Official history sections are ■■■ lol, we have Mughals representing 5th century India
1 Like
The best example on how not to do a civi xD.
Adding a mugals civi can ease this issue to a point.just like how lithuanian tech tree is mainly the polish one ingame indians have the mugal tech tree and new mugals civi has a delhi sultanate tech tree or something.
Yes, They are both Oghuz Turks. However, they have been rivals and enemies for over 700 years. Also the official history for Azerbaijanis start with Eldiguzids - Wikipedia
2 totally different ways after the Great Seljuks. It is not a European civ so unlike Georgia or Armenia, people can’t complain about that. They can use the Middle Asian architectural set and they have iconic unique units opportunity like Qizilbashes.
1 Like
Mughals are mentioned in the history section of India tho. Although I think in-game India doesn’t really represent the Mughal period nor some other Indian era.
That is a perfect answer which I have been expecting! YES! Eastern, African or Asian civilizations are not represented well in AOE2 like Europeans. We have only a few missing civilizations for the European continent but there are A LOT for others! So like Azerbaijanis, I am totally up for different Indian civilizations as well.
It’s about which civs can be added that are the most unique and could add an alternative playstyle. So far people have been asking for more Turkic civs, Indian civs, or meso-American civs, all of which we already have. Armenia and Georgia stand out from that crowd. And no they aren’t Europeans. Just because they were Christians and had knights, doesn’t make them Europeans. They are Caucasians.
2 Likes
There were proto-Azerbaijani kingdoms that were Seljuks who conquered Iranian territories. It would make sense to include them with Armenia and Georgia. That region was never called Azerbaijan in antiquity, it was known as Aturpatkan and Shirvan, later became known as Azerbaijan during the soviet period.
1 Like
Absolutely not. It would be like trying to represent Indians with Cumans, doesn’t make much sense, if any at all. They are both Caucasian states, were some of the earliest Christians and adapted Roman/Persian warfare and put their own twist into it. Armenia was one of the places where the chariot originated, and both Armenians and Georgians are indigenous people.
1 Like
I don’t think so. Turks are a powerful technologically advanced civ, they don’t represent the Caucasus in any way, shape or form.
1 Like
I was referring to vlachs, Serbs and Croats. Which are 3 European civs and were quite obvious in the post I was quoting. I’m sorry but roughly half the civs in the game are from Europe. The other HALF are from Africa, Asia, America. I take issue with that disparity. Furthermore 6 of thr last 8 civs are from Europe.
I am not asking for more turk civs
As for meso civs we have 3 civs in all of America. I dont think having 1 more would be a problem.
As for Indian civs we have 1 of those. We could easily add 2 more there.
As for Georgians and Armenians. No issue there.
3 Likes
IfIndia represents somerhing in AoE2 its Mughal. I dont think theres any other obvious camel and gunpoqder civ to design Indians around
As a peasant, I don’t see the gameplay relevance of these civs. Just another 3 or 4 heavy cav civs. We already desperately made these somehow with the weirdest gimmick in aoe2 working. There isn’t much space left for Serbs that would be just like Bulgarians Magyars without CA?
There is more to making an aoe2 civ than just a country having existed in the middle ages and now wanting that devs need to represent them or else be called historically ignorant.
Also to your notice, we went from two EE civs to six within the two years of DE. Why would we go to ten in the next year. No other region has as many representants.
3 Likes
Yes, correct. It is a name created by Russian Empire/Soviets for this Oghuz Turkish group. Nevertheless, I think it is the most suitable name representation for the game as you can’t name them with empires or dynasties.
Georgians and Armenians/Caucasus civs are the middle ground for both Europe and non-Europe civs requesters from what I’ve noticed in TungstenBoar’s poll, of course other regions than Europe should be represented as I’m not against them, but we’ll see where it goes after AoE4’s release…
1 Like
Why does it not represent the Ghurid dynasty and Delhi Sultanate?
The Mughal Empire is found in the 16th century. Too late.
Gunpowder units.mugals are the once who introduced guns to indian battles.
Eh. It could represent Ghurid, Delhi and Mughal these 3 nations instead of the Mughal only.
In my opinion, the current Indians civ looks like a compromise for representing the majority of the northwest Indian ethnic groups.
Wonder is vijayanagar building from south uu is generic unit used by many.leader names are across the bord so you can take a pick on who its supposed to represent.
Since people usually suppose there are 2 new indian civs in the future. One is the Bengals (east/Buddhism) and the another one is the Dravidians/Tamils (south/Hinduism). If so, the current one must do some adjustments to fitting the northwestern/Islamic feature more.
No need it can stay as it is and others could be done better with more historical accuracy.