Wrong, and we had Burgundy and Tatars anyeay.
Also wrong.
Songhai are to Mandinke what Germans are to French. If anything they are more diferent as they do t even share the same language group
They still target people with a medium knowledge of history.
And dont compare AoK civs to modern DLCs
I’m not trying to deny your argument, but I’d say a more modern name is tolerable. Just like some users in the forum would think that a new civilization called “Romanians” would be more appropriate than called “Vlachs”. Sometimes newer term provides a clearer, more precise and more concise understanding of what cultural groups the civilization is really trying to represent. The term “Han” is very precise and easy to understand.
The name change is another issue, and its main purpose is to provide some “wiggle room for explanation” to help devs reduce the risk when launching DLC. You know, some things even if the Chinese players don’t mind, but the Party does.
I can’t agree more. But for that to happen we need something similar to Dynasties of India DLC, may I suggest “Dynasties of China”? 
I’m not saying a more modern term isn’t tolerable, in fact the term “Chinese” (中國人) is also quite modern. However I think it still sounds better than Han due to the fact that it’s more inclusive. If you think that adding other civs inside the territory of China would put the Chinese civ in jeopardy, then just change its name to “Sinitics” or “Huaxia”. Those terms also do the job perfectly and are more in line with the time period in question.
How did this worked when we changed Indians to Hindustanis in Dynasties of India DLC? I still view Indians as a modern name for the civs since the Native Americans that we also call “Indians” (and some countries like Russia still do because we have an “e” in the middle for the Natives) weren’t even discovered until late 17th century.
Agreed. I think before the introduction of the new DLC, not many people were familiar with the term Gurjaras, yet that didn’t stop the devs from choosing it as the name of one of the new civs.
How’s Han less inclusive? All history books have it as Han dynasty. On the other hand, this topic belongs into Age I as Han dynasty ceized to exist after 2nd century AD: Han dynasty - Wikipedia
I already explained it in one of the above post, to summarize:
Han Dynasty = Roman period = AOE 1’s time period
Han ethnicity = wasn’t created until the late Qing / early Republican period, way outside of the range of AOE 2
There was a term “Hanren” that was used during the Mongol-ruled Yuan Dynasty, which fits AOE 2’s time. However its meaning was completely different from the term “Hanzu” or Han ethnicity. The Yuan-era term “Hanren” included Khitans, Jurchens, and Sinitic speakers living in the Yellow River area, however it didn’t include anyone from Southern China.
Since the Bengalis, Dravidians, Gurjaras and Hindustanis are all Indian civs. It has nothing to do with old or new. That is what I mentioned above, Renaming may make all civs locating in the modern China can be “explained” that they are all “Chinese”.
On the other hand, it also encourages some people asking to rename the Slavs to Rus.
So, a possible China related expansion pack (not a DLC) will be more then welcome, considering that Khitans already represented in Genghis Khan campaign. Hint: Kara-Khitai.
Who cares if the Western audience doesn’t know African regions/potential civs? I don’t know Asian history, I love the Rajas civs and outside of somewhat cursory knowledge of their names, without the games (AoE2 or 4X games) I wouldn’t really know them.
I don’t see why the same would not be true for African civs, or now with the Indian DLC. The campaigns can also exist as introductions to the histories of different regions and cultures in the world. I have no idea about the Tanguts, Khitans, or Jurchens because that was not really a history taught to us. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be a great DLC idea for me.
Some of the regions are more well known because of the games, and I don’t see why AoE2 cannot add to that with an African DLC for Benin/Edo, Kongo, and whatnot.
The Gurjaras are the biggest anomaly in a long time so really I dont think they should be used as an example without admiting that they are an exception
Because it’s already like this in Age IV. By the way, the proper name is Kievan Rus’: Kievan Rus’ - Wikipedia
But for me it works either way. I understand that historical accuracy among devs is severily lacking in that field. That’s why we have Boyars as UU of Slavs even though it was common in other Slavic civs as well: Boyar - Wikipedia
Exactly.
Even though I am more familiar with East Asian civilization because of my education and culture.
The reason I think African DLC is more likely to be released than East Asian DLC is because of the Party. Other than that, they should be equally competitive, no one is absolutely better or worse.
Agreed. And I believe the in-game Malay already covered Javanese, cause it has the Majapahit campaign.
Out of the remaining Austornesian groups that could be introduced, which I summarized as Chams, Cebuanos (or Sugbu), Moluccans, Visayans, and Polynesians/Tongans, I would say the most pressing one is the Chams. They were an important maritime power in medieval SE Asia rivalling those of the Malays and Cholas, and fought/traded with many peoples. And they can’t be covered by the Malays. Apart from the Chams, the others could be introduced if we have enough space, but they aren’t a priority.
And outside of the Austronesian groups, the most pressing SE Asian civ would be Tai or Siamese.
It have nothing to do with that. The problem is how to distinguish them one from another with UU and Wonders.
That will probably be a problem since it is required to have 5-6 scenarios in a campaign. We also need to choose a hero (sometimes 2-3) in each campaign.
This might be possible since Edo/Benin had a king who was well known in the Western world too.
I don’t deny that the Party is a factor to consider, but claiming that they would outright ban any DLC related to East-SE Asia is also grossly exaggerating. As long as you don’t add Uyghurs and Tibetans (which are the redline), anything else will be fine, and I see no reason why the Party would ban it, cause they’re making documentaries about Xianbei, Tanguts, Khitans, Jurchens, Nanzhao/Baiyue, etc. themselves. If they wanna ban a game just because it has certain historical content, then they might considering first banning their CCTV-10 channel, which always makes such documentaries.
Keep in mind that in that country everything is possible. They hated Tibetans first, now it’s Uyghurs, the next might be any of the 5 you mentioned.
And what UU and Wonder do you think Javanese will have?
A Wonder? All civs are required to have a UU and a Wonder.