There are many nationalities in China’s history, including the Xiongnu(Huns), Xianbei, Di, Qiang and Jie in the “Uprising of the Five Barbarians”,
And also the Tibetans and Manchus that aoe2 users want,
I think if we want to avoid Chinese censorship, we can try to call them by ancient names,
For example, Tibetans can use “Di Qiang”, Manchus can use “Xianbei” or “Dong hu”,
I know it’s imprecise, but for that era, the appellations were just a general idea,
Even the living habits, culture and architecture of “Han people” in the north and south of China are quite different,
In fact, I think Chinese can be use into “Han”, In this way, new civilizations in East Asia could be more flexible,
And it can make the history of East Asia more perfect and interesting, and let foreigners know more about Chinese culture.
No, because then every other country would need each ethnic group and you end up with 200 choices.
就很簡單的用同語系來講拿烏拉語，底下就有不同族群馬扎爾 、芬蘭 、薩米 、馬里、愛沙尼亞、莫爾多瓦、烏德穆爾特、卡累利阿等，在歷史上又有各自一段故事。
That’s rubbish. The Jurchen were a separate empire and then the Jin Dynasty. The Uighur Khanate in history was a powerful state on its own, and of course the Tibetan Empire was another powerful state which even sacked Tang Dynasty Chang’An. Tibetans should be a separate civilisation for AOE2:DE. The game is not a political game for you nationalists. But history. Learn to live with it.
Tibetans can be a civilisation in AOE2: DE since the Tibetan Empire was in the 7th-9th century period.
In my understanding, the Chinese civilization in the AoE series represents all the ethnicity in China (Zhonghua Minzu), not only Han Chinese.
In AoE II campaigns, some forces like Jin Dynasty (in the Mongol campaign) and Shan people (in the Myanmar campaign) are not created by Han Chinese in history, but they are all Chinese in the game. In AoE III, the game mechanism and arts reflects much about the Qing dynasty, especially the Eight Banners, but the buildings and campaign stories are more about Han Chinese.
As far as we can guess from the information released by Microsoft, the game mechanisms in AoE IV requires significant differences between civilizations. To add one civilization to the game, the game designers may have to think about a massive difference to other civilizations, but still necessary to keep balance. It would be difficult for them. So I believe MSTRSup3rninja and MaxBlackHawkYAO are right.
The whole problem is what should be considered “Chinese civilization” and “China” in the Middle Ages.
The opposite problem exists for “Italians” in AOEII, because no kingdom or empire of “Italy” existed in the Middle Ages: the territory we know as “Italy” (i.e. the “Repubblica Italiana”), in the Middle Ages, has a very complex history, which could become a very long campaign. It was divided into kingdoms and City-States, became part of larger empires, was divided again, and so on; so, neither an “Italian civilization” existed, because the territory passed many times from hand to hand, so it was a continuous merge between civilizations.
But, please, write in English. I’ve tried to use a translator to understand the first sentence, but it doesn’t make sense (how could a gas be eaten?).
Shan people (in the Myanmar campaign) are not created by Han Chinese in history, but they are all Chinese in the game
To be fair, Shan is Burmese spelling of the word Siam (spelled as Syam but pronounced Shan). The same people were assigned Khmer in the same campaign. So should civs be based on location according to the devs?
Xiongnu (Huns), Xianbei, and Khitans were Proto-Mongolic people. So Mongol civilization represents all of them.
Manchus and Jurchens are Tungusic people. But their Jin and Qing dynasties are considered as Chinese Dynasties by westerners, so I don’t know if your opinion will succeed.
I personally think Jurchens (Proto-Manchus) and Tanguts (Proto-Tibets) can be really interesting civilizations.
I dont know the cultural differences between the 5 barbarian chinese tribes but afaik Han-Chinese weren´t the dominant ethnicity as it is today. problem is, if the culture was were similar, it does not make sense to split chinese into different factions. but idk tbh. as long as it does not become like in AOE3 where you have to pop up a mixed troup from the barracks, it´ll be fine. that setting was just terrible and for this reason I never played Chinese.
From the mongolian conquest perspective the Liao and the Song are the most important. (first being conquered, second not)