I would say a split should be about bringing Afghans.
I am not in favour of splitting civs based on timeline.
Funny thing to say when Mongols/Tatars and Romans/Italians/Byzantines exist. Granted they aren’t “split” civilisations, but they still represent the same faction in different timelines. I don’t see a problem with splitting Sassanids and Safavids. This could also bring about possibility for more Central Asian civilsations e.g. Alans, Sogdians.
Considering Hindustanis already exist to cover for the Afghans, it wouldn’t really make sense to make such a split unless Hindustanis were shifted away from covering the Afghans to cover the Delhi Sultanate - Mughal Empire, then an Afghan split would be possible.
Neither Afghan architecture nor language matches Hindustanis but okay…
Exactly. Yet the representation is there (i.e Camel focus). That aspect should be given to the Afghan civ instead, and Hindustanis can change their gameplay to one that better represents what they’re supposed to (i.e. Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire).
You will see your argument fall short when you realise Bengalis can be split in 3 civs based on timeline. Current Buddhist civ with Rathas is not representing Muslim Bengal Sultanate with Guns.
I don’t think it is a good idea to split civs on timeline.
2 Likes
Oh I’m aware of the Bengalis, don’t get me started on them. Heck, don’t get the community started on them. It’s one of the reasons they’re a balancing nightmare rn.
I wouldn’t count on it
Mongols and Tatars don’t represent the same faction in different timelines. Neither do Romans and Italians
4 Likes
No? The Golden Horde was literally part of the Mongol empire until it dissolved into smaller khanates, with the Golden Horde being the one that eventually became Tatars. Tatars even use the Golden Horde emblem as their logo.
An argument can be made for Italians/Romans since a lot has changed in the region after the fall of the Romans.
Mongols are not Tatars and the Golden Horde was not the whole Horde
I didn’t say Mongols were Tatars, I said the opposite.
I also said this, which you seem to have missed.
as a far well DLC, this would be amazing. (also ading the Australian Maps from age of pirates)
The reason why I am against timeline split is because we cannot complete it. I always like new civs. But prioritising finishing missing regions of the world would be better.
3 Likes
Then, this
is not entirely correct
This is the same weird logic as AoE3 players thinking Hawaii can’t be a civ because the US is already there (I’ve even someone try to give Ottomans bonuses based on AoE1 civs that also lived in then-future Ottoman territory like they’re the same people).
1 Like
And I’m assuming Persians still using MENA architecture???
1 Like
I actually started conceptualizing a Hawaiian civ for AoE3, but stopped because I don’t really know the game very well, and Home City Cards are hard to come up with. I suppose it’s all moot anyways.
Yes, of course.
Now many civs have totally different styles of castle and other architectures.
Still Middle Eastern of course. Now their Castle looks out of place.
6 Likes
Don’t worry. The Gothic Castle is out of place too.
Meme isnt dead smh. Another year of campaigning for this AGAIN!
2 Likes