Talk:Malians/@comment-76.241.134.27-20160401000937/@comment-142.196.79.73-20170708081807

late reply, but I felt that I needed to answer this point by point:

"The game's first age begins in the 300's/400's.  The renaissance (in game Imperial age) began around the 1300's.  That places the Malian empire at a sub-dark age level of tech during the ingame castle age, and previous to that they would be a nomadic tribe at best."

That's one interpretation, but like the history sections for each civ demonstrate, the rise and fall of each of these civs happened at different times. The Mongols "dark age" would be in the 1200s, and their imperial age in the 1300s or 1400s. The Persians dark age would be in the 200s and their imperial age in the 500s. All the civs are like that.

In addition, it's clear from the design that the Malians are meant to represent West African kingdoms broadly (otherwise the unique unit makes no sense). With that in mind, remember that the Ghana empire dates back to the 400s. That along with many other kingdoms existed in West Africa for centuries before and after the Mali Empire.

by 'sub dark age tech' i assume you mean the tech in the game - by which i assume you mean that the Malians (or all west african kingdoms by my interpretation) had nothing but militia clubs and sticks, and no real architecture, until sometime after the 'ingame castle age' - which i guess would be some time before the rennaisance (1100s? 1200s?). Well thats just not true - and even if it was, it doesnt matter in the flexible aoe timeline.

"It wasn't until the 1300's or so that Manden created a rough feudal system, something that began in the late Dark ages of europe (400's)."

True, and historically many of the civs never developed any form of feudalism at all. aoe2 has a "feudal age" because of european history (no one outside of europe had a dark, feudal, castle, or imperial age in the same way or in the same order). the development of a feudal system isnt a neccesary historical stage of development... its just a form of social structure that some societies developed.

"Although the Malian empire grew rich on gold and salt, they hardly fit the time period.  A properly accurate tech tree for them would lack most militia-line, upper archer-line, knight-line, seige, and ships."

In some respects, that just comes down to game design and balance, which is nothing new. In other respects i think their technology was on par with other medieval civilizations. it wasnt until the 1500s on that they and other parts of the world fell behind the europeans. Thats what makes the aoe2 timeframe interesting imo, it was a much more even playing field, and history could have gone in any number of different directions in that time.

As far as specifics... they had advanced architecture and metalworking - and yes they had it before the 1300s. they had padded and mail armor for both their infantry and horses. they had large contingents of heavy cavalry, which acted as shock troops (much like the cataphract). They had huge fleets, and even attempted transatlantic exploration.

Aside from thatm i think there is always an element of speculation and hypotheticalness with aoe2 civs. Most of them didnt have half of what they do in the game (huns never had cannon galleons, aztecs never had onagers, etc), but the point is, they /could/ have.

"As such, their technology would fall short at a sub-feudal level.  It was a great thought to include the unique empires of Africa, but I fear 'balancing' has pushed history out of the game."

eh, no more than the meso civs, or for that matter the vikings or celts. Really, for what aoe2 has gotten away with as far as historical inaccuracies, i dont think giving Malians crossbows is even close to what has "has pushed history out of the game."

there, that was a totally unneeded response, but i have no life :)