Already there are suggestions of Cantonese, Khitans, Tanguts, Jurchens, and Tibetans as additions to the area of what you called China. In particular, the Cantonese suggestion really highlighted the artificial aspect of “Chinese civ.”
This is not to mention Dali and Nanzhao. I have more issue with the word nations though, since when does that word apply to the medieval age?
It would change their strategy. I think it wouldnt hurt them if, for example, they put this building as a mining camp and, as soon as they finish mining, they can build farms instantly. Less down time and 100 wood saved.
This is all just speculation eh
The suggestion of a “Cantonese” civ is quite flimsy to be honest, cause for the past 2,000 years the region of Guangdong has been mostly dominated by Sinitic peoples. Regional kingdoms did appear from time to time, but they were very short-lived. Though I can imagine a few units of Guangdong and Guangxi appearing as campaign or scenario editor units (like the Lang Bing or Wolf Troop for instance), if we’ll ever get a Chinese campaign.
However I definitely support the addition of a Nanzhao/Dali civ, cause it was independent from the rest of China for much of the medieval period. And to some extent this civ can also represent the various Non-Sinitic tribes that had existed in Southern China.
I wonder if we will have to wait for a Definitive Definitive Edition of the game to have new content, not just new campaigns and a new civilization.
Don’t get me wrong, I love this new DLC content, the quality of the new units and buildings is amazing, I hope the new civilizations are balanced and don’t have gimmick UTs (as has happened with the last DLC / civilizations) -
But I’d love to see new related content: new technologies, new animals, new scenery editor options, new terrain, new building sets, new skins; improve and add new / better menus, better profile content; improve the multiplayer part of the game
I look forward to the best of this amazing game that I enjoy and have been enjoying for a while
It strengthens my point. That is what is the difference. They all belong to different religions.
Yeah I keep forgetting that my language definition is different from english. In general I mean country. Sorry about that.
China was a country tho. And Cantonese I am pretty sure is part of the broader Chinese culture. Just like Saxon is German.
tru we dont have saxons either just teuton. but if i must chose i prefer more china then india civs
Your original point that those states don’t have kings, which according to you made them peripheral to Age of Kings.
When it was pointed out to you different languages use different name for the same concept, you changed your argument to something like “their kings are involved in religion, so they’re not really kings”.
And when it was pointed out to you that European kings were involved in religion just as much as anywhere else, now you just shifted your arugment “their kings are of different religions”, which I’m not sure what’s that supposed to lead to.
Never shifted my argument. Look at what I typed earlier in fact I already stated earlier about it having to do with religion. Not my problem if you dont care to read.
This was before you responded with the post I am now replying to.
If I say age of popes, do you then say that the patriarch and Imam count aswell? The papacy has a pope, not a Patriarch do they not? Same for king, caliph and raja.
Or when I say Mosque I also mean church and Sinagoge isnt that what you say? All 3 are the same style/function/building, yet the difference is religion.
Honestly your argument was a bit silly since the beggining.
At the end of the day the Forgotten added a ton of famous civs (and I know that its Forgotten when talking about how the game didnt represent them but using “Forgotten” would be more accurate adding actually less known civs), the Last Khans added Lithuanians, the Conquerors added the Mayans and Koreans and Dawn of the Dukes add kingdoms that have a shorliving existance as a duchy.
Not to mention the game isnt limited to the medieval age since like 20 years ago
I never said the game is still medieval. I said earlier already that Age of Kings was medieval and that they then indeed expanded on it with dlc which is “generous” in the sense of them actually expending the civs they first added.
Seems a lot of you people just dont care to read someones actual points and in some cases just hold ignorance (not you in this case) as facts.
What is generous in actually representing empires around the world? I might be reading too much into this, but it’s like you consider it somehow goodwill that non-Euro civ are represented. This was never a game with a heavy European focus like Crusader Kings or Stronghold.
I updated the post. That’s probably the Bohemian Wonder:
It’s Old Town Hall in Prague.
Chinese, Mongols, Japanese, Persians, Sarracens and Turks were all in the original game, they weren’t added in a DLC.
The roof looks more like Towns Hall, but It probably make more sense that Bohemian Wonder should be Cathedral. I will update both for now.
Popes, sinagogues, mosques, etc. are tied to specific institutions that were given those names.
Unlike king, which is just a general noun meaning ruler. “Age of Kings” can refer to rulers across the world.
You can make the point that caliph has a specific and contextual meeting, but not king.
To be honest, your suggestion looks more like the building in the screenshot.
Caliph Sultan and Raja all tree are not king. I am getting tired of this so I am not going to reply to you. If you want to see my arguments either reread my previous points more carefully or just read you know, wikipedia or any other source of the definition.
Credit goes to Feriandy1990 from AoE fandom wiki. He suggested it.
See this happens when you dont read someones points.
I am not going to repeat myself here. So either read my previous messages or just dont bother to reply because I wont answer you.
