Of course it was an exaggeration, but the gap between Samis and Vlachs were smaller than the gap between Vlachs and Jurchens or Oriyas etc.
The same argument can be made for most of Europe. The gap between Samis and Hungarians, Serb, Croats, Swiss, Armenians, Georgians were smaller than the gap between Hungarians, Serb, Croats, Swiss, Armenians, Georgians and Jurchens or Oriyas etc.
But you implied that Jurchens and 19 more civs as relevant as Samis, didnt you?
I said I’m surprised you didn’t put the Sami on the list because you also put a lot of civs that aren’t more important as more important.
Honestly I dont like how aggressive Akoskaa is being but all the civilizations he included are either global powers or longlasting regional powers (more ibfluential than Vlachs). Comparing them (or Vlachs) to the Samis is dumb, and calling them irrelevant is also dumb.
4 Likes
What about Armenians and Georgians? Serbs or Croats from his list?
Geotgiams are absolutely a lasting and influential civilization during the AOE2 period. Look it up, they fought the Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols. Serbs are a lot like Romanians but were able to be very powerful during the 14th century even if for a short while. They could also serve to represent most Southern Slavs.
Armenians is more debatable, they were independent for longer and were more powrful but not sure if they were more powerful by muvh. Croats I would say are around as important as Vlachs. They were independent for slightly longer and also defeated stronger enemies than them just like Romanians, but they were overall not as powerful as Romanians were I believe. But he disnt include Servbs or Croats on his list I think?
1 Like
I don’t know if an entire campaign, but at least the battle of Vaslui should be added to the game.
Regarding them as a civ, I think Romanians and Serbs are the only two civs I would ever consider adding to Europe. Other that them, I consider the continent completely finished and I think the new civs should primarily be from Asia and Africa from now on.
1 Like
Be careful with these words or you could get crucified. It’s an extremely sensitive topic. You should have seen what happens in the paradox forums when people talk about the Balkans 
Note: I personally agree with you on this
However, I disagree with this one, there were many Armenian entities during all of the Middle Ages, most notably the Bagratid and the Cilician kingdom, which were very powerful and influential in the region
In this case I think the Romanians were more important, since the Croats were under Hungarian control for most of the Middle Ages.
I think the Romanians and Serbs are on par with each other as candidates for new civs, and they would be the only European civs I would add to the game
3 Likes
Third battle of panipat the afgan maratha wars.
2 Likes
Afghan won the battle but retreated.
The complete phrase: I have never seen anyone winning a battle and then retreating chased down by the army they just defeated only for that army to stay in Transylvania (meaning: the attacker’s own territory) and plunder it.
Did the Afghan won the battle but retreated while being chased down by the enemy who afterwards plundered and sacked Afghan territory only for the Afghan ruler to sue for peace but somehow the Afghan were the ones who won the war? I think not.
You can do your own reading on that battle.
I already gave you the answer. No it did not happen that way.
You can try doing your own reading on the full phrase next time.
My dude, here’s the custom campaign you’ve been wanting. Just build massive armies and forward castles. The maps are lush and lovely, but the enemy AI are entrenched and have overwhelming numbers.
Just for the sake of argument lets say you are 100% correct and not fueled by nationalistic pride that still is not a reason to have or not have romanians as a ingame civi.
Spamming the same topic over and over is not helping it either.
2 Likes
You don’t need to assume just for the sake of the argument that I’m 100% correct, you just need to read your quote of me & then read my actual reply & then see the differences in that cheap taking out of context you made just so you can say it also happened to the Afghans.
I can do it too:
Thank you! I always knew you would come around.
“If you have to lie, cheat, steal, obstruct and bully to get your point across, it must not be a point capable of surviving on its own merits”. - Steven Weber
Just a random quote, not related to our discussion at hand.
Your cheap straw man aside, what would be a proper reason to have or not have a civ as an in-game civ in your eyes, your highness? what criterias are we talking about here, except nationalistic pride?
Your only argument is that you d_n’t li_e Ro_anians Which fair. But misinterpreting my argument to attack an imaginary argument is not that fair.