Jurchens can be somewhat represented by the Chinese civ that’s true to a certain extent, but I feel there were still enough differences between Jurchens and Chinese (they had different origins and spoke different languages) to warrant the addition of a Jurchen civ. And they could be the only Asian civ having access to Paladins, due to their heavy cavalry tactics.
And we also a need a Tai/Siamese civ to represent the various Tai peoples. I remember in the first mission of the Burmese campaign the Shan/Ahom people are represented by Chinese and are sending Chu Ko Nus to attack the Burmese, which looks kind of awkward TBH.
If a small size cannon can be used on a camel dont see why its not possible to have a small balista like weapon mounted too.Camels can kneel down to give more stability and there is less recoil than a gun powder weapon on a balista.
A very fine justification.this is why I feel venice should also get added if byzantines are the romans who went east venice are the last italian romans.
The Burgundians standing in for the Lowlands is made pretty clear by their Flemish Revolution unique tech, yeah. I suspect the main reason why they weren’t named Flemish or Dutch was mostly because of the campaigns (both the Grand Dukes of the West and Joan of Arc), but I guess we’ll never know…
As for the Sicilians, I think there are many reasons, one of those being that from its foundation to the end of the Medieval Era, Sicily was one of few parts of Italy mostly free from HRE influence (together with the Papal States and Venice). I have to say, though, that I don’t find them terribly good at representing the cavalry focus of the Normans. Their knights have a better armor, sure, but they can’t upgrade to paladin, and as such lack HP and attack in late game. They don’t have hussars and heavy cavalry archers either. Which is weird, considering the Norman/Sicilian cavalry was reknowned less for its sturdiness than it was for its mobility.
Saying that Ethiopians and Malians represent all of Africa well but that Siclians and Burgundians were completely necessary is not knowing anything and being arrogant.
You have your German civ in Teutons to represent that. Also, Bohemia was one of the most powerful German states, but not the only important one and they were pretty much the same as everyone else. And the Jin-Song wars were way larger and arguably more influential than the Hussite wars
With your standards you put to say that a powerful duchy Euro civ that wasnt independent and is more worth adding than a super powerful dynasty that controlled half of China and basically calling american peoples primitive (although tbh I agree that civs should have some recorded history to be added) honestly you lowkey give me eurocentrist vibes
This argument is so bad. I can make the same dumb argument about all the other European civs you are defending being added. You play Hastings as Franks, Burgundians were always represented by Franks and Bohemians were represented by Teutons. Also, Jurchen are more diferent from Chinese or Mongols than Normans, Poles and Burgundians when compared with Teutons.
They are a province basically, so no longer a regional power. They were defeated by their enemies and became a weak part of a larger empire. Not a good justification to say that the civ is worth adding…
And I know that the cross of Burgundy saw use after that but its not a good argument to say that they lasted more than that.
Also, same goes for Normans. They went under German control and then got added to Aragón like 300 years after creating the kingdom of Sicily and were very close to France culturally
Ha, thats not good heavy cav. Thats okay heavy cav. Its like arguing that Portos have decent cav so they can represent Castille
Literally I can make the same argument for every of the European civs. Heck, even better because the overlaps are worse than beetwen Jurchen and Chinese:
Bohemians dont need to exist because Teutons are already a civ that can do siege, defenses, gunpowder, infantry and monks
Sicilians dont need to exist because Franks already represent the castle spam, farming eco and tanky knights supported by strong axemen UU
Burgundians dont need to exist since Franks are already a one-trick poney civ with great bloodlines-less knights
Slavs already have a great knight rush and an amzing farm economy to make hussar spam
Lithuanians represent the Pole historical military better than the current Pole civ itself.
And Jurchen held more power than any of those civs outside arguably Poles.
Yeah but the original French design has a lot of Norman influence and represents Normans on Hastings. They were very similar. Songhai and Khitans would be more diferent to Mali and Mongols than Sicilians when compared to France
You first say that Jurchen arent that diferent to Chinese and you later come to make those arguments, please be a bit more fair. Sicilians are basically the same ideas as Franks but done in a more contrived way. Having arbs and SO isnt a main part of the civ and could have been given to Franks as well, and both UUs are champion replacements. They are built around the same concepts, you are just blind if you think Jurchen are more like China than Siclians are like French.
We’re talking about the 10th or the 11th century AD, cannons hasn’t been invented at that time.
And nothing suggests such a small stone-launching ballista ever existed in China. According to Wujing Zongyao, a Song period military encyclopedia compiled in 1044 AD which incorporated most known weapons used by the Song and by their adversaries, stones were launched from big and bulky traction trebuchet requiring anywhere from several dozen to more than a hundred men to pull, and it’s out of question that those could be mounted on camels.
Hence the most likely scenario is a slinger mounted on camel, and Song people (who were mostly farmers hence unfamiliar with the sling) mistook it for some sort of traction catapult or trebuchet.
Venetians always became big problem against Ottomans. In Battle of Lepanto 1571, bulk of Crusader Armada consisted of Venetians ships and soldiers. Venetians defended Candia castle from Ottomans for 24 years. In 1683-1699 Great Turkish Wars, Venetians took Peloponnese from Ottomans, after 16 years, Ottomans retook Peloponnese again.
Georgians isn’t more powerful than Venetians. Venetians also maintained its strength 12th century to 19thcentury which is very long time period comparable to Byzantines. On the other hand, Georgians maintained his strength less than 100 years, 1124 to 1221 Mongol Invasion. After Mongol Invasion, Georgian turned to small and weak vassal state of Mongol Empire, thus saying Georgian is more powerful or important than Venetians is totally false claim.
If the rider is very habitual at using sling (which Tanguts and other Qiangic people were they used it for herding), and if the speed isn’t too fast, then I see no reason why it couldn’t be used mounted.
IMO although the Camel Slinger has some problems, it’s still gonna be more realistic than the sword-throwing Mameluke.
Having access to Paladin is not wholly necessary to make a civ historically accurate for thier strong cavalry arm. Poles is good example of a civ that is still pretty much a “heavy cavalry civ” despite the access to Paladins, albeit by buffing up their Cavaliers. Same goes for Bulgarians… likely the devs just simply did not want to make there be TOO many Paladin civs in the game, so that the other Paladin civs will remain special. Hence why Bulgarians lost access to Paladins to instead get buffed up Cavaliers, and Poles also was not given Paladins.
Sicilians were likely delt the same way: the devs gave them Cavaliers pretty much improved over most other Cavaliers (they even have better Pierce Armor than a generic Paladin!).
Franks do not get Hussars, but do get some of the best Light Cavalry in the game, which does not significantly hinder the Franks in their “historically prominent cavalry” impression. So Sicilians not having Hussars is not really something that is necessary to make their cavalry “good”. Light Cavalry, even generic Light Cavalry still does the role well in raiding enemy eco and being excellent trash fodder. Secondly: cavalry archers were not common in Sicilian Norman armies, except the fact that Norman Crusaders hired Turcopole mercenaries in the Holy Land, and they were cavalry archers. It is possible that the Sicilian Normans in their forays into Tunisia also hired Arabian/Berber mercenaries to act as missile cav, but cavalry archers were never seriously a part of the Norman military.
Yeah, but usually a good cavalry faction has at least either one of the common cavalry lines entirely available, or a cavalry UU. Sicilians have none of those.
