Exactly,im in full support of more eagle civis(which is unlikely).
3 Likes
Rood lol
I do agree Oceania can be ignored, but I do want to see a little bit for North America. I’ll grant i’m biased in that I live in North America though.
Tbh I don’t think its unlikely. As much as I want a North American (like USA/Canada) DLC, I do find that somewhat unlikely but a Mesoamerican DLC I think is very likely. Purepechas and Zapotecs at the very least I think need to be in the game eventually. You could either wrap another Maya region civ, Chichemecas, or Taino in with them for a pretty solid package.
1 Like
As for me, I think it’s more about the mechanical aspect of the bonus for the Eagles than about history or culture to be showcased. Basically, creating a third Eagles civ that’s genuinely interesting is quite a challenge. And no, the Inca one was a bit of a problem.
Tlaxcala could be interesting since they had history of using firearms given to them by the Spanish. An Eagle civ with gunpowder could be interesting gameplay-wise.
Also I don’t envision North American civs (I know they’re both North American, but I consider Mesoamerican civs as being Mexico and south, and North American to be the USA and Canada) having Eagles at all, those would be strictly Meso. Just for clarity
2 Likes
This could be really interesting, and I hadn’t considered it, but I doubt it actually happened. I mean, I’d have to do some in-depth research before weighing in, because as far as I’ve always known, ammunition was in short supply. Certainly not enough to supply 100’000 men.
I thought that was obvious? But just to be sure, it’s good to clarify.
Yeah, but honestly even if it was only one group of trusted elites, I think that would be sufficent enough to be a unique unit; Mapuches have 2 cav units based off stolen horses (granted horses can reproduce in a way guns can’t, but still). It’s material enough for civ flavor i’d say.
Probably should be, I just wanted to make sure there was no room for confusion when I say North America i’m not including Mesoamerica in that, even though geographically it is.
1 Like
Not trolling. Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but I was referring to your claim about the meaning of the word Viking:
I mean, this might be true. (Emphasis on might be, because the origin of the word is not as well-understood as people often make out.) But it doesn’t really matter, because the broader way it’s used in the game to refer to a cultural group is consistent with its modern usage.
I’m more sympathetic to the argument that, now that Danes and Varangians are being added, renaming Vikings to Norse would reduce the apparent overlap. But personally I’m not keen renaming unless it’s necessary (especially with an old game, since it’s potentially confusing and/or off-putting to returning players), and this case doesn’t seem necessary to me. Even Indians → Hindustanis I find a bit hard to justify.
Similarly (and a bit more on-topic) if more historically grounded Irish/Scottish/Welsh/Gaelic civs are ever added, the same argument could be applied to Celts – but again, I wouldn’t make or support that argument personally. (And I also wouldn’t be interested in any of those civs.)
Not sure what you mean, since renaming a civ wouldn’t affect a campaign much.
Also, somehow I missed Chinese from my list!
1 Like
hypotheticaL: If you used lets say vikings in the campaign as opponents be4 and were representing Danes, and now you have Danes, you probably have to replace that civ and test for balance.
At this point will it happen yes but that doesn’t mean right after the new Viking dlc, it will happen though no way they would add saxons expand vikings and not expand Celts and if someone actually thinks otherwise your in denial imo
The main questions on it is what Celtic factions as there are many to choice from baseline Celts - Irish or call them Gaels? / Scots, / Picts - Welsh / Cornish? - Brittany? should the - Norse-Gaels and the kingdom of the isles be looked at? or what campaigns
Irish - Campaign focus could be anything with vikings/normans/english or a monk campaign - they probably do Brian Boru though
Scots - they will do a Bruce campaign
Picts - could be something with the Romans or events with the Gaels and Vikings / Saxons
Welsh - The Roman-briton King Arthur - Lucius Artorius Castus or someone like - Owain Glyndŵr
Brittany - Bretons I know noting about.
No, Indians was absolutely justified. It’s just that Hindustanis is as stupid a name as Dravidians.
It’s named after the Muslim/Persian name of India: Hindustan. It makes sense as a name for a civ mixing Islamic, Persian and Indian influences, even if people didn’t identify as such, they didn’t identify as Byzantines either.
3 Likes
Wishful thinking dravidians will get split one day and the civis using the indian building sets finally gets proper graphics for sails kings ui trade cart merchant.
2 Likes
I’d also like to see more Indian Monastery skins, as to my knowledge the current type was mainly used in the south. It’s especially jarring for Hindustanis who are predominantly based on Muslim regimes, so they should have a Mosque.
3 Likes
Bruva, that’s the name for a whole (sub)continent. And that should not be a civ to begin with. Everything you stated is WHY I think the civ name is nonsense.
Yes, but the subcontinent was never unified by sultans of Hindustan until well into the AoE3 era. Byzantines and Holy Roman Emperors called themselves Romans and pretended to rule over all Christendom even though their rule was much more restricted and contradicted each other.
…and exactly what is your point with that statement, that defends your previous position how it’s an accurate name? The only Roman civ is the one about actual Romans, rather than Byzantines or HRE. Those are Byzantines after the term of Byzantine Greeks for this period Greeks, and Teutons for the latin name of Germans. So why Hindustanis, and then mixing entirely different Indian and Persian groups in it?
There is no “Hindustani” people, or civilization. It could be called Afghans, it could be called Pashtoons, you could add Tajiks for Ghurids and Ghaznavids, you could do Sindhis, you could do Hindis, you could do Kashmiris, you could split off Deccanis for the southern branch, etc.
Hindustanis is just nonsense.
1 Like
*Arab/Persian. The name “Hind” predates Islam.
Current Monastery is based on a Kallingan Temple who are absent from the game. Kind of like Teutons monastery which is based on a Georgians church who were missing for 22 years.
1 Like
Babur was Chagatai Turco-Mongol (Tatar) who ruled over the part of northern India he called Hindustan. His descendants (and predecessors such as the Delhi sultans) identified themselves as “Sultans of Hindustan”.
The term “Hindi” could have been acceptable in an alternate universe where religious divisions and resentments that followed the British occupation didn’t divide these people so much that Muslims ended up calling this language “Urdu” and Hindus “Hindi”.
See also:
I’m a bit confused what you could think the justification is if you think Hindustanis is a stupid name.
1 Like