sorry, confused it with Tajikistan!
but they have absolutely no land bonuses at all. no eco bonus to help them get through the early ages or help boom, no military bonus to give them an edge, etc.
and frankly battle elephants aren’t a good 1v1 unit, especially without bonuses. how often do you see burmese or vietnamese elephants used?
2 Likes
Yes I agree, the Champa would be the only civ that has no single bonus on land maps. They would be horrible to draw on a land map, and the devs are trying to at least somewhat balance the civs for Arabia, so I think the Champa would definitely need some bonus to help them out on land maps - preferably an eco bonus.
1 Like
That’s not true. Romans and Greeks were already trading with South India since the BC. The whole peninsula was India.
They were even aware of the Malay archipelago, albeit less detailed.
3 Likes
You have a point there.Even in world maps india is one big area except for ceylon/sri lanka.
Can we stop trying to sneak Tibet-related civs into these ideas? It will NOT happen as long as Chinese players are allowed to play AOE2. Also Nanzhao will split Chinese civ and this is not going to end well.
As for the exact designs and ideas, most of them seems fine for me.
1 Like
China has no problem with medieval era depiction of Tibet as an independent entity.
Tibetans were never Chinese. Check the Tibetan script, it is closer to Indic languages than Chinese.
4 Likes
If thats the case all good. Let Microsoft makes the call.
2 Likes
If you try to make a game with Tibet independent in modern age then china will definitely censor that.
2 Likes
Safest to do is add more european civis people are less bothered there.
1 Like
South Asia / Indian Subcontinent includes Ceylon. Srilanka is not a separate entity.
2 Likes
Nanzhao won’t split Chinese, because Chinese=Han, Nanzhao=Bai
1 Like
I was reffering to the map in a modern context yes entire area is the same.
From a medieval point there should not even be an indians civi.
Indeed Chinese are just Hans and it cannot be split further, it is one entity. All these suggestions are just for adding more civs to East Asia not splitting Chinese.
1 Like
Both Nanzhao and Tangut Western Xia appear in Chinese government-sanctioned history textbooks to teach history in schools, so I don’t think they would really cause any problem to the game
Nanzhao=Bai people
Tanguts=Tibetic people
Tibetans=Tibetic people
Uyghurs=Turkic people
Khitans=Para-Mongol people
Jurchen= Tungusic people
1 Like
It actually can be split further, since Han isn’t really an ethnic group in the traditional sense, but rather a geopolitical entity. Though for simplicity’s sake I prefer to have one Chinese civ.
Nanzhao’s ruling ethnicity is still controversial, it’s likely that it was a multi-ethnic kingdom, composed of at least the ancestors of Bai, Yi, and Dai / Thai.
Check who is the largest ethnic group.
Chinese can be split on the basis of dynasties(which will be odd) but not ethnicity.
Culture/Ethnicity is the basis of defining AoE2 civs.
And Han Chinese are one single huge ethnic group.
The concept of a unified Han ethnic group was created very recently, like around the time of late Qing and Early Republican period, which is well outside of the time period covered by the game.