So who were the Wallachians, Moldovans and Transylvanians who were all-knowing in your opinion?
I agree.
Slavs civ SHOULD RENAME to RUS civ - this civ represents only Kievan Ruthenia and the states that emerged after its decay, such as e.g. the Novgorod Republic and the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
I’m for yes!
And therefore a Romanian civ would be useful, which would fit perfectly into the Dracula Campaign. A DLC that would add Romanians viv could add also campaign for Ruthenians civ - there is no better option than this.
Wallachians say nothing to a large number of people. Romania is associated with many more people. Those who know the Wallachians know that they have united the Romanian principalities.
The name Romanians civ would represent all Romanian principalities.
Well, Mexico is known better than the Aztecs for the most part, but that doesn’t mean we should have added Mexico into the game. The area on the map already has enough civ representation (Magyars, Slavs, Bulgarians, Cumans, Tatars, Byzantines)
He wouldn’t be adding a “civ that doesn’t exist yet”. Both Moldavians and Wallachians spoke the Romanian language, closely derived from Latin.
One could say the “Slavs” civ didn’t exist yet either (and doesn’t exist to this day) or the same could be said about Indians. Yet those “new-age” terms work as useful umbrellas for the game’s simplicity.
Of course alternatively one could add the Vlachs and pretend they represent all other Romanian civs as well.
Yeah, I mean, I dont mind new European civs, but it should be not some largely irrelevant group of people who dont even make a majority in the area where they live.
Yes, I know that Tatars and Cumans are from Asia, but they occupied the area for some time.
Romanians are a largely irrelevant group of people who dont even make a majority in the area where they live??
We even already have the Wallachian Vlad Tepes campaign in game.
The Slavs are a huge tree that has three huge branches - the East Slavs, the West Slavs and the South Slavs; these branches are divided into different nations, and these nations are divided into subsequent tribes (folks).
You just can’t show it with one civ. While the medieval Eastern Slavs were relatively uniform (they were united in Kievan Rus), the other two groups of Slavs were divided into numerous countries, the most powerful of which were: Poles and Bohemians from the Western Slavs, and Bulgarians, Serbs and Croats from the South Slavs - each of them these nations represent the smaller nations. Each of these nations is different and has a completely different culture and history.
We can talk about the Slavs (in the sense of united) only in the Dark Ages - where at the end of them they were already divided into these three subgroups.
The modern Slavs are too different for them to unite. Years of separation left their mark forever. If the Slavs had a similar institution to the HRE, they might have been more intimate today - like the Germans, who are divided into many separate nations, but the most important thing for them is their bond with the remaining Germans.
I saw someone here post that draculas family are from a cuman background.as per google bulgarians and hungarians held parts of modern rumania.So are they not already covered in game?
Wallachia had at least 150 years of independence and a decently sized territory. It isnt great but its certainly more than just a dominated civ or Finns
Its certainly a better candidate than finns.
Which part of the country was independent and who ruled it,just asking because I dont know, not to downgrade the civi in anyway.
Wonder for a valch civi is already in game and draculas skin can be the uu.all we need is the voices.
Tbh its still not great, they still were (suposedly, dont think there was much control) under Hungarian control, but Vlach princes ended up fighting so much with Hungary I find it hard to believe that they werent more or less independent in practice.
And theres some independent periods after the Turkish conquest as well
How is that better than Finns? At least Finns were independent and had more territory, and defended against powerful Viking incursions. It seems that you just really do not like Finland for some reason
Meanwhile Vlachs were literally pushed around by whoever happened to pass by, and whatever they could do was largely determined by other powers that they were subservient to.
Finns had no states, no campaign material, no stome architecture and big cities. Yes, Vlachs are surely better than that. Even Mississippians are better than than.
Mississippians controlled a larger territory, had actual cities, a farming economy, and amuch larger population.
Its not by much but honestly they were more advanced thsn Finns. Finns had better metalurgy and naval stuff but in most stuff Mississippians were better (and Finns didnt resist Vikings that much either…)
Both are terrible choices though, but I think saying that Vlach are worse thsn either of those is stupid.
