by the Great Heathen Army, which is just one of the events portrayed in the TV series Vikings.
  • The Persians are only playable in "Bukhara", where they fight the Turks and Huns. The main claim to fame of featured emperor Khosrau I's, however, were his decades-long wars against the Byzantines that also included campaigns against the Georgians in the Caucasus and the Ethiopians in Yemen.
  • The very convoluted scenarios "Dos Pilas" and "Honfoglalas" (in the HD Edition), with one or several false starts, could have been easily turned into multi-scenario campaigns about B'alaj Chan K'awiil and the Hungarian invasions of Europe, respectively.
    • Said Hungarian campaign would most likely exist had they chosen the Magyars over the Huns in The Conquerors, as it almost happened. It would likely have played similarly (much like the Magyars and Huns are similar civilizations in the game), but without the obvious anachronism of seeing the late Roman Empire using High Medieval architecture and weapons.
  • "Noryang Point", "Kyoto", and "Lake Poyang", could all have been scenarios in campaigns about Yi Sun Shin (depicting the Japanese invasion and his previous service against the Manchus), Toyotomi Hideyoshi (unifying Japan leading to the aforementioned invasion of Korea), and Zhu Yuanzhang (overthrowing the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, establishing the Chinese Ming Dynasty, and warring China's non-Chinese neighbors). As of Dawn of the Dukes, the Mongols and Vietnamese are the only civilizations with the East Asian building set who have a campaign (and the Vietnamese used to have the Southeast Asian set).
• The Montezuma campaign allowed the game to feature the Spanish conquest of the Americas without coming across like they were supporting it or implying that Native Americans didn't fight back. However this came at the cost of excising legitimately epic moments of the Spanish conquest of Mexico that could have been great to (re)play, like war and alliance with Tlaxcala, defeating the Narváez expedition, escaping the Noche Triste, or defeating the much larger pursuing Aztec army at Otumba.
  • In addition, the same expansion almost featured an Inca civilization, which would have been a more accurate candidate for a Native American campaign where the natives resist for decades and turn horses and cannon against the invaders, since this is what happened in Manco Inca's rebellion. Plus Manco's escape to continue fighting from Vilcabamba would have made for an unexpected happy ending to such campaign.
  • When The Forgotten finally introduced an Inca civ, they found that because of the fictional reverse-engineering of cavalry and gunpowder in Montezuma, they now couldn't make a historically accurate campaign about Spanish-Inca contact without coming across as a retread of the Aztec campaign. They first passed a RPG-style campaign about Francisco de Orellana's search for El Dorado for an Inca campaign, which was poorly received, before the Definitive Edition substitued it for a conventional campaign about the rise and growth of the Inca Empire before the Spanish came. This is great in showing the Incas had a history besides being conquered by Europeans, but also consists entirely of Inca mirror matches (not even using Aztecs and Mayans as stand-ins for non-Inca peoples), and because of the lack of enemy cavalry, players never have a reason to train the Incas' powerful Halberdiers and Kamayuks.
• Frederick Barbarossa took part in the Second Crusade, with exploits including starting a Roaring Rampage of Revenge when a fellow crusader was robbed and murdered on the journey there and taking part in the Battle of Dorylaeum. These would have made an excellent first level, more so than the ahistorical scenario.

Other

• No new animals have been introduced with a DLC since The Last Khans, and none of the high risk, high reward variety since the rhinoceros in Rise of the Rajas. While Lords of the West made this impractical due to revisiting Western Europe, either The Last Khans or Dawn of the Dukes would have been a perfect opportunity to introduce aurochs or bison (moreso Dukes, considering Poland was the last refuge of both after they were hunted out of the rest of Europe).

---